Definition Of Child Pornography
Timothy Murphy
willy nilly <wo...@willy.com> wrote in message
news:382332d1.13888019@whatulookinat...
> On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 11:27:56 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> wrote:
>
> >wo...@willy.com (willy nilly) wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 23:45:23 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>For some reason, people like you seem to think that is appropriate.
> >>>(If not, why do people keep voting for laws like that?)
> >>
> >>
> >>In defense of voting people, most of them don't vote for laws like
> >>that. In fact, my guess is most don't care, or don't care enough,
> >>about laws like that Instead, they vote for some particular person
> >>who says supports what they want, and it turns out that particular
> >>person is an idiot.
> >
> >I stand corrected.
> >You're right.
> >
> >Then why do they vote for people with agendas like that?
>
>
> SNARF! It seems Timothy anticipated your question ;-]
>
Naturally- I'm a highly talented psycotic- oh excuse me I meant psycic.
:-)
--
Timothy I. Murphy (T. I. M. don't ya just love it)
And now for the quote of the day:
TANSTAAFL- Robert A. Heinlein
Frank McCoy
>On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 11:27:56 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
>wrote:
>
>>wo...@willy.com (willy nilly) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 23:45:23 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>For some reason, people like you seem to think that is appropriate.
>>>>(If not, why do people keep voting for laws like that?)
>>>
>>>
>>>In defense of voting people, most of them don't vote for laws like
>>>that. In fact, my guess is most don't care, or don't care enough,
>>>about laws like that Instead, they vote for some particular person
>>>who says supports what they want, and it turns out that particular
>>>person is an idiot.
>>
>>I stand corrected.
>>You're right.
>>
>>Then why do they vote for people with agendas like that?
>
>
>SNARF! It seems Timothy anticipated your question ;-]
That he did. ;-{
I feel like an idiot for not seeing it.
Even knowing however, doesn't tell us how to get or keep those people with that
kind of agenda out of office. And it seems that all too often the only people
*running* for office, are those with agendas and axes to grind.
--
_____
/ ' /
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
goo...@webtv.net
"The law is far from clear, and most of the laws are unenforceable
because they are not clear. If you can not provide a clear content based
definition for child pornography you can not enforce any law based on
that definition- by refusing to try and come up with one you cut your
own throat."
Well the legal definition seems to be sufficiently enforceable to have
landed a whole bunch of pedo-asses in the pokey.....at least the ones
that didn't off themselves before they got there, of course.
And sufficiently enforceable to have the others running around in a
panic about being discovered, exposed, and jailed. Which is fine with
me.
And we're going to keep it that way.
*******************
Pedophiles Collect Child Abuse
Timothy Murphy
<goo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29176-38...@storefull-112.bryant.webtv.net...
> Timothy wrote:
>
> "The law is far from clear, and most of the laws are unenforceable
> because they are not clear. If you can not provide a clear content based
> definition for child pornography you can not enforce any law based on
> that definition- by refusing to try and come up with one you cut your
> own throat."
>
> Well the legal definition seems to be sufficiently enforceable to have
> landed a whole bunch of pedo-asses in the pokey.....at least the ones
> that didn't off themselves before they got there, of course.
Well certain things are going to be so clearly child pornography that
possession would clearly be illegal. But if I'm not mistaken you can run
down to B. Daltons or Borders today and buy Photo Art books with nude
pictures of children in non-sexual poses (whatever that means- a good lawyer
could have a field day with that term in court providing there is no
touching of sexual organs in the photo.), so it would probably be difficult
to prosecute someone under anti-pornography laws for possessing scans out of
those books.
>
> And sufficiently enforceable to have the others running around in a
> panic about being discovered, exposed, and jailed. Which is fine with
> me.
Who's running around in a panic? The only people I see agitating about
child pornography are you and a few trolls.
>
> And we're going to keep it that way.
>
> *******************
Right up until the first millionaire is caught with CP on his computer- then
the case is going to get fought to the Supreme Court and the weakness of the
pornography definitions in those laws are going to get them trashed.
Frank McCoy
>Timothy wrote:
>
>"The law is far from clear, and most of the laws are unenforceable
>because they are not clear. If you can not provide a clear content based
>definition for child pornography you can not enforce any law based on
>that definition- by refusing to try and come up with one you cut your
>own throat."
>
>Well the legal definition seems to be sufficiently enforceable to have
>landed a whole bunch of pedo-asses in the pokey.....at least the ones
>that didn't off themselves before they got there, of course.
>
That people can be put in jail for breaking a law, does NOT prove that the law
is in any way shape or form "clear" or well-defined.
