#Fourteen year old girls charged with child porn for texting pictures of themselves
4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09
6 Pa. high school students busted after sharing nude photos via cell
phones
By Mike Brunker
Projects Team editor
msnbc.com
Jan. 15, 2009
In an unusual legal case arising from the increasingly popular
practice known as “sexting,” six Pennsylvania high school students are
facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly
took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male
classmates via their cell phones.
The female students at Greensburg Salem High School in Greensburg,
Pa., all 14- or 15-years-old, face charges of manufacturing,
disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys, who are
16 and 17, face charges of possession, according to WPXI-TV in
Pittsburgh, which published the story on its Web site on Tuesday.
Police told the station that the photos were discovered in October,
after school officials seized a cell phone from a male student who was
using it in violation of school rules and found a nude photo of a
classmate on it. Police were called in and their investigation led
them to other phones containing more photos, it said.
Police Capt. George Seranko was quoted as saying that the first
photograph was “a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking
pictures of her body, nude."
The school district issued a statement Tuesday saying that the
investigation turned up “no evidence of inappropriate activity on
school grounds … other than the violation of the electronic devices
policy.” The statement also said that school officials didn’t learn of
the charges against the students until Monday.
In the WPXI story, which included contributions from the Associated
Press, Saranko indicated that authorities decided to file the child
pornography charges to send a strong message to other minors who might
consider sending such photos to friends.
"It's very dangerous," he said. "Once it's on a cell phone, that cell
phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get
access to that juvenile picture. You don't realize what you are doing
until it's already done." (Seranko could not be reached for comment on
Thursday, and a woman who answered the phone at the Greensburg Police
Department said, “Our department is not doing any more interviews on
the case.”)
But Patrick Artur, a Philadelphia defense attorney who by his
reckoning has handled at least 80 child pornography cases, said the
prosecution of minors for photos they took themselves runs counter to
the purpose of both state and federal child pornography laws:
Preventing the sexual abuse of children by “dirty old men in
raincoats.”
“It’s clearly overkill,” he said. “… The letter of the law seems to
have been violated, but this is not the type of defendant that the
legislature envisioned” in passing the statute.
Artur said that because there is no mandatory minimum sentence under
Pennsylvania’s child pornography law, unlike the federal statute, the
students would not necessarily be incarcerated if they are found
guilty. But he noted that convictions would have "serious, serious
implications," including forcing them having to register as sexual
offenders for at least 10 years.
While Artur said the prosecution of a juvenile for allegedly creating
and distributing child porn was new to him, a quick review of federal
and state statistics showed there have been a handful of similar
cases, and several convictions.
While few minors have found themselves in court for e-mailing or
posting sexy photos of themselves, there is little doubt that
ubiquitous cell phones and easy access to computers have tempted many
to push the erotic envelope.
The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reported
last month that a survey of 1,280 teens and young adults found that 20
percent of the teens said they had sent or posted nude or semi nude
photos or videos of themselves. That number was slightly higher for
teenage girls — 22 percent — vs. boys — 18 percent.
--
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition,
as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of
innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
-- John McCain, in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the
American Academy of Actuaries.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Tracey
> For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
> For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
> a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Isn't this what you liberals want, very rigid legal system that
stomps on you for every wrong move you make?
z.ses...@hotmail.com
Nope.
4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09
I think it's an utterly idiotic application of a questionable law.
How do YOU feel about it?
--
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition,
as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of
innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
-- John McCain, in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the
American Academy of Actuaries.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
B1ackwater
<trace...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 21, 9:04=A0am, "4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09"
><zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>> 'Sexting=92 surprise: Teens face child porn charges
>>
>> 6 Pa. high school students busted after sharing nude photos via cell
>> phones
>>
>> By Mike Brunker
>>
>> Projects Team editor
>>
>> msnbc.com
>>
>> Jan. 15, 2009
>>
>> In an unusual legal case arising from the increasingly popular
>> practice known as =93sexting,=94 six Pennsylvania high school students ar=
>e
>> facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly
>> took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male
>> classmates via their cell phones.
>>
>> The female students at Greensburg Salem High School in Greensburg,
>> Pa., all 14- or 15-years-old, face charges of manufacturing,
>> disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys, who are
>> 16 and 17, face charges of possession, according to WPXI-TV in
>> Pittsburgh, which published the story on its Web site on Tuesday.
>>
>> Police told the station that the photos were discovered in October,
>> after school officials seized a cell phone from a male student who was
>> using it in violation of school rules and found a nude photo of a
>> classmate on it. Police were called in and their investigation led
>> them to other phones containing more photos, it said.
>>
>> Police Capt. George Seranko was quoted as saying that the first
>> photograph was =93a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking
>> pictures of her body, nude."
>>
>> The school district issued a statement Tuesday saying that the
>> investigation turned up =93no evidence of inappropriate activity on
>> school grounds =85 other than the violation of the electronic devices
>> policy.=94 The statement also said that school officials didn=92t learn o=
>f
>> the charges against the students until Monday.
>>
>> In the WPXI story, which included contributions from the Associated
>> Press, Saranko indicated that authorities decided to file the child
>> pornography charges to send a strong message to other minors who might
>> consider sending such photos to friends.
>>
>> "It's very dangerous," he said. "Once it's on a cell phone, that cell
>> phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get
>> access to that juvenile picture. You don't realize what you are doing
>> until it's already done." (Seranko could not be reached for comment on
>> Thursday, and a woman who answered the phone at the Greensburg Police
>> Department said, =93Our department is not doing any more interviews on
>> the case.=94)
>>
>> But Patrick Artur, a Philadelphia defense attorney who by his
>> reckoning has handled at least 80 child pornography cases, said the
>> prosecution of minors for photos they took themselves runs counter to
>> the purpose of both state and federal child pornography laws:
>> Preventing the sexual abuse of children by =93dirty old men in
>> raincoats.=94
>>
>> =93It=92s clearly overkill,=94 he said. =93=85 The letter of the law seem=
>s to
>> have been violated, but this is not the type of defendant that the
>> legislature envisioned=94 in passing the statute.
>>
>> Artur said that because there is no mandatory minimum sentence under
>> Pennsylvania=92s child pornography law, unlike the federal statute, the
>> students would not necessarily be incarcerated if they are found
>> guilty. But he noted that convictions would have "serious, serious
>> implications," including forcing them having to register as sexual
>> offenders for at least 10 years.
>>
>> While Artur said the prosecution of a juvenile for allegedly creating
>> and distributing child porn was new to him, a quick review of federal
>> and state statistics showed there have been a handful of similar
>> cases, and several convictions.
>>
>> While few minors have found themselves in court for e-mailing or
>> posting sexy photos of themselves, there is little doubt that
>> ubiquitous cell phones and easy access to computers have tempted many
>> to push the erotic envelope.
>>
>> The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reported
>> last month that a survey of 1,280 teens and young adults found that 20
>> percent of the teens said they had sent or posted nude or semi nude
>> photos or videos of themselves. That number was slightly higher for
>> teenage girls =97 22 percent =97 vs. boys =97 18 percent.
>> --
>>
>> Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide compet=
>ition,
>> as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choic=
>es of
>> innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based re=
>gulation.
>> -- John McCain, in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of Contingencies, the magazine=
> of the
>> American Academy of Actuaries.
>> Not dead, in jail, or a slave? =A0Thank a liberal!
>> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
>> For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,http://www.zeppscommentaries=
>.com
>> For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
>> Zepps_News-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>> For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
>> Zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>> a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>
>Isn't this what you liberals want, very rigid legal system that
>stomps on you for every wrong move you make?
Actually, these easily-abused laws were instigated
by Bill Clinton - who wanted to look extra holy when
he knew the Monica thing was gonna come out. Figured
it would please the purofascists. Interestingly, he
SAID it was to reduce the number of (black) 'welfare
babies' ... and the libs never called him on it.
Had zero effect on the number of 'welfare babies'
(black or otherwise), but HAS managed to turn a
lot of relatively normal sexuality into felonies.
Give the purofascists a club and they just CAN'T
resist bashing everything in sight ...
You've gotta wonder how many times Clinton himself
had broken his own law, how many hot teen girls he'd
done the cigar trick with over the years :-)
B1ackwater
"Feel" is irrelevant.
Clinton wrote it to look more 'holy' as the Monica
thing was imminent.
The purofascists turned it into a blunt instrument
of erotophobic vengance.
Will Obama have the guts to end it ?
I doubt it.
So "feel" away ... nutty laws have to be CHANGED.
Oddly, the little punks MAY have the means ... coordinate
a nation-wide 'porn in' where they all e-mail pix of some
verboten part of parts of their anatomy to others - and
forward all the pix to the justice dept too. Do they arrest
millions of self-admitted teen-aged 'sex criminals' - or
take the *easier* path ?
milt....@gmail.com
What hath the right wing wrought. They want laws against everything
they don't like, so when a teen girl sends a picture of her nude self
to someone else, everyone's charged with child porn? So, these kids
get convicted of a felony and ruin their own lives for something that
is basically innocent and stupid, and certainly not criminal, just
because the prudes who have been running the government for the last
30 years or so have to make a law against everything, without defining
anything specifically enough to be able to differentiate between
sexually curious kids, and disgusting perverts who should have their
dicks lopped off.
This is the problem with their ideology. In their minds, all sex is
evil, so everything sexual is criminal.
It reminds me of that asinine sex offender registry. Did you know that
at least 60% of those forced to register as sex offenders were guilty
of crimes that were only barely crimes? You know, like a 19 year old
kid who has sex with a 16 year old, and her parents object, so they
press charges? Meanwhile, when the public looks at these charts on the
Internet, many think their neighborhoods are crawling with perverts,
and property values drop, mostly because the right wing is in charge,
and makes laws that criminalize pretty much all sex. Go figure, huh?
milt....@gmail.com
Excuse me, but the far right is the ideology that pretty much wants to
outlaw all sex.
milt....@gmail.com
Oh, wow.
You'd have to go some to blame these laws on Clinton. Not that he's
completely blameless; he could have vetoed them. But the fact is,
these laws have been passed gleefully by the far right, in trying to
appease their "base." They created laws which define certain actions
very non-specifically, because their minions basically think anything
sexual should be against the law.
There's another case out there, in which the parents of a 19 year old
college student who was having sex with her teacher want that teacher
to be thrown in jail -- not just fired, but thrown in jail -- because
he's a teacher, and she's a student. They're now trying to pass a law
banning teacher-student sex, and requiring that the teacher be thrown
in jail. This has been the right's modus operandi for years; they see
something they don't like, so they outlaw it, and anything like it,
and do so in such a way that law enforcement is forced to do shit like
the above. There is a huge difference between a few stupid kids
showing sexual curiosity, and the exploitation of young children for
sex by grown men who should probably not be allowed to keep their
dicks. But the laws were meant to appease the great unwashed masses
that make up the GOP "base," so the laws themselves are sloppy.
>
> Had zero effect on the number of 'welfare babies'
> (black or otherwise), but HAS managed to turn a
> lot of relatively normal sexuality into felonies.
> Give the purofascists a club and they just CAN'T
> resist bashing everything in sight ...
Amen? :)
>
> You've gotta wonder how many times Clinton himself
> had broken his own law, how many hot teen girls he'd
> done the cigar trick with over the years :-)
Something tells me he doesn't do anything with young girls. He has
enough grown women who somehow want him; only weak fucks mess with
young chickies...
B1ackwater
>On Jan 21, 12:41=A0pm, b...@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:18:08 -0800 (PST), Tracey
>>
>>
>>
>> <tracey12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 21, 9:04=3DA0am, "4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09"
>> ><zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>> >> 'Sexting=3D92 surprise: Teens face child porn charges
>>
>> >> 6 Pa. high school students busted after sharing nude photos via cell
>> >> phones
>>
>> >> By Mike Brunker
>>
>> >> Projects Team editor
>>
>> >> msnbc.com
>>
>> >> Jan. 15, 2009
>>
>> >> In an unusual legal case arising from the increasingly popular
>> >> practice known as =3D93sexting,=3D94 six Pennsylvania high school stud=
>ents ar=3D
>> >e
>> >> facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly
>> >> took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male
>> >> classmates via their cell phones.