Being enforceable, only means that a District Attorney can convince at least one
judge or jury that some person has broken that law. Often, in an almost
identical case someone else might get off with a different jury, judge, or
lawyer.
So being "enforceable" proves nothing about the clarity of the law.
>And sufficiently enforceable to have the others running around in a
>panic about being discovered, exposed, and jailed. Which is fine with
>me.
>
>And we're going to keep it that way.
>
>*******************
>
>Pedophiles Collect Child Abuse
goo...@webtv.net
"Right up until the first millionaire is caught with CP on his computer-
then the case is going to get fought to the Supreme Court and the
weakness of the pornography definitions in those laws are going to get
them trashed."
You really dont know too much about this subject, do you, Timothy?
Millionaires have been caught with CP PLENTY of times....and been
convicted.
And CP Law has already been upheld by the Supreme Court.
************
Pedophiles Collect Child Abuse Photographs, Supplied To Them By Child
Abusers.
goo...@webtv.net
deterrent.
Even Frank McCoy tells us he doesn't look at it because it's
illegal...and he has too much to lose.
So it's extremely EFFECTIVE in minimizing demand....as well as
prosecuting offenders.
****************
Pedophiles Are Child Abuse
Timothy Murphy
<goo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:27414-38...@storefull-114.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Timothy wrote:
> "Right up until the first millionaire is caught with CP on his computer-
> then the case is going to get fought to the Supreme Court and the
> weakness of the pornography definitions in those laws are going to get
> them trashed."
>
> You really dont know too much about this subject, do you, Timothy?
> Millionaires have been caught with CP PLENTY of times....and been
> convicted.
Cite your cases counselor- I've never heard of even ONE millianaire being
convicted under CP laws- and that's something that would certainly make the
news.
>
> And CP Law has already been upheld by the Supreme Court.
>
Cite the Case please. This is one of the subjects the Supreme Court keeps
pushing back down to the lower courts because it's such a political hot
potato.
Timothy Murphy
<goo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:27414-38...@storefull-114.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Simple solution to this debate- and since Goody is the one who asserts that
CP laws are enforcable Goody can do the research- how many cases have been
filed under CP laws in the last five years, and what percentage successfully
resulted in a conviction?
Go to it Goody- prove us all wrong by actually coming back here with some
FACTS.
Frank McCoy
>Child Pornography Law is VERY enforceable..and it's VERY much a
>deterrent.
>
>Even Frank McCoy tells us he doesn't look at it because it's
>illegal...and he has too much to lose.
>
You miss the point entirely.
Because they are so vague, I don't dare look at ANYTHING that might be
misconstrued as being child-porn. No pictures of children, no pictures of porn,
no pictures of friends or relatives (if they are children), no pictures of any
kind except cartoons, and those that come with commercial software. And
sometimes I worry about the cartoons ...
But that I guess is the price I must pay for writing stories like mine, and
being willing to defend them as freedom of speech. I must remain sure that any
defense against attacks on me and my stories or words on the net are not
side-stepped by accusations of me having child-pornography.
Yes, I have too much to lose. When I'm fighting for ONE cause, I cannot let the
fight be derailed by side issues.
>So it's extremely EFFECTIVE in minimizing demand....as well as
>prosecuting offenders.
>
What you mean is, it's so EFFECTIVE at causing hysteria, both in those like you
who don't know what it is but say they are against it; and those who like to
look at pictures of children ... and who don't know what it is, and are afraid
that what to them is an innocent picture, will to somebody like you be
child-pornography.
Since neither side knows what it is, and there is no definition, then anybody
can be arrested for any picture containing a child ... and the only defense is
to go through a trial. And of course, we all know that anybody arrested for
child-pornography is treated as innocent, until proven guilty ... right?
Har har HAR!!!!
Timothy Murphy
Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:q4wLOLAmXR4ZKZ...@4ax.com...
And the situation will remain this way until some overzealous DA goes after
someone with the resources to take it all the way to the Supreme Court- and
the clout to persuade the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Frank McCoy
>
>
><goo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:27414-38...@storefull-114.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>> Timothy wrote:
>> "Right up until the first millionaire is caught with CP on his computer-
>> then the case is going to get fought to the Supreme Court and the
>> weakness of the pornography definitions in those laws are going to get
>> them trashed."
>>
>> You really dont know too much about this subject, do you, Timothy?
>> Millionaires have been caught with CP PLENTY of times....and been
>> convicted.