>>
>> >> The female students at Greensburg Salem High School in Greensburg,
>> >> Pa., all 14- or 15-years-old, face charges of manufacturing,
>> >> disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys, who are
>> >> 16 and 17, face charges of possession, according to WPXI-TV in
>> >> Pittsburgh, which published the story on its Web site on Tuesday.
>>
>> >> Police told the station that the photos were discovered in October,
>> >> after school officials seized a cell phone from a male student who was
>> >> using it in violation of school rules and found a nude photo of a
>> >> classmate on it. Police were called in and their investigation led
>> >> them to other phones containing more photos, it said.
>>
>> >> Police Capt. George Seranko was quoted as saying that the first
>> >> photograph was =3D93a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking
>> >> pictures of her body, nude."
>>
>> >> The school district issued a statement Tuesday saying that the
>> >> investigation turned up =3D93no evidence of inappropriate activity on
>> >> school grounds =3D85 other than the violation of the electronic device=
>s
>> >> policy.=3D94 The statement also said that school officials didn=3D92t =
>learn o=3D
>> >f
>> >> the charges against the students until Monday.
>>
>> >> In the WPXI story, which included contributions from the Associated
>> >> Press, Saranko indicated that authorities decided to file the child
>> >> pornography charges to send a strong message to other minors who might
>> >> consider sending such photos to friends.
>>
>> >> "It's very dangerous," he said. "Once it's on a cell phone, that cell
>> >> phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get
>> >> access to that juvenile picture. You don't realize what you are doing
>> >> until it's already done." (Seranko could not be reached for comment on
>> >> Thursday, and a woman who answered the phone at the Greensburg Police
>> >> Department said, =3D93Our department is not doing any more interviews =
>on
>> >> the case.=3D94)
>>
>> >> But Patrick Artur, a Philadelphia defense attorney who by his
>> >> reckoning has handled at least 80 child pornography cases, said the
>> >> prosecution of minors for photos they took themselves runs counter to
>> >> the purpose of both state and federal child pornography laws:
>> >> Preventing the sexual abuse of children by =3D93dirty old men in
>> >> raincoats.=3D94
>>
>> >> =3D93It=3D92s clearly overkill,=3D94 he said. =3D93=3D85 The letter of=
> the law seem=3D
>> >s to
>> >> have been violated, but this is not the type of defendant that the
>> >> legislature envisioned=3D94 in passing the statute.
>>
>> >> Artur said that because there is no mandatory minimum sentence under
>> >> Pennsylvania=3D92s child pornography law, unlike the federal statute, =
>the
>> >> students would not necessarily be incarcerated if they are found
>> >> guilty. But he noted that convictions would have "serious, serious
>> >> implications," including forcing them having to register as sexual
>> >> offenders for at least 10 years.
>>
>> >> While Artur said the prosecution of a juvenile for allegedly creating
>> >> and distributing child porn was new to him, a quick review of federal
>> >> and state statistics showed there have been a handful of similar
>> >> cases, and several convictions.
>>
>> >> While few minors have found themselves in court for e-mailing or
>> >> posting sexy photos of themselves, there is little doubt that
>> >> ubiquitous cell phones and easy access to computers have tempted many
>> >> to push the erotic envelope.
>>
>> >> The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reported
>> >> last month that a survey of 1,280 teens and young adults found that 20
>> >> percent of the teens said they had sent or posted nude or semi nude
>> >> photos or videos of themselves. That number was slightly higher for
>> >> teenage girls =3D97 22 percent =3D97 vs. boys =3D97 18 percent.
>> >> --
>>
>> >> Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide com=
>pet=3D
>> >ition,
>> >> as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more ch=
>oic=3D
>> >es of
>> >> innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based=
> re=3D
>> >gulation.
>> >> -- John McCain, in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of Contingencies, the magaz=
>ine=3D
>> > of the
>> >> American Academy of Actuaries.
>> >> Not dead, in jail, or a slave? =3DA0Thank a liberal!
>> >> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
>> >> For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,http://www.zeppscommentar=
>ies=3D
>> >.com
>> >> For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
>> >> Zepps_News-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>> >> For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
>> >> Zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>> >> a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>>
>> >Isn't this what you liberals want, =A0very rigid legal system that
>> >stomps on you for every wrong move you make?
>>
>> =A0 =A0Actually, these easily-abused laws were instigated
>> =A0 =A0by Bill Clinton - who wanted to look extra holy when
>> =A0 =A0he knew the Monica thing was gonna come out. Figured
>> =A0 =A0it would please the purofascists. Interestingly, he
>> =A0 =A0SAID it was to reduce the number of (black) 'welfare
>> =A0 =A0babies' ... and the libs never called him on it.
>
>Oh, wow.
>
>You'd have to go some to blame these laws on Clinton. Not that he's
>completely blameless; he could have vetoed them.
Not a chance. He HAD to increase his 'holiness quotient'
and QUICKLY. Truely a politicians' politician - anything
to improve his own standing and power no matter HOW badly
is screws over others.
>But the fact is,
>these laws have been passed gleefully by the far right, in trying to
>appease their "base." They created laws which define certain actions
>very non-specifically, because their minions basically think anything
>sexual should be against the law.
Yes, that's one of the purofascists missions from gawd
dontchaknow ... search out all fun that doesn't glorify
gawd and STAMP IT OUT with extreme prejudice.
But Clinton HELPED them - and, I think, for very cynical
reasons too.
>There's another case out there, in which the parents of a 19 year old
>college student who was having sex with her teacher want that teacher
>to be thrown in jail -- not just fired, but thrown in jail -- because
>he's a teacher, and she's a student.
Hmmm ... sounds like a case of where Daddy wanted her
all for himself .....
>They're now trying to pass a law
>banning teacher-student sex, and requiring that the teacher be thrown
>in jail. This has been the right's modus operandi for years; they see
>something they don't like, so they outlaw it, and anything like it,
>and do so in such a way that law enforcement is forced to do shit like
>the above.
Of course. It's about GETTING THEIR WAY.
It'll make for a BETTER AMERICA, right ? :-)
>There is a huge difference between a few stupid kids
>showing sexual curiosity, and the exploitation of young children for
>sex by grown men who should probably not be allowed to keep their
>dicks. But the laws were meant to appease the great unwashed masses
>that make up the GOP "base," so the laws themselves are sloppy.
The laws were pretty much OK as they were - keep yer
bits out of pre-pubescents who neither knew better or
had the slightest motivation for those kinds of games.
But that wasn't PURE enough, EXPLOITABLE enough, so ...
Americans LOVE a 'crusade'.
>> =A0 =A0Had zero effect on the number of 'welfare babies'
>> =A0 =A0(black or otherwise), but HAS managed to turn a
>> =A0 =A0lot of relatively normal sexuality into felonies.
>> =A0 =A0Give the purofascists a club and they just CAN'T
>> =A0 =A0resist bashing everything in sight ...
>
>Amen? :)
>>
>> =A0 =A0You've gotta wonder how many times Clinton himself
>> =A0 =A0had broken his own law, how many hot teen girls he'd
>> =A0 =A0done the cigar trick with over the years =A0:-)
>
>Something tells me he doesn't do anything with young girls.
Now.
But before, when he was Gov and before ??? Men who
project power are VERY attractive to sweet young
thangs - status symbols, perfect sugar daddies ...
>He has
>enough grown women who somehow want him; only weak fucks mess with
>young chickies...
Then, judging by the arrest figures, the country is
just LOADED with 'weak fucks' who like a little teen
spice in their diets. But should everyone with a
'sweet 16' be thrown in jail automatically and be
treated worse than murderers ?
4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:59:51 -0800, "4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09"
> <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:18:08 -0800 (PST), Tracey
>> <trace...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>> 'Sexting’ surprise: Teens face child porn charges
>>>>
>>>> 6 Pa. high school students busted after sharing nude photos via cell
>>>> phones
>>>>
>>>> By Mike Brunker
>>>>
>>>> Projects Team editor
>>>>
>>>> msnbc.com
>>>>
>>>> Jan. 15, 2009
>>>>
>>>> In an unusual legal case arising from the increasingly popular
>>>> facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly
>>>> took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male
>>>> classmates via their cell phones.
>>>>
>>>> The female students at Greensburg Salem High School in Greensburg,
>>>> Pa., all 14- or 15-years-old, face charges of manufacturing,
>>>> disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys, who are
>>>> 16 and 17, face charges of possession, according to WPXI-TV in
>>>> Pittsburgh, which published the story on its Web site on Tuesday.
>>>>
>>>> Police told the station that the photos were discovered in October,
>>>> after school officials seized a cell phone from a male student who was
>>>> using it in violation of school rules and found a nude photo of a
>>>> classmate on it. Police were called in and their investigation led
>>>> them to other phones containing more photos, it said.
>>>>
>>>> Police Capt. George Seranko was quoted as saying that the first
>>>> pictures of her body, nude."
>>>>
>>>> The school district issued a statement Tuesday saying that the
>>>> school grounds … other than the violation of the electronic devices
>>>> policy.†The statement also said that school officials didn’t learn of
>>>> the charges against the students until Monday.
>>>>
>>>> In the WPXI story, which included contributions from the Associated
>>>> Press, Saranko indicated that authorities decided to file the child
>>>> pornography charges to send a strong message to other minors who might
>>>> consider sending such photos to friends.
>>>>
>>>> "It's very dangerous," he said. "Once it's on a cell phone, that cell
>>>> phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get
>>>> access to that juvenile picture. You don't realize what you are doing
>>>> until it's already done." (Seranko could not be reached for comment on
>>>> Thursday, and a woman who answered the phone at the Greensburg Police
>>>> the case.†)
>>>>
>>>> But Patrick Artur, a Philadelphia defense attorney who by his
>>>> reckoning has handled at least 80 child pornography cases, said the
>>>> prosecution of minors for photos they took themselves runs counter to
>>>> the purpose of both state and federal child pornography laws:
>>>> raincoats.â€
>>>>
>>>> “It’s clearly overkill,†he said. “… The letter of the law seems to
>>>> have been violated, but this is not the type of defendant that the
>>>>
>>>> Artur said that because there is no mandatory minimum sentence under
>>>> students would not necessarily be incarcerated if they are found
>>>> guilty. But he noted that convictions would have "serious, serious
>>>> implications," including forcing them having to register as sexual
>>>> offenders for at least 10 years.
>>>>
>>>> While Artur said the prosecution of a juvenile for allegedly creating
>>>> and distributing child porn was new to him, a quick review of federal
>>>> and state statistics showed there have been a handful of similar
>>>> cases, and several convictions.
>>>>
>>>> While few minors have found themselves in court for e-mailing or
>>>> posting sexy photos of themselves, there is little doubt that
>>>> ubiquitous cell phones and easy access to computers have tempted many
>>>> to push the erotic envelope.
>>>>
>>>> The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reported
>>>> last month that a survey of 1,280 teens and young adults found that 20
>>>> percent of the teens said they had sent or posted nude or semi nude
>>>> photos or videos of themselves. That number was slightly higher for
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition,
>>>> as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of
>>>> innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
>>>> -- John McCain, in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the
>>>> American Academy of Actuaries.
>>>> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
>>>> For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
>>>> For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
>>>> Zepps_News-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>>>> For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
>>>> Zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>>>> a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>>> Isn't this what you liberals want, very rigid legal system that
>>> stomps on you for every wrong move you make?
>> I think it's an utterly idiotic application of a questionable law.
>>
>> How do YOU feel about it?
>
> "Feel" is irrelevant.
>
> Clinton wrote it to look more 'holy' as the Monica
> thing was imminent.
>
> The purofascists turned it into a blunt instrument
> of erotophobic vengance.
>
> Will Obama have the guts to end it ?
Are you under the impression that a President has the power to
unilaterally nullify any law?
That -would- explain your slavish support of the Bush administration.
You simply didn't know any better.
>
> I doubt it.
>
> So "feel" away ... nutty laws have to be CHANGED.
>
Do you think "Tracy" can change the law? I was asking his opinion,
although my guess is he's just some random drive-by.
> Oddly, the little punks MAY have the means ... coordinate
> a nation-wide 'porn in' where they all e-mail pix of some
> verboten part of parts of their anatomy to others - and
> forward all the pix to the justice dept too. Do they arrest
> millions of self-admitted teen-aged 'sex criminals' - or
> take the *easier* path ?
>
You go first.
Steve
>
>Excuse me, but the far right is the ideology that pretty much wants to
>outlaw all sex.
Even if that were true, it wouldn't have any effect on Shook's
life.... he can't even get women to talk to him on the internet...
Justice is when you get exactly what you deserve.
--Neal Bortz
4869 Dead, 0 since 1/2/09
California, at least, has a rational provision: if two teens are
having sex, if they are within 18 months of age, even if one is 18 and
the other 17, child rape laws don't apply.
I wonder if someone with a copy of "Skins", the BBC series, is in
possession of child porn? It features 17 year olds in various sexual
situations, with some nudity and simulated sex.
milt....@gmail.com
That's probably true, too. I know that's why he signed welfare
"reform," the asshole...
>
> >But the fact is,
> >these laws have been passed gleefully by the far right, in trying to
> >appease their "base." They created laws which define certain actions
> >very non-specifically, because their minions basically think anything
> >sexual should be against the law.
>
> Yes, that's one of the purofascists missions from gawd
> dontchaknow ... search out all fun that doesn't glorify
> gawd and STAMP IT OUT with extreme prejudice.
>
> But Clinton HELPED them - and, I think, for very cynical
> reasons too.
Yeah... he was a DLC true believer, who thought the right wing had a
lot more power than they actually had.
>
> >There's another case out there, in which the parents of a 19 year old
> >college student who was having sex with her teacher want that teacher
> >to be thrown in jail -- not just fired, but thrown in jail -- because
> >he's a teacher, and she's a student.
>
> Hmmm ... sounds like a case of where Daddy wanted her
> all for himself .....
That could be, but in any case, it's ridiculous. Strangely, the news
stories don't say how old the teacher is, but even if he's in his
fifties, while one could consider it icky, it certainly doesn't rise
to the level of a crime. But if the teacher is only 23-24, it's
incredibly ridiculous.
And the wingnuts who are gleefully backing the parents in this don't
seem to get the whole Fourteenth Amendment thing. IOW, if she was
fucking her auto mechanic of the same age, even if it was to get free
brake work rather than an A, that's perfectly okay. But because one is
a teacher -- EGADS! -- he must be sent to prison and be careful not to
drop soap.
>
> >They're now trying to pass a law
> >banning teacher-student sex, and requiring that the teacher be thrown
> >in jail. This has been the right's modus operandi for years; they see
> >something they don't like, so they outlaw it, and anything like it,
> >and do so in such a way that law enforcement is forced to do shit like
> >the above.
>
> Of course. It's about GETTING THEIR WAY.
>
> It'll make for a BETTER AMERICA, right ? :-)
Um... sure. I thought the whole "sexual harassment in the workplace"
thing was beyond stupid. The idea itself was sound; bosses shouldn't
be allowed to use sex to coerce employees, but that was taken way
beyond reason, to the point that people were afraid to compliment a
woman's dress, for fear of being fired. This type of thing is just
absolutely stupid. Consenting adults are consenting adults, regardless
of their chosen occupation.
>
> >There is a huge difference between a few stupid kids
> >showing sexual curiosity, and the exploitation of young children for
> >sex by grown men who should probably not be allowed to keep their
> >dicks. But the laws were meant to appease the great unwashed masses
> >that make up the GOP "base," so the laws themselves are sloppy.
>
> The laws were pretty much OK as they were - keep yer
> bits out of pre-pubescents who neither knew better or
> had the slightest motivation for those kinds of games.
>
> But that wasn't PURE enough, EXPLOITABLE enough, so ...
Yeah, the cops just didn't have enough to do, ya know? ;)
>
> Americans LOVE a 'crusade'.
>
> >> =A0 =A0Had zero effect on the number of 'welfare babies'
> >> =A0 =A0(black or otherwise), but HAS managed to turn a
> >> =A0 =A0lot of relatively normal sexuality into felonies.
> >> =A0 =A0Give the purofascists a club and they just CAN'T
> >> =A0 =A0resist bashing everything in sight ...
>
> >Amen? :)
>
> >> =A0 =A0You've gotta wonder how many times Clinton himself
> >> =A0 =A0had broken his own law, how many hot teen girls he'd
> >> =A0 =A0done the cigar trick with over the years =A0:-)
>
> >Something tells me he doesn't do anything with young girls.
>
> Now.
>
> But before, when he was Gov and before ??? Men who
> project power are VERY attractive to sweet young
> thangs - status symbols, perfect sugar daddies ...
I just never pictured him that way. He's a horn dog, sure. And as he
got older, his tastes became younger, as evidenced by Monica. But with
that many experienced women available, most men, even powerful men,
don't usually go for the teenagers.
>
> >He has
> >enough grown women who somehow want him; only weak fucks mess with
> >young chickies...
>
> Then, judging by the arrest figures, the country is
> just LOADED with 'weak fucks' who like a little teen
> spice in their diets. But should everyone with a
> 'sweet 16' be thrown in jail automatically and be
> treated worse than murderers ?
Look more closely at the numbers. Most of them ARE weak fucks, who are
too intimidated by women to actually relate to them. And the ones who
mess with the really young ones are really sick...
Kurt Nicklas
Might know that the Shookster would be defending kiddie porn.....
What's next, Shooky? Legal aid work for NAMBLA??
milt....@gmail.com
I'm not defending kiddie porn, you stupid fuck. But teenagers sending
each other naked pics is not kiddie porn. And 19 year olds having
consensual sex with 16 year olds is probably stupid, but it tends to
water down the actual purpose of the sex offender registry, dontcha
think?
Leave it to Knickers to pretend he can't tell the difference between
basic bad judgment and actual perverts exploiting children.
Gary DeWaay
ae0085...@v18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, milt....@gmail.com says...> > 'Sexting? surprise: Teens face child porn charges
> >
> > 6 Pa. high school students busted after sharing nude photos via cell
> > phones
> >
> > By Mike Brunker
> >
> > Projects Team editor
> >
> > msnbc.com
> >
> > Jan. 15, 2009
> >
> > In an unusual legal case arising from the increasingly popular
> > facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly
> > took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male
> > classmates via their cell phones.
> >
> > The female students at Greensburg Salem High School in Greensburg,
> > Pa., all 14- or 15-years-old, face charges of manufacturing,
> > disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys, who are
> > 16 and 17, face charges of possession, according to WPXI-TV in
> > Pittsburgh, which published the story on its Web site on Tuesday.
> >
> > Police told the station that the photos were discovered in October,
> > after school officials seized a cell phone from a male student who was
> > using it in violation of school rules and found a nude photo of a
> > classmate on it. Police were called in and their investigation led
> > them to other phones containing more photos, it said.
> >
> > Police Capt. George Seranko was quoted as saying that the first
> > pictures of her body, nude."
> >
> > The school district issued a statement Tuesday saying that the
> > school grounds ? other than the violation of the electronic devices
> > policy.? The statement also said that school officials didn?t learn of
> > the charges against the students until Monday.
> >
> > In the WPXI story, which included contributions from the Associated
> > Press, Saranko indicated that authorities decided to file the child
> > pornography charges to send a strong message to other minors who might
> > consider sending such photos to friends.
> >
> > "It's very dangerous," he said. "Once it's on a cell phone, that cell
> > phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get
> > access to that juvenile picture. You don't realize what you are doing
> > until it's already done." (Seranko could not be reached for comment on
> > Thursday, and a woman who answered the phone at the Greensburg Police
> > the case.?)
> >
> > But Patrick Artur, a Philadelphia defense attorney who by his
> > reckoning has handled at least 80 child pornography cases, said the
> > prosecution of minors for photos they took themselves runs counter to
> > the purpose of both state and federal child pornography laws:
> > raincoats.?
> >
> > ?It?s clearly overkill,? he said. ?? The letter of the law seems to
> > have been violated, but this is not the type of defendant that the
> >
> > Artur said that because there is no mandatory minimum sentence under
> > students would not necessarily be incarcerated if they are found
> > guilty. But he noted that convictions would have "serious, serious
> > implications," including forcing them having to register as sexual
> > offenders for at least 10 years.
> >
> > While Artur said the prosecution of a juvenile for allegedly creating
> > and distributing child porn was new to him, a quick review of federal
> > and state statistics showed there have been a handful of similar
> > cases, and several convictions.
> >
> > While few minors have found themselves in court for e-mailing or
> > posting sexy photos of themselves, there is little doubt that
> > ubiquitous cell phones and easy access to computers have tempted many
> > to push the erotic envelope.
> >
> > The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reported
> > last month that a survey of 1,280 teens and young adults found that 20
> > percent of the teens said they had sent or posted nude or semi nude
> > photos or videos of themselves. That number was slightly higher for
> > --
>
> What hath the right wing wrought. They want laws against everything
> they don't like, so when a teen girl sends a picture of her nude self
> to someone else, everyone's charged with child porn? So, these kids
> get convicted of a felony and ruin their own lives for something that
> is basically innocent and stupid, and certainly not criminal, just
> because the prudes who have been running the government for the last
> 30 years or so have to make a law against everything, without defining
> anything specifically enough to be able to differentiate between
> sexually curious kids, and disgusting perverts who should have their
> dicks lopped off.
>
> This is the problem with their ideology. In their minds, all sex is
> evil, so everything sexual is criminal.
>
> It reminds me of that asinine sex offender registry. Did you know that
> at least 60% of those forced to register as sex offenders were guilty
> of crimes that were only barely crimes? You know, like a 19 year old
> kid who has sex with a 16 year old, and her parents object, so they
> press charges? Meanwhile, when the public looks at these charts on the
> Internet, many think their neighborhoods are crawling with perverts,
> and property values drop, mostly because the right wing is in charge,
> and makes laws that criminalize pretty much all sex. Go figure, huh?
>
My state has people convicted of peeing in public forced to register.
Gary DeWaay
ee7931...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, nick...@bellsouth.net
says...
> > It reminds me of that asinine sex offender registry. Did you know that
> > at least 60% of those forced to register as sex offenders were guilty
> > of crimes that were only barely crimes? You know, like a 19 year old
> > kid who has sex with a 16 year old, and her parents object, so they
> > press charges? Meanwhile, when the public looks at these charts on the
> > Internet, many think their neighborhoods are crawling with perverts,
> > and property values drop, mostly because the right wing is in charge,
> > and makes laws that criminalize pretty much all sex. Go figure, huh?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Might know that the Shookster would be defending kiddie porn.....
>
> What's next, Shooky? Legal aid work for NAMBLA??
>
Are there ANY Usenet righties capable of discussing any topic as an
adult??
Gary DeWaay
says...
> >You'd have to go some to blame these laws on Clinton. Not that he's
> >completely blameless; he could have vetoed them.
>
> Not a chance. He HAD to increase his 'holiness quotient'
> and QUICKLY. Truely a politicians' politician - anything
> to improve his own standing and power no matter HOW badly
> is screws over others.
>
>
As if the people that sent him the bill didn't know this too.
At least their hands are clean, huh?
If I offer someone a bribe, and he takes it, the last person I am going
to blame for my own discretions is HIM.
These common sense rules have never applied to all-things-Clinton for
some reason.
Gary DeWaay
9a5241...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, trace...@yahoo.com
says...
> Isn't this what you liberals want, very rigid legal system that
> stomps on you for every wrong move you make?
>
Holy fucking shit... we're having a hell of a time mustering people
together with balls enough to investigate possible WAR CRIMES.
You are speaking of the wrong party, bubs.
Steve
Speaking of weak fucks who are too intimidated by women to actually
relate to them......
"I'm shy, too, obviously, or I wouldn't even look at this newsgroup"
--.Milt Shook..Feb 28 1996 in alt.support.shyness
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.shyness/msg/23782fe7330ab04a?hl=en&
Steve
I discuss lots of topic with adults every day, but neither you, nor
any of your far left, loony, kool aid drinking cohorts here on Usenet
*ARE* adults.....
Dr. Barry Worthington
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:48:39 -0600, Gary DeWaay
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <bcf1eaeb-0a02-49df-b73e-
> >ee7931e97...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, nickl...@bellsouth.net
> >says...
>
> >> > It reminds me of that asinine sex offender registry. Did you know that
> >> > at least 60% of those forced to register as sex offenders were guilty
> >> > of crimes that were only barely crimes? You know, like a 19 year old
> >> > kid who has sex with a 16 year old, and her parents object, so they
> >> > press charges? Meanwhile, when the public looks at these charts on the
> >> > Internet, many think their neighborhoods are crawling with perverts,
> >> > and property values drop, mostly because the right wing is in charge,
> >> > and makes laws that criminalize pretty much all sex. Go figure, huh?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> Might know that the Shookster would be defending kiddie porn.....