>
>Cite your cases counselor- I've never heard of even ONE millianaire being
>convicted under CP laws- and that's something that would certainly make the
>news.
>
>>
>> And CP Law has already been upheld by the Supreme Court.
>>
>
>Cite the Case please. This is one of the subjects the Supreme Court keeps
>pushing back down to the lower courts because it's such a political hot
>potato.
The SC is a bunch of savvy old goats in knowing which cases to try, and which
ones to duck. Not one wants to be a member of the court that gutted the First
Amendment, yet they all know that if they took such a case and did anything
else, then they would be as reviled by the religious right as those who
supported a woman's right to abortion.
So ... they can either:
A. Support the Constitution and be reviled as supporting child-pornography.
B. Ignore the First Amendment, and be remembered as the court that
didn't hold up their duties, and so denied their oaths of office to
support the Constitution of the United States.
(Not much more politically palatable than the first choice.)
C. Ignore the case, and hope it goes away.
Since option 'C' is time-honored policy, and nobody is going to die immediately
because of their procrastination, the choice seems easy for what are essentially
political appointees.
I know ... I KNOW. Isn't that exactly what you said?
Sorry.
goo...@webtv.net
"....they [The Supreme Court] can either:
A. Support the Constitution and be reviled as supporting
child-pornography.
B. Ignore the First Amendment, and be remembered as the court that
didn't hold up their duties, and so denied their oaths of office to
support the Constitution of the United States. (Not much more
politically palatable than the first choice.)
C. Ignore the case, and hope it goes away."
C is the easiest, but they've already dealt with it. I don't have the
info saved, but I know it has happened.
The Supreme Court doesn't have to "ignore the 1st Amendment" to maintain
CP as illegal. There are TONS of ways of doing that even without
putting it in the class of "crying fire in a crowded theater"...which
would also work. A few I can think of are:
1) Possession of any material procured via a criminal act is illegal to
possess. Like a stolen TV.
2) Conflict of Rights. The right of an abused child to not be further
abused by public humiliation.
3) The Right to Privacy. Seems connected to the above, but there are
differences. And let's not forget...the Right to Privacy was the whole
justification for Roe v Wade...so it's REAL powerful! Whether or not a
fetus is a human being didn't even get a chance to be discussed. (And
children are obviously "human beings".)
Those are just a few that come to me off the top of my head.
So....Supreme Court CP decisions would not be any biggie to resolve to
the satisfaction of most people.
****************
The "Asylum" Is The Place Pedophiles Go To Trade CP Child Abuse
Pictures.
Frank McCoy
Sadly, what you say is all too true.
Or, (possibly) until somebody rich enough decides to MAKE a case out of it, and
forces some DA's hand.
I can't see any DA really wanting to be the person who was responsible for
bringing THAT case to the Supreme Court. Especially if he *is* in favor of the
law. Tis much better to use the present situation to threaten the small fry.
Frank McCoy
Um...
I could pick those arguments apart like an old sock, but I won't unless invited
to. For you goody, those are almost intelligent arguments, and I'm impressed.
I'm sure SOME reasonable and intelligent lawyer could come up with REAL
arguments to put forward. (Whether they were valid or not, would be up to the
SC to decide.)
So, I'll let you claim victory by default, unless you want to carry it further.
But:
If what you say is true, then WHY does the SC keep ignoring the chance to make
definative judgements on every such case that comes up on the docket?
Methinks the "hot potato" theory is still valid.
Timothy Murphy
Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:JqsLOPqvwAu9a3...@4ax.com...
> So ... they can either:
> A. Support the Constitution and be reviled as supporting
child-pornography.
> B. Ignore the First Amendment, and be remembered as the court that
> didn't hold up their duties, and so denied their oaths of office to
> support the Constitution of the United States.
> (Not much more politically palatable than the first choice.)
> C. Ignore the case, and hope it goes away.
>
> Since option 'C' is time-honored policy, and nobody is going to die
immediately
> because of their procrastination, the choice seems easy for what are
essentially
> political appointees.
>
>
> I know ... I KNOW. Isn't that exactly what you said?
> Sorry.
But you explained the WHY, wheras I only reported the result.
Timothy Murphy
<goo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26018-38...@storefull-111.bryant.webtv.net...
McCoy wrote:
"....they [The Supreme Court] can either:
A. Support the Constitution and be reviled as supporting
child-pornography.
B. Ignore the First Amendment, and be remembered as the court that
didn't hold up their duties, and so denied their oaths of office to
support the Constitution of the United States. (Not much more
politically palatable than the first choice.)