>
> >> What's next, Shooky? Legal aid work for NAMBLA??
>
> > Are there ANY Usenet righties capable of discussing any topic as an
> >adult??
>
> I discuss lots of topic with adults every day, but neither you, nor
> any of your far left, loony, kool aid drinking cohorts here on Usenet
> *ARE* adults.....
No Steve, you don't. You are an obsessive, incapable of argument. I
know exactly what your reply to this missive will be, because you are
more predictable than one of Pavlov's dogs. Still, surprise me, if you
can.....
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> Justice is when you get exactly what you deserve.
> --Neal Bortz- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
nobody
If I follow the argument, it should be illegal for an adult to look at
the pictures because they're child porn, it should be illegal for an
adult to take pictures of a nude minor because it's child porn, yet
it's perfectly ok for a minor to take nude pictures of herself and
distribute -- just don't look at them if you're an adult because that
would then be child porn. How about a bit of consistency in the law?
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> - Show quoted text -
The soundest principle in law is to legislate for actions, not
preceptions. Since pornography is a social construct, it is not
possible to define it. It is possible to define certain actions as
illegal, actions that we might all agree upon, such as taking pictures
or film/video images of sexual abuse of a minor; nude images of minors
for public use (not family photographs); images of anyone taken or
used without their consent etc.
These kids would not fall foul of any such legislation, though a stern
talking to by their parents might be appropriate.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Jan 22, 10:05 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:48:39 -0600, Gary DeWaay
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>> >In article <bcf1eaeb-0a02-49df-b73e-
>> >ee7931e97...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, nickl...@bellsouth.net
>> >says...
>>
>> >> > It reminds me of that asinine sex offender registry. Did you know that
>> >> > at least 60% of those forced to register as sex offenders were guilty
>> >> > of crimes that were only barely crimes? You know, like a 19 year old
>> >> > kid who has sex with a 16 year old, and her parents object, so they
>> >> > press charges? Meanwhile, when the public looks at these charts on the
>> >> > Internet, many think their neighborhoods are crawling with perverts,
>> >> > and property values drop, mostly because the right wing is in charge,
>> >> > and makes laws that criminalize pretty much all sex. Go figure, huh?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> Might know that the Shookster would be defending kiddie porn.....
>>
>> >> What's next, Shooky? Legal aid work for NAMBLA??
>>
>> > Are there ANY Usenet righties capable of discussing any topic as an
>> >adult??
>>
>> I discuss lots of topic with adults every day, but neither you, nor
>> any of your far left, loony, kool aid drinking cohorts here on Usenet
>> *ARE* adults.....
>
>No Steve, you don't.
As I said, not with you immature kool aid drinkers..... <LOL> ...
...because fools like you are incapable of learning and you have
nothing worth me paying attention to... other than for
entertainment...
4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09
We had a case here a few years back where a man was arrested for child
born after one of those 24 hour photo developing outfits found
pictures of a naked child in the film he was having processed. It was
his two year old daughter in the tub...
--
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition,
as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of
innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
-- John McCain, in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the
American Academy of Actuaries.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09
I think that the law should be modified so child porn is determined as
exploitation of children by adults for sexual purposes. Those girls
didn't commit a crime--they just showed bad judgment. Something 14
year olds do.
milt....@gmail.com
But it's also not sex. Nudity is not sex. That's part of the problem
with the right wing's obsession with sex; everything having to do with
a naked body suddenly becomes sexual. There is nothing "sexual" or
even exploitative about a 14 year old girl taking a picture of her own
nude body and sending it to another teenager. This is just one of the
reasons why much of the rest of the world laughs at us. Child
pornography should be about sexual exploitation, not just nudie pics.
It's getting to the point that parents who take pics of their kids in
the bathtub are afraid of being nabbed for child porn, which means the
law has become ridiculous.
4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09
Exactly so. And of course, such cases are on the books. And they are
ridiculous.
"Prurient interest" is another bullshit legal standard. People have
fetishes over all sorts of things--shoes, belly buttons, stocking, you
name it. Do we ban everything on the possibility that somewhere,
somone might pop wood over it?
--
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition,
as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of
innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
-- John McCain, in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the
American Academy of Actuaries.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
Kurt Nicklas
Yes, actually you are.
> But teenagers sending
> each other naked pics is not kiddie porn.
Porn is porn, isn't it? Porn isn't defined by what's done with it.
It's defined by what it IS. When those pictures finally exited the
schoolkid network and into the adult world would it have been porn
then, in your silly opinion?
> And 19 year olds having
> consensual sex with 16 year olds is probably stupid, but it tends to
> water down the actual purpose of the sex offender registry, dontcha
> think?
What is the 'actual purpose of the sex offender registry' in your
view, Schik?
> Leave it to Knickers to pretend he can't tell the difference between
> basic bad judgment and actual perverts exploiting children.
NAMBLA probably doesn't see itself as made up of "perverts", Sheik.
They would probably consider you a terribly closed-minded bigot for
denying the needs of some adults and some children who want to be
together. How dare you deny them that basic right to be happy?
--------------------------
"And you can keep calling me that, if it makes you feel better, but
I'm
really not Milt. Sorry."
---------- Milt Shook posting, unknown to himself, as
milt....@gmail.com,
9/26/08
4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09
Let's see: Does this mean you support charging 14 year old girls with
child porn under the sex offender act for willinging sending nude and
semi-nude pictures of themselves to their boyfriends?
I love it when Knickers tries to pretend he has morals.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Yes, that's the problem. Pornography ia a social construct that first
appeared in the nineteenth century, usually within the context of
mechanisms of social control. One person's 'porn' is another person's
'erotica'. It is impossible to actually define it. How (out of idle
curiosity) would you define it, Kurt? I'd be interested to know.
>When those pictures finally exited the
> schoolkid network and into the adult world would it have been porn
> then, in your silly opinion?
Why is his opinion silly? If school kids decide to send pictures of
themselves to each other, it may be unwise, it may be silly, it may be
immature.....but, then, they are kids. They are immature. If the
school decides to make it a police matter, that is (in my opinion) the
serious issue. I don't understand why the parents don't want this
idiots hide!
>
> > And 19 year olds having
> > consensual sex with 16 year olds is probably stupid, but it tends to
> > water down the actual purpose of the sex offender registry, dontcha
> > think?
>
> What is the 'actual purpose of the sex offender registry' in your
> view, Schik?
I would imagine it is designed to keep track of people who may be a
menace to society. But in my country, a similar regime is only used to
record serious cases. We don't tend to have schools staffed with
nutters, and the police would not be involved in a case like this.
>
> > Leave it to Knickers to pretend he can't tell the difference between
> > basic bad judgment and actual perverts exploiting children.
>
> NAMBLA probably doesn't see itself as made up of "perverts", Sheik.
> They would probably consider you a terribly closed-minded bigot for
> denying the needs of some adults and some children who want to be
> together. How dare you deny them that basic right to be happy?
What has NAMBLA got to do with anything? You seem to be very strange.
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> --------------------------
> "And you can keep calling me that, if it makes you feel better, but
> I'm
> really not Milt. Sorry."
> ---------- Milt Shook posting, unknown to himself, as
> milt.sh...@gmail.com,
> 9/26/08- Hide quoted text -
Jack
Jack
> Isn't this what you liberals want, very rigid legal
> system that stomps on you for every wrong move you make?
Oh I thought that's what conservative sodomy laws were for.
Jack
Context is certainly important.
> It's defined by what it IS. When those pictures finally
> exited the schoolkid network and into the adult world would it have
> been porn then, in your silly opinion?
>
>> And 19 year olds having
>> consensual sex with 16 year olds is probably stupid, but
>> it tends to water down the actual purpose of the sex
>> offender registry, dontcha think?
>
> What is the 'actual purpose of the sex offender registry'
> in your view, Schik?
Ultimately to reduce the number of victims of sex crimes.
nobody
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
So if a kid sent an email that ended up on an adult's computer, should
that adult be charge with posession of child porn?
nobody
So if minors look at nude pictures of minors, that should be ok, but
an adult doing so should be prosecuted?
Jack
Possibly. If it can be shown that the adult kept it even after realizing
what it was.
nobody
Andrew Cuomo is "right wing"? He single handedly shut down a huge
part of Usenet.
milt....@gmail.com
Of course not. There's a talk show host in San Francisco, Bernie Ward,
who was investigating child porn, and was apparently doing so with the
cooperation of authorities in San Francisco. He's been charged with
mere possession, because the law is written in such a way that
authorities feel that they were left with no choice but to prosecute.
Here's a guy who is a devoted family man, has spent his entire life
helping children, and who is a former Jesuit priest, and he's being
persecuted because the law is so ridiculous.
What we're talking about here are pictures of nude 14 year olds, not a
Paris Hilton-style sex tape. Nudity is not sex, and it's not "obscene"
in and of itself. Now, if the adult was collecting these and creating
a mural to put up on his bedroom wall, and perhaps masturbating to it,
perhaps you'd have a case. Maybe. But given that these girls are
taking pics of themselves, and no one is actually being exploited,
wasting time on shit like this takes away from finding the real
perverts out there; the kinds of people who actually ARE a danger to
our children.
milt....@gmail.com
No. We're talking about a picture of a nude girl. She took it herself;
no one forced her to take it and send it, and she's presumably not
having sex in the pics.
I really wish this country would grow up and understand the difference
between nudity and sex. Save the effort to prosecute for those who are
actually a danger to our kids.
milt....@gmail.com
He's an ass for doing what he did. And yes, there's also a certain
element of the left wing that has the same reactionary bent. Only the
left wing hasn't been in charge in many years.
Kurt_Lochner
> > >
> > > On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:48:39 -0600, Gary DeWaay asked:
- - - -
> > > > Are there ANY Usenet righties capable of discussing any topic as an
> > > > adult??
> > >
> > >I discuss lots of topic with adults every day, but neither you, nor
> > >any of your far left, loony, kool aid drinking cohorts here on Usenet
> > >*ARE* adults.....
> >
> > know exactly what your reply to this missive will be, because you are
> > more predictable than one of Pavlov's dogs. Still, surprise me, if you
> > can.....
>
No, here's what you've said..
Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
news:<i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>
"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
--
Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:59:42 GMT
news:<rg6q5vgq29cerpocl...@4ax.com>
"I don't need to back anything up, you moron, cause unlike
yourself, my self image is not dependent on what others
think about me."
--
Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com> Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:36:15 -0500
news: <cejm945eqt2hspb4k...@4ax.com>
"I don't need to prove anything.."
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
"I have no need to demonstrate what I know,[..]"
--
Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:08:28 GMT
news:<u3sp5vc0nhsdj4fbo...@4ax.com>
"[..] my ego isn't even slightly effected by what others
might think of me."
--
Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com> Wed, 28 May 2008 10:37:55 -0400
news: <p6rq341tt0r6gkte6...@4ax.com>
"<chuckle> I aint here to collect responses,[..]"
--
Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com> Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:20:02 -0400
news: <3b5a84t0b9fanulr3...@4ax.com>
"I never had any friends on Usenet.. I never needed any
friends on Usenet.."
--
Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com> Sat, 09 Aug 2008 16:44:19 -0500
news: <tour941biih7br0kr...@4ax.com>
"It's actually quite satisfying to be hated and despised"
--Got any of those "magnetic capacitors" yet, sparky?
Jack
Wish in one hand and &%*$ in the other, see which one fills up first.
milt....@gmail.com
So, you just made that up and pretended he said that for what reason,
exactly?
Nudity is not sex. Nudity is not pornography. Nudity is simply nudity,
and we need to start growing up and accepting the fact that the human
body is not, in itself, anything to be ashamed of. We get all bent out
of shape when a 14 year old girl takes a nude pic of herself, and we
want to prosecute people for it. How about saving that righteous
indignation for situations where kids are actually being exploited for
sex? Save it for people who pose young kids into sexually provocative
positions and take the pictures to make money? How many of them are
getting off scot free because our cops and prosecutors are busy
hauling kids into court because some girl took a picture of herself
and sent it to a guy's phone?
Jack
You can test that theory by showing up naked to work tomorrow.
Jack
> be ok, but an adult doing so should be prosecuted?
Yes.
milt....@gmail.com
No. What most self-righteous prudes like you call "porn" generally
isn't. A picture of a nude girl isn't porn. A picture of a nude girl
doing nasty things with a dildo is porn. SEX is porn, not nudity.
> Porn isn't defined by what's done with it.
> It's defined by what it IS. When those pictures finally exited the
> schoolkid network and into the adult world would it have been porn
> then, in your silly opinion?
Nude pics are not porn. Period. And I'm only concerned with the
exploitation of children. A 14 year old girl using her cell phone to
take a picture of her own nude body is, by definition, not
exploitative.
>
> > And 19 year olds having
> > consensual sex with 16 year olds is probably stupid, but it tends to
> > water down the actual purpose of the sex offender registry, dontcha
> > think?
>
> What is the 'actual purpose of the sex offender registry' in your
> view, Schik?
To make law enforcement look like it's doing something about the
problem, of course. There is no reason why the public should have
access to the information; in fact, it's stupid to let the public have
the information. But most of the people ON the registry are not a
danger to the community. But law enforcement likes big numbers, and
the bigger the number of pervs in the registry, the better they feel
about themselves.
>
> > Leave it to Knickers to pretend he can't tell the difference between
> > basic bad judgment and actual perverts exploiting children.
>
> NAMBLA probably doesn't see itself as made up of "perverts", Sheik.
> They would probably consider you a terribly closed-minded bigot for
> denying the needs of some adults and some children who want to be
> together. How dare you deny them that basic right to be happy?
>
NAMBLA are perverts, and they should be locked up if they act on their
"urges." But that's the point. When we lump all sorts of other
behavior in with what they do, we make what they do seem less
horrible, and it's not. There is a distinct difference between an
adult exploiting a child for sex, and a 14 year old girl sending a
nude pic of herself to a 16 year old kid with her cell phone. When we
call both things "child porn," we lessen the seriousness of actual
"child porn." Not to mention the fact that it diverts law enforcement
efforts away from the actual problem.
milt....@gmail.com
It most certainly is. And to lump a 14 year old girl taking a nude pic
of herself into the same category as an adult who poses 8 year olds
into sexual positions, or another adult who has sex with children is
not at all helpful. If she was my daughter, she'd be doing without her
cell phone, and I would certainly alert the recipient's parents of the
problem. But throwing the kid in jail is just stupid and pointless.
>
> > It's defined by what it IS. When those pictures finally
> > exited the schoolkid network and into the adult world would it have
> > been porn then, in your silly opinion?
>
> >> And 19 year olds having
> >> consensual sex with 16 year olds is probably stupid, but
> >> it tends to water down the actual purpose of the sex
> >> offender registry, dontcha think?
>
> > What is the 'actual purpose of the sex offender registry'
> > in your view, Schik?
>
> Ultimately to reduce the number of victims of sex crimes.
Exactly. Which is why it's insane to include as many people as they
do. Most sex offender registries are made up of a lot of people who
don't belong there. I have a friend whose kid has to register every
time he moves, because he had sex with a 16 year old girl when he was
19, and her parents insisted he be prosecuted. His public defender
pretty much made him plead guilty to avoid the possibility of jail
time, and now, he's 28 years old, married, expecting his first child,
and he's also listed as a "sex offender." it's estimated that
something close to half of the people on those registries are similar.
And as one other poster pointed out, there are people on there who
were convicted of taking a piss in public. If half the people (or
more) on these registries are not dangers to the community, then
what's the purpose of the registry?
milt....@gmail.com
wrote:
Oh, I can't wait to see this myself. I'm going to go out on a limb and
suggest that he thinks that mere nudity qualifies as "porn." A lot of
people in the US think that way, and it's to our detriment.
>
> >When those pictures finally exited the
> > schoolkid network and into the adult world would it have been porn
> > then, in your silly opinion?
>
> Why is his opinion silly? If school kids decide to send pictures of
> themselves to each other, it may be unwise, it may be silly, it may be
> immature.....but, then, they are kids. They are immature. If the
> school decides to make it a police matter, that is (in my opinion) the
> serious issue. I don't understand why the parents don't want this
> idiots hide!
>
Exactly. It's stupid and childish, and potentially dangerous, because
the pic could end up in the hands of someone who would do harm. But it
should be a chance to teach these kids a lesson, not tar and feather
them for life. Seriously, this kid will probably end up on a sex
offender registry, and further water down it's actual purpose, which
is to protect people from predatory people.
>
> > > And 19 year olds having
> > > consensual sex with 16 year olds is probably stupid, but it tends to
> > > water down the actual purpose of the sex offender registry, dontcha
> > > think?
>
> > What is the 'actual purpose of the sex offender registry' in your
> > view, Schik?
>
> I would imagine it is designed to keep track of people who may be a
> menace to society. But in my country, a similar regime is only used to
> record serious cases. We don't tend to have schools staffed with
> nutters, and the police would not be involved in a case like this.
>
Well said. I sure wish this country would get that nudity is not sex.
>
> > > Leave it to Knickers to pretend he can't tell the difference between
> > > basic bad judgment and actual perverts exploiting children.
>
> > NAMBLA probably doesn't see itself as made up of "perverts", Sheik.
> > They would probably consider you a terribly closed-minded bigot for
> > denying the needs of some adults and some children who want to be
> > together. How dare you deny them that basic right to be happy?
>
> What has NAMBLA got to do with anything? You seem to be very strange.
>
Oh, just wait. This isn't as weird as he gets.
milt....@gmail.com
> > Nudity is not sex, and it's not "obscene" in and of itself.
>
> You can test that theory by showing up naked to work tomorrow.
That it's illegal does not make it sex.
It's also illegal to drive 100 miles per hour down a neighborhood
street. Does that make speeding sex?
Seriously... connect the dots...
milt....@gmail.com
And this black and white sensibility is why we have more people in
jail than any country on earth, and why we have more people in the
legal system than the legal system can handle.
If it is only a nude pic, and there is nothing sexual in it, and he
looks at it and deletes it, no.
If he looks at it and passes it on, or puts it up on a web site, yes.
If he prints it and hands it to his friends, yes.
IOW, one has to look at the totality of the situation, not just "well,
it exists, he looked at itl prosecute!"
milt....@gmail.com
> By this logic it is illegal to masturbate until one's 18 birthday.
Could you please not delete everything before your post? It's
impossible to tell what you're responding to.
Jack
> On Jan 22, 11:15 am, "Jack" <furgfurgf...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>> Nudity is not sex, and it's not "obscene" in and of
>>> itself.
>>
>> You can test that theory by showing up naked to work
>> tomorrow.
>
> That it's illegal does not make it sex.
That's nice. But the question is whether or not it's obscene.
> It's also illegal to drive 100 miles per hour down a
> neighborhood street. Does that make speeding sex?
No. (Your welcome.)
Jack
> On Jan 22, 11:16 am, "Jack" <furgfurgf...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>> So if minors look at nude pictures of minors, that
>>> should be ok, but an adult doing so should be
>>> prosecuted?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> And this black and white sensibility
You're the one who posed a black or white question.
> is why we have more
> people in jail than any country on earth,
No it's not.
> and why we have
> more people in the legal system than the legal system can
> handle.
>
> If it is only a nude pic, and there is nothing sexual in
> it,
I get what you're trying to say about sex not equaling nudity. But
repeating yourself ad nauseum usually does not turn people to one's way of
thinking.
>and he looks at it and deletes it, no.
>
> If he looks at it and passes it on, or puts it up on a
> web site, yes.
Oh, ok. Then we agree.
>
> If he prints it and hands it to his friends, yes.
>
> IOW, one has to look at the totality of the situation,
> not just "well, it exists, he looked at itl prosecute!"
Easy there, tiger. I agree. If he deletes it, it's all good.
Jack
> Well said. I sure wish this country would get that nudity
> is not sex.
Maybe if you repeat yourself 17 more times it will.
Jack
Subject: #Fourteen year old girls charged with child porn for texting
pictures of themselves
My response: By this logic it is illegal to masturbate until one's 18
birthday.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Of course not! We are not responsible for the mail we receive,
electronic or otherwise. Why would you think otherwise? Of course, if
that adult forwarded it without the kid's consent, that would be
another matter. Do apply logic in these matters....
Dr. Barry Worthington
Jim Alder
7NeXUnZ2dn...@posted.echolabs:
> By this logic it is illegal to masturbate until one's 18 birthday.
That's true! Sex with a minor. We're all guilty!
Is a nude portrait pornography anyway? And since the girls took them
themselves and sent them without being paid, are they guilty of entrapment?
And does the principal have the right to search a cell phone he's confiscated?
This case has a lot of holes. NPI.
--
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind
and won't change the subject.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
milt....@gmail.com
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 22, 11:15 am, "Jack" <furgfurgf...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >>> Nudity is not sex, and it's not "obscene" in and of
> >>> itself.
>
> >> You can test that theory by showing up naked to work
> >> tomorrow.
>
> > That it's illegal does not make it sex.
>
> That's nice. But the question is whether or not it's obscene.
Obscene is in the eye of the beholder.
For example, I think Bush's spending a trillion dollars and causing
tens of thousands of casualties is obscene. The mere sight of a 14
year old girl's naked body is (in most cases) laughable and silly, but
it's not obscene.
We can all agree that sex between an adult and a child is obscene, but
it's mostly obscene because the child is not capable of advised
consent in such a situation. Two adults engaging in nasty sexual
proclivities in front of a camera might be obscene to me, but not to
someone who likes that kind of shit.
That's why there can't be an "obscenity" standard when it comes to the
law. The standard has to be objective, to a point, and "obscene" can
never be an objective standard.
>
> > It's also illegal to drive 100 miles per hour down a
> > neighborhood street. Does that make speeding sex?
>
> No. (Your welcome.)
I'm welcome for what? You should thank me for making you clarify.
milt....@gmail.com
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 22, 11:16 am, "Jack" <furgfurgf...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >>> So if minors look at nude pictures of minors, that
> >>> should be ok, but an adult doing so should be
> >>> prosecuted?
>
> >> Yes.
>
> > And this black and white sensibility
>
> You're the one who posed a black or white question.
Check the attributions. I didn't ask that question.
>
> > is why we have more
> > people in jail than any country on earth,
>
> No it's not.
Yeah, it is. Everything we don't like, we want to be illegal. Take
drugs, for example... wait... we've had this discussion before. :)
>
> > and why we have
> > more people in the legal system than the legal system can
> > handle.
>
> > If it is only a nude pic, and there is nothing sexual in
> > it,
>
> I get what you're trying to say about sex not equaling nudity. But
> repeating yourself ad nauseum usually does not turn people to one's way of
> thinking.
You think that's my objective? My objective is to offer my opinion.
You have free will; take it or leave it.
>
> >and he looks at it and deletes it, no.
>
> > If he looks at it and passes it on, or puts it up on a
> > web site, yes.
>
> Oh, ok. Then we agree.
>
I actually think we agree more often than not. But you're mixing me up
with a few of the others here...
>
> > If he prints it and hands it to his friends, yes.
>
> > IOW, one has to look at the totality of the situation,
> > not just "well, it exists, he looked at itl prosecute!"
>
> Easy there, tiger. I agree. If he deletes it, it's all good.
Even if he doesn't delete it, if it goes no farther, and he doesn't do
anything with it, who gives a shit? In the end, it's a pic of a nude
girl taken by said nude girl. Who cares?
milt....@gmail.com
> "Jack" <furgfurgf...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1PidnaUJQ7-
> 7NeXUnZ2dnUVZ_rXin...@posted.echolabs:
>
> > By this logic it is illegal to masturbate until one's 18 birthday.
>
> That's true! Sex with a minor. We're all guilty!
>
> Is a nude portrait pornography anyway? And since the girls took them
> themselves and sent them without being paid, are they guilty of entrapment?
> And does the principal have the right to search a cell phone he's confiscated?
>
> This case has a lot of holes. NPI.
>
Nude photos are not porn. Okay, if she's nude and doing nasty things
with fruit or sex toys, perhaps it becomes pornography. But a nude pic
in and of itself is not porn. I can't tell you how silly the law has
gotten. There are actually people who have been in legal trouble
because they took pictures of their infants or toddlers in the nude.