C. Ignore the case, and hope it goes away."
>C is the easiest, but they've already dealt with it. I don't have the
>info saved, but I know it has happened.
>The Supreme Court doesn't have to "ignore the 1st Amendment" to maintain
>CP as illegal. There are TONS of ways of doing that even without
>putting it in the class of "crying fire in a crowded theater"...which
>would also work. A few I can think of are:
The way the current laws are written the Supreme Court would have to ignore
the 1st Amendment, the definitions are so vague that it amounts to giving
local DA's and Law Enforcement carte blanche to declare anything they find
personally distasteful obscence and prosecute. And since the 'reckless
endangerment' factor which comes into play with the "crying fire in a
crowded theater" example would have to be proven for EVERY item which would
be suppressed by the definitions in the law- that also falls by the wayside.
>1) Possession of any material procured via a criminal act is illegal to
>possess. Like a stolen TV.
It is only illegal to possess a stolen TV if the state can prove YOU stole
it or that you KNEW it was stolen or within reason should have realized that
it was stolen (i.e.- Some guy running out of a building carrying a brand new
19" TV/VCR combo offers to sell it to you for $20- any reasonable person
should suspect the item is stolen- wheras if the same person offered you the
same thing out of the back of their van for $100 you could probably beat a
possession wrap by maintaining you just thought they were wholesaling the
product.)
As applied to CP this means you have to PROVE that the individual KNEW the
materials in question were illegal- not so easy to do with the definitions
of CP being so hazy and open to interpetation.
>2) Conflict of Rights. The right of an abused child to not be further
>abused by public humiliation.
>3) The Right to Privacy. Seems connected to the above, but there are
>differences. And let's not forget...the Right to Privacy was the whole
>justification for Roe v Wade...so it's REAL powerful! Whether or not a
>fetus is a human being didn't even get a chance to be discussed. (And
>children are obviously "human beings".)
Points 2 & 3 refer to the same thing- the trouble with this approach is that
only the individuals actually depicted in the photos have any legal standing
to bring suit under the Right to Privacy clauses.
>Those are just a few that come to me off the top of my head.
And none of them stand up.
>So....Supreme Court CP decisions would not be any biggie to resolve to
>the satisfaction of most people.
Wrong again. But at least this time you thought it out- you're improving.
Timothy Murphy
Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:d84LONFOMCBgCB...@4ax.com...
> goo...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>
> Um...
> I could pick those arguments apart like an old sock, but I won't unless
invited
> to. For you goody, those are almost intelligent arguments, and I'm
impressed.
> I'm sure SOME reasonable and intelligent lawyer could come up with REAL
> arguments to put forward. (Whether they were valid or not, would be up to
the
> SC to decide.)
>
> So, I'll let you claim victory by default, unless you want to carry it
further.
> But:
> If what you say is true, then WHY does the SC keep ignoring the chance to
make
> definative judgements on every such case that comes up on the docket?
>
> Methinks the "hot potato" theory is still valid.
>
> --
Well damn- sorry Frank- I already picked them apart like an old sock.
The Viewer
wrote:
>"Timothy Murphy" <timoth...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><goo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>>news:27414-38...@storefull-114.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>>> Timothy wrote:
>>> "Right up until the first millionaire is caught with CP on his computer-
>>> then the case is going to get fought to the Supreme Court and the
>>> weakness of the pornography definitions in those laws are going to get
>>> them trashed."
>>>
>>> You really dont know too much about this subject, do you, Timothy?
>>> Millionaires have been caught with CP PLENTY of times....and been
>>> convicted.
>>
>>Cite your cases counselor- I've never heard of even ONE millianaire being
>>convicted under CP laws- and that's something that would certainly make the
>>news.
>>
It would never get to court. Like the millionaire from Seattle who
spent the night with two girls, in Longbeach Ca. . The L. A.
prosecutor said he only kissed them so no charges were filed. The
girls were something like eight & twelve.
>>>
>>> And CP Law has already been upheld by the Supreme Court.
>>>
>>
>>Cite the Case please. This is one of the subjects the Supreme Court keeps
>>pushing back down to the lower courts because it's such a political hot
>>potato.
>
>The SC is a bunch of savvy old goats in knowing which cases to try, and which
>ones to duck. Not one wants to be a member of the court that gutted the First
>Amendment, yet they all know that if they took such a case and did anything
>else, then they would be as reviled by the religious right as those who
>supported a woman's right to abortion.
>
>So ... they can either:
>A. Support the Constitution and be reviled as supporting child-pornography.
>B. Ignore the First Amendment, and be remembered as the court that
> didn't hold up their duties, and so denied their oaths of office to
> support the Constitution of the United States.