Sex is sex, and nudity is not sex.
milt....@gmail.com
Thank you. And that's a great answer... :)
In some circles, people would love to make all masturbation illegal,
though...
Kurt Nicklas
wrote:
<snip>
> You seem to be very strange
That's quite a statement coming from someone who wrote the following:
"My interest is the swinging sub-culture, as an extension of
the 'serious leisure' concept, and its creation of 'embodied space'."
6/7/07
Kurt Nicklas
Try this: download some nude pictures of 14 year old girls. Print them
out. Take them to your local police station and ask THEM if that's
porn.
Get back to us when you get out of the klink.
> > Porn isn't defined by what's done with it.
> > It's defined by what it IS. When those pictures finally exited the
> > schoolkid network and into the adult world would it have been porn
> > then, in your silly opinion?
>
> Nude pics are not porn. Period. And I'm only concerned with the
> exploitation of children. A 14 year old girl using her cell phone to
> take a picture of her own nude body is, by definition, not
> exploitative.
It doesn't have to be exploitative, loon.
>
>
> > > And 19 year olds having
> > > consensual sex with 16 year olds is probably stupid, but it tends to
> > > water down the actual purpose of the sex offender registry, dontcha
> > > think?
>
> > What is the 'actual purpose of the sex offender registry' in your
> > view, Schik?
>
> To make law enforcement look like it's doing something about the
> problem, of course. There is no reason why the public should have
> access to the information; in fact, it's stupid to let the public have
> the information. But most of the people ON the registry are not a
> danger to the community. But law enforcement likes big numbers, and
> the bigger the number of pervs in the registry, the better they feel
> about themselves.
On this, I couldn't agree with you more ---- so why did you write
something completely different this very day in a different post in
this same thread???
Face it, Shookling,all this traveling you've been doing is rotting
your brain!
> > > Leave it to Knickers to pretend he can't tell the difference between
> > > basic bad judgment and actual perverts exploiting children.
>
> > NAMBLA probably doesn't see itself as made up of "perverts", Sheik.
> > They would probably consider you a terribly closed-minded bigot for
> > denying the needs of some adults and some children who want to be
> > together. How dare you deny them that basic right to be happy?
>
> NAMBLA are perverts, and they should be locked up if they act on their
> "urges."
Be careful. Homosexuals used to be considered perverts also till they
were embraced by the Left.
What possible standard could the Left have for denying pedophiles the
opportunity to satisfy their "urges" if they do it with a willing
individual?
Lord Calvert
> If she was my daughter, she'd be doing without her
> cell phone, and I would certainly alert the recipient's parents of the
> problem. But throwing the kid in jail is just stupid and pointless.
Hell, if she was *texting* pictures of herself, I would think she'd be
needing some new thumbs. I mean, texting a small 50KB pic must have
taken 6-7 hours of work, and that's assuming no errors that could ruin
the whole thing.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Cruel and Unusual Choreography
"When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say
to it’s subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not see, this
you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression,
no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to
control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount
of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the
rack, not fission bombs, not anything—you can’t conquer a free man;
the most you can do is kill him.” - Robert A. Heinlein
Lord Calvert
> Jan 22, 1:24 pm, milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > No. What most self-righteous prudes like you call "porn" generally
> > isn't. A picture of a nude girl isn't porn. A picture of a nude girl
> > doing nasty things with a dildo is porn. SEX is porn, not nudity.
>
> Try this: download some nude pictures of 14 year old girls. Print them
> out. Take them to your local police station and ask THEM if that's
> porn.
>
No real conservative would leave the decision-making process of moral
standards to big-government. That's what the Reds do. Big-government's
decision-making cannot be trusted. Any real conservative will tell you
that.
Dragonblaze
[snip]
> NAMBLA are perverts, and they should be locked up if they act on their
> "urges." But that's the point. When we lump all sorts of other
> behavior in with what they do, we make what they do seem less
> horrible, and it's not. There is a distinct difference between an
> adult exploiting a child for sex, and a 14 year old girl sending a
> nude pic of herself to a 16 year old kid with her cell phone. When we
> call both things "child porn," we lessen the seriousness of actual
> "child porn." Not to mention the fact that it diverts law enforcement
> efforts away from the actual problem.
Where I come from, 16 is the legal age of consent. There is also a
provision that says that if a 16 year old person has sex with a 14
year old, that will not be considered as statutory rape as the ages
are so close.
milt....@gmail.com
Thanks for making my point for me.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Law enforcement spends far too
much time on 16 year olds who merely have nudie pics of 14 year olds,
and it takes away from the time they could be spending going after
real sexual predators.
And why the hell are we sending cops out to police our individual
morality, anyway? There's enough crime out there; we don't need police
enforcing laws based on individual sensibilities. Honestly, I can see
a nude 14 year old girl and see a skinny little thing who really
should put her clothes back on for a few more years. I worry that you
think a nude picture fo a 14 year old girl makes you think of sex.
>
> > > Porn isn't defined by what's done with it.
> > > It's defined by what it IS. When those pictures finally exited the
> > > schoolkid network and into the adult world would it have been porn
> > > then, in your silly opinion?
>
> > Nude pics are not porn. Period. And I'm only concerned with the
> > exploitation of children. A 14 year old girl using her cell phone to
> > take a picture of her own nude body is, by definition, not
> > exploitative.
>
> It doesn't have to be exploitative, loon.
>
>
It should be. If it's not exploitative, then what's the fucking
problem? I don't give a shit if two consenting adults fuck in front of
a camera and sell the video. I only care if one or both of them is
being forced to do so against his or her will.
>
>
> > > > And 19 year olds having
> > > > consensual sex with 16 year olds is probably stupid, but it tends to
> > > > water down the actual purpose of the sex offender registry, dontcha
> > > > think?
>
> > > What is the 'actual purpose of the sex offender registry' in your
> > > view, Schik?
>
> > To make law enforcement look like it's doing something about the
> > problem, of course. There is no reason why the public should have
> > access to the information; in fact, it's stupid to let the public have
> > the information. But most of the people ON the registry are not a
> > danger to the community. But law enforcement likes big numbers, and
> > the bigger the number of pervs in the registry, the better they feel
> > about themselves.
>
> On this, I couldn't agree with you more ---- so why did you write
> something completely different this very day in a different post in
> this same thread???
I didn't. Better read again. I've always thought the sex offenders
registry was a stupid idea. But it's doubly stupid when half or more
of the people listed aren't in the least bit dangerous.
>
> Face it, Shookling,all this traveling you've been doing is rotting
> your brain.
Not hardly. I feel more relaxed than I have in ages. And I plan on
traveling a lot more, too. Going to Japan and Europe next year.
>
> > > > Leave it to Knickers to pretend he can't tell the difference between
> > > > basic bad judgment and actual perverts exploiting children.
>
> > > NAMBLA probably doesn't see itself as made up of "perverts", Sheik.
> > > They would probably consider you a terribly closed-minded bigot for
> > > denying the needs of some adults and some children who want to be
> > > together. How dare you deny them that basic right to be happy?
>
> > NAMBLA are perverts, and they should be locked up if they act on their
> > "urges."
>
> Be careful. Homosexuals used to be considered perverts also till they
> were embraced by the Left.
Homosexuals have never been perverts, except to bigots like you. The
issue is not sex; it's about consent. Children can't consent to sex.
That's why NAMBLA fucktards should be thrown in jail and their nuts
cut off. If they can't wait until these kids are old enough to
consent, then they have a serious problem.
>
> What possible standard could the Left have for denying pedophiles the
> opportunity to satisfy their "urges" if they do it with a willing
> individual?
Once more, it's called the ability for advised consent. Kids can't do
that. Gay couples are both adults, and capable of saying no, if they
don't want someone to screw them.
HotelCharlieOne
@a39g2000prl.googlegroups.com:
> Thanks for making my point for me.
>
> That's exactly what I'm talking about. Law enforcement spends far too
> much time on 16 year olds who merely have nudie pics of 14 year olds,
> and it takes away from the time they could be spending going after
> real sexual predators.
>
> And why the hell are we sending cops out to police our individual
> morality, anyway? There's enough crime out there; we don't need police
> enforcing laws based on individual sensibilities. Honestly, I can see
> a nude 14 year old girl and see a skinny little thing who really
> should put her clothes back on for a few more years. I worry that you
> think a nude picture fo a 14 year old girl makes you think of sex.
>
Reminds of me of when I was in the service in Germany in the 70's. As
part of our Germany orientation briefing, we were told that buying a doll
for you daughter off base might be risky, since that doll would most
likely be anatomically correct. The collective gasp was humorous. But to
answer you question, yes the repubs and to a greater extent the whole of
America is obsessed with and paranoid about genitals, so it should not be
a great surprise to consider that many see any showing of genitals as a
"sex act".
Think Miley Cyrus and her "near nude photos" media eruption last year.
It's a laugh and pathetic at the same time.
And oh yes, some 14 year olds are fat, and they should put their clothes
back on too. <grin>
--
9-11 was a faith based initiative performed in a gun free zone.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Yes, Kurt. You are so predictable.....like your comrade in arms Steve.
(If you are not one and the same, which is a possibility, I suppose.)
You also are very immature, and very silly. I don't have to explain
myself, but out of courtesy for other readers of this thread, Kurt is
refering to part of an article about serious leisure and tourism that
I had published in an academic journal called 'Tourist Studies'. (I
lecture and research in tourism at a British university.) The fact
that I have written about an aspect of sex tourism in an objective
way, as many fellow academics have done, is something Kurt and Steve
cannot comprehend. Steve, because he is an obsessive, and rather
silly, constantly refers to it (though it does not approach the
intensity of his obsession with Mr. Shook). Kurt seems to be going the
same way....with a lame attempt at humour in calling me 'Harry'. They
both remind me of small boys giggling at a 'glamour magazine' behind
the bike shed at school (that's an English image, sorry if it doesn't
carry).
I asked Kurt a reasonable question in my posting. The fact that he
responds this way speaks volumes.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
He's probably just not interested in getting into a discussion with a
wife swapping pervert like you, Worthington.
Justice is when you get exactly what you deserve.
--Neal Bortz
Dr. Barry Worthington
I rest my case ladies and gentlemen........
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> Justice is when you get exactly what you deserve.
> --Neal Bortz- Hide quoted text -
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
You never had a case, pervert...
4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
No need. We all figured Steve out a long, long time ago.
>
>>
>> Justice is when you get exactly what you deserve.
>> --Neal Bortz- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
--
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition,
as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of
innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
-- John McCain, in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the
American Academy of Actuaries.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
milt....@gmail.com
in and of itself? He seems to be the only one who doesn't get that...
Steve
You have no personal life, Milt...
milt....@gmail.com
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:26:13 -0500, Steve> Considering yours, I'd say he has.
Hmmm... how would he know whether or not I have a personal life,
unless...
Nah... it's too easy...
I don't know nor care if he has a personal life, but I suspect that,
given the amount of spare time he has to post on here and then
investigate what he thinks he knows about my personal life, I'd say
it's somewhat limited...
4869 Dead, 0 since 1/2/09
Well, there isn't anything else for him, is there...?
milt....@gmail.com
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
And he still doesn't see the irony... not even a little...
z
<zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:57:08 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>
>
>
>
>
> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
> >On Jan 22, 11:45 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:59:51 -0800, "4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09"
>
> >> <zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >> >On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:18:08 -0800 (PST), Tracey
> >> ><tracey12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>On Jan 21, 9:04 am, "4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09"
>
> >> >>> Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition,
> >> >>> as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of
> >> >>> innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
> >> >>> -- John McCain, in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the
> >> >>> American Academy of Actuaries.
> >> >>> Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
> >> >>> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
> >> >>> For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
> >> >>> For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
> >> >>> a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>
> >> >>stomps on you for every wrong move you make?
>
> >> >I think it's an utterly idiotic application of a questionable law.
>
> >> >How do YOU feel about it?
>
> >> If I follow the argument, it should be illegal for an adult to look at
> >> the pictures because they're child porn, it should be illegal for an
> >> adult to take pictures of a nude minor because it's child porn, yet
> >> it's perfectly ok for a minor to take nude pictures of herself and
> >> distribute -- just don't look at them if you're an adult because that
> >> would then be child porn. How about a bit of consistency in the law?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >preceptions. Since pornography is a social construct, it is not
> >possible to define it. It is possible to define certain actions as
> >illegal, actions that we might all agree upon, such as taking pictures
> >or film/video images of sexual abuse of a minor; nude images of minors
> >for public use (not family photographs); images of anyone taken or
> >used without their consent etc.
>
> >These kids would not fall foul of any such legislation, though a stern
> >talking to by their parents might be appropriate.
>
> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> We had a case here a few years back where a man was arrested for child
> born after one of those 24 hour photo developing outfits found
> pictures of a naked child in the film he was having processed. It was
> his two year old daughter in the tub...
that kind of thing actually happens somewhere in america every few
months. or at least that's how often it shows up in the papers.
then you got all the folks who call in the marines when somebody on
their airplane speaks arabic.
then there was the armed and dangerous murderer arrested at gunpoint
in a pizza shop who actually turned out to be an internationally
famous human rights activist. to be fair, he was wearing a fanny pack
and carrying a gym bag and talking a lot on a cellphone, so you can
see why the employees panicked.
welcome to the land of the free, where your neighbors are free to spy
on you if the government isn't doing it.
Steve
Irony anyone?
--
"As for me, I'm tired of this BS. I'm going to
finish writing my book."
--Milt Shook 1996/07/28
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.discrimination/msg/753a9d0c7acb5d57?dmode=source
"Keep an eye on your bookstore next Christmas, and my name
will pop out at you."
--Milt Shook 1997/12/06
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=348A1B90.51A97B99%40hearthlink.net
"You mean the one that I'm rewriting for publication right now? Or the
one that two publishing houses are interested in?"
--Milt Shook 1998/06/14
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=35831dc6.12233272%40news.earthlink.net
"Sory I have to leave, but I have a novel to finish. Look in your bookstore
this Christmas; hopefully, no later than march, if Xmas doesn't work out."
--Milt Shook 1998/08/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=35e34aca.5878878%40news.earthlink.net
"The working Title is "Talent on Loan, and it's about a fat janitor who
makes a deal with the devil and becomes a blithering talk show host.
The legal complications keep coming from you-know-who. I'm working
around them, however."
--Milt Shook 1999/08/03
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7o7erc%24v37%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
But make no mistake, Parker; two books with my name on them
will be out shortly.
--Milt Shook 2000-09-09
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=%25UDu5.266%24zC.11426%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"I am very close to publishing my first novel,"
--Milt Shook 2002-11-30
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Fq6cnX4oFuzowXSgXTWcqA%40comcast.com
"I'm rewriting that one for a major publisher as we speak."
--Milt Shook 2004-10-22
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=WpidnQe3YPTmA-TcRVn-vg%40comcast.com&oe=ISO-8859-1
Canyon: "Say, when is the new date for your book to be published?"
Milt Shook: June 14 2006 "If they can get the fucking cover right for a change, July 18."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e773f8f44066cd9e?hl=en&
Canyon: "So when are those two books with your name on them going to be out?"
Milt Shook: Aug 19 2006 "I just finished editing the galleys on the first one, so a matter of weeks for that one. The second one, I'm still writing..."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/5ff8772a0127832a?hl=en&
"Unbelievable, isn't it? I mean, the fact that I hope to finish a few
more novels, and I will also be working on a non-fiction book
beginning next year, is considered a "fantasy" by people"
--Milt Shook Mar 16, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b55584049dce6bf2
Steve
That's from David B. (Zepp) Jamieson who is struggling just to support
himself theses days....
So here we have Zepp lying in an attempt to cover up
his previous stupid claim about capital gains.
"I've never claimed that listing cap gains on a 1040
will put you in jail, only that trying to list them
at a lower rate would."
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson Aug 5 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/1634d84e583d3c46?hl=en&
....but here is, in fact, where he made the very
claim he denies he ever made........
"If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough."
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&
Zepp made no mention of any tax rates in that thread and neither
did I, Here's my statement that prompted Zepp's stupid claim.
"First of all, obviously, rich people pay way more capital gains tax
than poor people, and secondly, capital gains tax is part of the
income tax... ."
--Nevermore Dec 2, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/008bf7af82689ef7?hl=en&
Steve
>On Jan 23, 11:05 am, M...@dick.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:26:13 -0500, Steve
>>
>> <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>> >You have no personal life, Milt...
>>
>> Considering yours, I'd say he has.
>
>Hmmm... how would he know whether or not I have a personal life,
>unless...
<LOL> Shook spends all is time on the internet talking about his lack
of a personal life....
>Nah... it's too easy...
>
>I don't know nor care if he has a personal life, but I suspect that,
>given the amount of spare time he has to post on here and then
Shook, of course, spends more time on the internet than I do, and he
has to have a job, too. The pathetic little fool must have half a
dozen web sites/blogs to maintain
>investigate what he thinks he knows about my personal life, I'd say
>it's somewhat limited...
Poor Shook, he likes to pretend a lot... Anybody that pretends as
much as Shook must not have personal life....
Milt has a history of trying to reinforce his arguments
by presenting the statement of an un-named "expert friends"
of his, who agrees with him, or by concocting a story
about how he is, himself, is an expert in that field..
Turns out Milt Shook is the biggest poseur in usenet history
Canyon note: Milt Shook made this ridiculous claim on May 6 1997, 2:00 am
in attempt to back up his earlier argument..
"I was a Senate Page for two years when I went to HS in
Maryland. Why is that hard to believe?"
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/45a41b2be7278eed?&q=senate+page
Canyon note:It's not just hard to believe, it's just about
impossible to believe since now, Milt claims to have done it twice...
"Actually, I did misspeak on that one. One year in the House
and one year in the Senate."
--MilT.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/06a060ef017bf1a0
Canyon note:Well this may be why he won't talk about it....
...Milt claimed to have been a congressional page when Nixon was impeached...
that would have been late 1973
"Um, KNOPP... I was a page in the Congress when the articles of
Impeachment were read into the record. He would have been tried
and found very guilty, as anyone who ever read the accounts at
the time would know. Nixon bowed out, because he knew he would
lose, and because he knew Ford would pardon him."
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/92d9c5f1857761bc
Canyon note: Then Milt also claimed to have been a page when
Newt Gingrich was first elected... <LOL that would have
been in late 1978, five years later...
"I was a page when Newt first started, and I thought he was an asshole
then, and I've been waiting for soething to change my mind. Nothing yet.."
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/23e7664bf86121dc
Canyon note: So Milt claims to have been a congressional page for at
least five years.... until he was out of his teens... Hardly
enough time left for Milt to have been a ski instructor..
"I was an instructor for a year, moron. I'm an excellent skier. Or
was, until my knee blew. Now that it's healed though, I'd probably
be back on the black runs pretty quickly... "
--Milt Shook Apr 27 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/49f76a36f933f280
Canyon note: or for Milt to have been a business consultant for five years..
"I was a consultant for FIVE years. My JOB was to take retailers,
look at how they ran things, and improve their lot. Most of the time,
I could do a report in two weeks. Most of those who followed my advice
are still in business. I only had one failure, and that was because
the owner himself was skimming cash off the top. "
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/2bff5dc5a4ab3669
Canyon note: or was it 13 years?
"I am 38 years old, and have worked in several fields in the past.
I have never made less than $20K, not even when I was 18 years old,
and I am in the midst of a career change. I have worked as a paid
consultant for several political campaigns, and I was a retail
manager, salesman, and consultant for retailers for about 13
years, sometimes simultaneously. I know what makes a business
tick, and I know what makes one fail. "
--Milt.Shook. Mar 16 1997,
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/5c6625559575e3b6
Canyon note: Well, according to Milt's earlier claims, he was a congressional
page until he was out of his teens, and they sure don't make $20K
"I, too, have never taken welfare, even though I was qualified."
--Milt Shook Mar 21 1997
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/9c229b7b6d50e57b
Canyon note: So how did a single guy qualify for welfare if
he made more than $20K back before 1997? ..and Milt's dating
habits were quite phenomenal too...:
"I've DATED people that you would die to meet."
--Milt.Shook... Jul 4 19
z
> they don't like, so when a teen girl sends a picture of her nude self
> to someone else, everyone's charged with child porn? So, these kids
> get convicted of a felony and ruin their own lives for something that
> is basically innocent and stupid, and certainly not criminal, just
> because the prudes who have been running the government for the last
> 30 years or so have to make a law against everything, without defining
> anything specifically enough to be able to differentiate between
> sexually curious kids, and disgusting perverts who should have their
> dicks lopped off.
>
> This is the problem with their ideology. In their minds, all sex is
> evil, so everything sexual is criminal.
>
> It reminds me of that asinine sex offender registry. Did you know that
> at least 60% of those forced to register as sex offenders were guilty
> of crimes that were only barely crimes? You know, like a 19 year old
> kid who has sex with a 16 year old, and her parents object, so they
> press charges? Meanwhile, when the public looks at these charts on the
> Internet, many think their neighborhoods are crawling with perverts,
> and property values drop, mostly because the right wing is in charge,
>
> - Show quoted text -
apparently a lot of guys on the sex offender list for "public display
of nudity" or whatever, are guilty of having been taking a leak in an
alley when a cop walked by. not that that's good practice, but it's
not what most people think of as a sex crime if there's nobody in the
vicinity.
nobody
wrote:
>nobody wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:57:08 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry
>> Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 22, 11:45 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:59:51 -0800, "4869 Dead, 0 since
>>>> 1/20/09"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:18:08 -0800 (PST), Tracey
>>>>> <tracey12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 21, 9:04 am, "4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09"
>>>>>>> school grounds . other than the violation of the
>>>>>>> "It's clearly overkill," he said. ". The letter of
>>>>>>> teenage girls - 22 percent - vs. boys - 18 percent.
>>>> consistency in the law?- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> The soundest principle in law is to legislate for
>>> actions, not preceptions. Since pornography is a social
>>> construct, it is not possible to define it. It is
>>> possible to define certain actions as illegal, actions
>>> that we might all agree upon, such as taking pictures or
>>> film/video images of sexual abuse of a minor; nude
>>> images of minors for public use (not family
>>> photographs); images of anyone taken or used without
>>> their consent etc.
>>>
>>> These kids would not fall foul of any such legislation,
>>> though a stern talking to by their parents might be
>>> appropriate.
>>
>> So if a kid sent an email that ended up on an adult's
>> computer, should that adult be charge with posession of
>> child porn?
>
>Possibly. If it can be shown that the adult kept it even after realizing
>what it was.
I find that silly. Either the posession of child porn should be
illegal in all cases or not at all. What's next, drug posession by
minors is ok but not by adults?
>
nobody
>On Jan 22, 10:28 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:35:48 -0800, "4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09"
>>
>>
>>
>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> school grounds … other than the violation of the electronic devices
>> >>>>> policy.” The statement also said that school officials didn’t learn of
>> >>>>> the charges against the students until Monday.
>>
>> >>>>> In the WPXI story, which included contributions from the Associated
>> >>>>> Press, Saranko indicated that authorities decided to file the child
>> >>>>> pornography charges to send a strong message to other minors who might
>> >>>>> consider sending such photos to friends.
>>
>> >>>>> "It's very dangerous," he said. "Once it's on a cell phone, that cell
>> >>>>> phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get
>> >>>>> access to that juvenile picture. You don't realize what you are doing
>> >>>>> until it's already done." (Seranko could not be reached for comment on
>> >>>>> Thursday, and a woman who answered the phone at the Greensburg Police
>> >>>>> Department said, “Our department is not doing any more interviews on
>> >>>>> the case.”)
>>
>> >>>>> But Patrick Artur, a Philadelphia defense attorney who by his
>> >>>>> reckoning has handled at least 80 child pornography cases, said the
>> >>>>> prosecution of minors for photos they took themselves runs counter to
>> >>>>> the purpose of both state and federal child pornography laws:
>> >>>>> Preventing the sexual abuse of children by “dirty old men in
>> >>>>> raincoats.”
>>
>> >>>>> “It’s clearly overkill,” he said. “… The letter of the law seems to
>> >>>>> have been violated, but this is not the type of defendant that the
>> >>>>> legislature envisioned” in passing the statute.
>>
>> >>>>> Artur said that because there is no mandatory minimum sentence under
>> >>>>> Pennsylvania’s child pornography law, unlike the federal statute, the
>> >>>>> students would not necessarily be incarcerated if they are found
>> >>>>> guilty. But he noted that convictions would have "serious, serious
>> >>>>> implications," including forcing them having to register as sexual
>> >>>>> offenders for at least 10 years.
>>
>> >>>>> While Artur said the prosecution of a juvenile for allegedly creating
>> >>>>> and distributing child porn was new to him, a quick review of federal
>> >>>>> and state statistics showed there have been a handful of similar
>> >>>>> cases, and several convictions.
>>
>> >>>>> While few minors have found themselves in court for e-mailing or
>> >>>>> posting sexy photos of themselves, there is little doubt that
>> >>>>> ubiquitous cell phones and easy access to computers have tempted many
>> >>>>> to push the erotic envelope.
>>
>> >>>>> The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reported
>> >>>>> last month that a survey of 1,280 teens and young adults found that 20
>> >>>>> percent of the teens said they had sent or posted nude or semi nude
>> >>>>> photos or videos of themselves. That number was slightly higher for
>> >>>>> teenage girls — 22 percent — vs. boys — 18 percent.
>> >>>>> --
>>
>> >>>>> Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition,
>> >>>>> as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of
>> >>>>> innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
>> >>>>> -- John McCain, in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the
>> >>>>> American Academy of Actuaries.
>> >>>>> Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
>> >>>>> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
>> >>>>> For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
>> >>>>> For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
>> >>>>> Zepps_News-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>> >>>>> For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
>> >>>>> Zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>> >>>>> a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>>
>> >>>>Isn't this what you liberals want, very rigid legal system that
>> >>>>stomps on you for every wrong move you make?
>>
>> >>>I think it's an utterly idiotic application of a questionable law.
>>
>> >>>How do YOU feel about it?
>>
>> >>If I follow the argument, it should be illegal for an adult to look at
>> >>the pictures because they're child porn, it should be illegal for an
>> >>adult to take pictures of a nude minor because it's child porn, yet
>> >>it's perfectly ok for a minor to take nude pictures of herself and
>> >>distribute -- just don't look at them if you're an adult because that
>> >>would then be child porn. How about a bit of consistency in the law?
>>
>> >I think that the law should be modified so child porn is determined as
>> >exploitation of children by adults for sexual purposes. Those girls
>> >didn't commit a crime--they just showed bad judgment. Something 14
>> >year olds do.
>>
>> So if minors look at nude pictures of minors, that should be ok, but
>> an adult doing so should be prosecuted?
>
>So, you just made that up and pretended he said that for what reason,
>exactly?
>
>Nudity is not sex. Nudity is not pornography. Nudity is simply nudity,
Ok Miltie. Grab some pictures of nude 14 year olds, put them on your
computer and ask the police if it's ok since they're "simply nude".
nobody
>On Jan 22, 10:29 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:56:40 -0800 (PST), milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >On Jan 22, 7:35 am, "4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09"
>> >But it's also not sex. Nudity is not sex. That's part of the problem
>> >with the right wing's obsession with sex; everything having to do with
>> >a naked body suddenly becomes sexual.
>>
>> Andrew Cuomo is "right wing"? He single handedly shut down a huge
>> part of Usenet.
>
>He's an ass for doing what he did. And yes, there's also a certain
>element of the left wing that has the same reactionary bent. Only the
>left wing hasn't been in charge in many years.
Andrew Cuomo wasn't "in charge"? The Dems have not controlled all
legislation for the last two years? Where ya been Miltie?
milt....@gmail.com
Andrew Cuomo is not a "left winger."
The Democratic Party has not been controlled by the "left wing" for
years.
But even if Democrats WERE "left wing," Bush had the veto pen for the
past 2 years, and Democrats had a bare majority in the House and no
majority in the Senate.
Now, Democrats are running things, although most of them still aren't
"left wing." We'll see.
Gary DeWaay
@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, sh...@abertay.ac.uk Dr. Barry
Worthington says...
> > He's probably just not interested in getting into a discussion with a
> > wife swapping pervert like you, Worthington.
>
> I rest my case ladies and gentlemen........
>
>
Indeed.
I often wonder if we are arguing with a herd of 14 year olds or
something.
Gary DeWaay
@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, milt....@gmail.com says...
> On Jan 22, 11:16 am, "Jack" <furgfurgf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > So if minors look at nude pictures of minors, that should
> > > be ok, but an adult doing so should be prosecuted?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> And this black and white sensibility is why we have more people in
> jail than any country on earth, and why we have more people in the
> legal system than the legal system can handle.
>
> If it is only a nude pic, and there is nothing sexual in it, and he
> looks at it and deletes it, no.
>
> If he looks at it and passes it on, or puts it up on a web site, yes.
>
> If he prints it and hands it to his friends, yes.
>
> IOW, one has to look at the totality of the situation, not just "well,
> it exists, he looked at itl prosecute!"
>
There was a case here where a guy took a puter in to get fixed and he
had one pic in his TEMPORARY file, the busy-body repair company called
the cops and they tried to prosecute. The judge (luckily) almost got
pissed about it... said he could have stumbled upon it by accident and
deleted it... what else was he supposed to do???
Big Brother is always closer than we think.
Gary DeWaay
@finestplanet.com 4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09 says...
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:57:08 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 22, 11:45 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:59:51 -0800, "4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> <zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >> >On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:18:08 -0800 (PST), Tracey
> >> ><tracey12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>On Jan 21, 9:04 am, "4869 Dead, 0 since 1/20/09"
> >> >><zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >> >>> 'Sexting? surprise: Teens face child porn charges
> >>
> >> >>> 6 Pa. high school students busted after sharing nude photos via cell
> >> >>> phones
> >>
> >> >>> By Mike Brunker
> >>
> >> >>> Projects Team editor
> >>
> >> >>> msnbc.com
> >>
> >> >>> Jan. 15, 2009
> >>
> >> >>> In an unusual legal case arising from the increasingly popular
> >> >>> practice known as ?sexting,? six Pennsylvania high school students are
> >> >>> facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly
> >> >>> took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male
> >> >>> classmates via their cell phones.
> >>
> >> >>> The female students at Greensburg Salem High School in Greensburg,
> >> >>> Pa., all 14- or 15-years-old, face charges of manufacturing,
> >> >>> disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys, who are
> >> >>> 16 and 17, face charges of possession, according to WPXI-TV in
> >> >>> Pittsburgh, which published the story on its Web site on Tuesday.
> >>
> >> >>> Police told the station that the photos were discovered in October,
> >> >>> after school officials seized a cell phone from a male student who was
> >> >>> using it in violation of school rules and found a nude photo of a
> >> >>> classmate on it. Police were called in and their investigation led
> >> >>> them to other phones containing more photos, it said.
> >>
> >> >>> Police Capt. George Seranko was quoted as saying that the first
> >> >>> photograph was ?a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking
> >> >>> pictures of her body, nude."
> >>
> >> >>> The school district issued a statement Tuesday saying that the
> >> >>> investigation turned up ?no evidence of inappropriate activity on
> >> >>> school grounds ? other than the violation of the electronic devices
> >> >>> policy.? The statement also said that school officials didn?t learn of
> >> >>> the charges against the students until Monday.
> >>
> >> >>> In the WPXI story, which included contributions from the Associated
> >> >>> Press, Saranko indicated that authorities decided to file the child
> >> >>> pornography charges to send a strong message to other minors who might
> >> >>> consider sending such photos to friends.
> >>
> >> >>> "It's very dangerous," he said. "Once it's on a cell phone, that cell
> >> >>> phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get
> >> >>> access to that juvenile picture. You don't realize what you are doing
> >> >>> until it's already done." (Seranko could not be reached for comment on
> >> >>> Thursday, and a woman who answered the phone at the Greensburg Police
> >> >>> Department said, ?Our department is not doing any more interviews on
> >> >>> the case.?)
> >>
> >> >>> But Patrick Artur, a Philadelphia defense attorney who by his
> >> >>> reckoning has handled at least 80 child pornography cases, said the
> >> >>> prosecution of minors for photos they took themselves runs counter to
> >> >>> the purpose of both state and federal child pornography laws:
> >> >>> Preventing the sexual abuse of children by ?dirty old men in
> >> >>> raincoats.?
> >>
> >> >>> ?It?s clearly overkill,? he said. ?? The letter of the law seems to
> >> >>> have been violated, but this is not the type of defendant that the
> >> >>> legislature envisioned? in passing the statute.
> >>
> >> >>> Artur said that because there is no mandatory minimum sentence under
> >> >>> Pennsylvania?s child pornography law, unlike the federal statute, the
> >> >>> students would not necessarily be incarcerated if they are found
> >> >>> guilty. But he noted that convictions would have "serious, serious
> >> >>> implications," including forcing them having to register as sexual
> >> >>> offenders for at least 10 years.
> >>
> >> >>> While Artur said the prosecution of a juvenile for allegedly creating
> >> >>> and distributing child porn was new to him, a quick review of federal
> >> >>> and state statistics showed there have been a handful of similar
> >> >>> cases, and several convictions.
> >>
> >> >>> While few minors have found themselves in court for e-mailing or
> >> >>> posting sexy photos of themselves, there is little doubt that
> >> >>> ubiquitous cell phones and easy access to computers have tempted many
> >> >>> to push the erotic envelope.
> >>
> >> >>> The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reported
> >> >>> last month that a survey of 1,280 teens and young adults found that 20
> >> >>> percent of the teens said they had sent or posted nude or semi nude
> >> >>> photos or videos of themselves. That number was slightly higher for
> >> >>> teenage girls ? 22 percent ? vs. boys ? 18 percent.
> >> >>> --
> >>
> >> >>> Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition,
> >> >>> as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of
> >> >>> innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
> >> >>> -- John McCain, in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the
> >> >>> American Academy of Actuaries.
> >> >>> Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
> >> >>> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
> >> >>> For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
> >> >>> For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
> >> >>> Zepps_News-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> >> >>> For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
> >> >>> Zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> >> >>> a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
> >>
> >> >>Isn't this what you liberals want, very rigid legal system that
> >> >>stomps on you for every wrong move you make?
> >>
> >> >I think it's an utterly idiotic application of a questionable law.
> >>
> >> >How do YOU feel about it?
> >>
> >> If I follow the argument, it should be illegal for an adult to look at
> >> the pictures because they're child porn, it should be illegal for an
> >> adult to take pictures of a nude minor because it's child porn, yet
> >> it's perfectly ok for a minor to take nude pictures of herself and
> >> distribute -- just don't look at them if you're an adult because that
> >> would then be child porn. How about a bit of consistency in the law?- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> >The soundest principle in law is to legislate for actions, not
> >preceptions. Since pornography is a social construct, it is not
> >possible to define it. It is possible to define certain actions as
> >illegal, actions that we might all agree upon, such as taking pictures
> >or film/video images of sexual abuse of a minor; nude images of minors
> >for public use (not family photographs); images of anyone taken or
> >used without their consent etc.
> >
> >These kids would not fall foul of any such legislation, though a stern
> >talking to by their parents might be appropriate.
> >
> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> We had a case here a few years back where a man was arrested for child
> born after one of those 24 hour photo developing outfits found
> pictures of a naked child in the film he was having processed. It was
> his two year old daughter in the tub...
>
>
I think the only picture my mom had of herself as an infant was a POSED
nude picture of her on her belly on a rug... which was prolly done
commonly in the 30's.
What other country has REGRESSED from the 30's???
The "Coppertone girl" is now being self-censored...
milt....@gmail.com
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:29:36 -0500, "Jack" <furgfurgf...@yahoo.com>
So, you think a 14 year old girl taking a nude pic of herself is child
porn?
And can you imagine how easy it would be to get someone in trouble
using your "logic"?
Think about it, for once...
A kid wants her stepfather in jail, so she takes a pic of herself
nude. The dad opens it and immediately deletes it. But because it was
on his computer once for a split second, he should be thrown in jail
next to a guy who posed 6 year olds in sexual positions and then took
pics and made money from them?
This whole black and white morality you people have has got to go.
>What's next, drug posession by
> minors is ok but not by adults?
>
Drug possession is not the same as porn possession. Drugs should be
legal. Adult porn should be legal. Kiddie porn -- that is, porn in
which young kids are used and exploited -- should be illegal. But I'm
more worried about its creation than mere possession. Not only that,
but if you're going to go after someone for possession, there is a
distinct difference between actively seeking kiddie porn, and having a
teen girl send you a pic of herself naked.