> (Not much more politically palatable than the first choice.)
>C. Ignore the case, and hope it goes away.
>
>Since option 'C' is time-honored policy, and nobody is going to die immediately
>because of their procrastination, the choice seems easy for what are essentially
>political appointees.
>
>
>I know ... I KNOW. Isn't that exactly what you said?
>Sorry.
>
Anonymous
mean its range of applicability would be smaller than is now the case.
The 'material procured via a criminal act' has as its weakness that the
maker of the photograph is also protected by the First Amendment, and thus
the criminal act involved cannot be the making of the photograph. This
would thus only apply to those cases where the thing that is being
photographed is a criminal act, or the result of a criminal act, itself.
Thus, it could include pictures of children having sex with adults, but
sexual acts that involve only a child would be illegal only if they had
been coerced or forced into doing so. And if there is no actual sexual act,
but just 'lascivious showing of the genitals' this would be even more the
case.
The 'conflicts of rights' arguments only apply when the child shown (or
their parents when they are still minor, or their heirs when they are
dead) does actually object to the photographs and/or their distribution.
When the child (or the parties known) approve of it, it cannot apply. I
also think it would apply only to distribution, not not mere possession.
Actually, I think using this kind of arguments one could come to a more
objective and saner definition of what should be forbidden as child porn.
What about:
"It is forbidden to create, distribute or possess a picture or other
information carrier, for the production of which it is known or highly
probable that acts have been committed that break <name laws and clauses
defining sex crimes against minors>, or that would have done so had they
been committed within the United States (or whichever other entity is the
jurisdiction of the law) at the time the picture was distributed or
possessed."
--
Nothing is more beautiful than a happy child
Desire, GLDe...@hotmail.com, http://www.fpc.net/pages/desire/
Frank McCoy
>>>Cite your cases counselor- I've never heard of even ONE millianaire being
>>>convicted under CP laws- and that's something that would certainly make the
>>>news.
>>>
>It would never get to court. Like the millionaire from Seattle who
>spent the night with two girls, in Longbeach Ca. . The L. A.
>prosecutor said he only kissed them so no charges were filed. The
>girls were something like eight & twelve.
In most cases District Attorneys are VERY reluctant to prosecute the very
wealthy ... for a very good reason: They have limited budgets. If the person
being charged spends more on spare change every day than their whole department
gets in a year, it's HARD to justify dumping 100 other cases that CAN be easily
won to prosecute a millionaire who's conviction would be problematical at best,
and most likely thrown out on a technicality at worst. Only if the case is open
and shut so even an amateur attorney could prosecute it, or the case has VERY
high visibility in the press, will a DA even try. Usually, the best he can hope
for is a plea-bargain to a VERY minor crime.
Yes, I know ... that's why we have the present system of, "justice for the
Rich."
It's also a fact of life.
Frank McCoy
Um ... right now, it is possible for a young married couple as young as 12 years
old (Yes, in SOME places that young) to be having regular sex every day, have
and raise children, yet both could be arrested, put in jail, and their children
taken away if they even once took a picture of themselves having sex together.
This also applies (in the ENTIRE US of A) if the "children" are as old as 17 1/2
years. They could be married for several years and have children ready to start
school, and still just ONE picture taken by themselves of themselves engaged in
completely legal sexual activity could bring the full force of the law down on
them. Six months later, photographing the same completely legal activity would
just earn them LOTS of money from the porn industry, instead of a trip to jail.
Is this ridiculous, or what?
In spite of goody's claim that all "child pornography" is rape and molestation,
what possible claim could be made of that for the above cases? Still, as goody
points out so clearly, "That IS the law!"
However, YOUR suggestion above at least would clear up this matter.
If it wasn't rape or illegal activity, then it wouldn't be CP.
THAT however, would set people's teeth on edge, because they wouldn't be able to
ban pictures of what they don't like.
Timothy Murphy
Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:SJEMOI+X9aMiXZ5qZN6k=aLb...@4ax.com...
Pardon me for trying to simplify this statement- it's a habit I'm getting
into so the trolls and Goody can understand me. You just said that DA's
pick their cases like playground bullies pick their fights: NEVER EVER go
after someone that might can whip you unless you're going to lose a lot of
your reputation if you don't. Is that about right?
Frank McCoy
Well, almost.
I think you missed the point about the limited budget though.
It would be HARD to justify spending the entire budget on one person, even if
you DID get a conviction, when you could convict many criminals with the same
money. It's a case of getting the most from your tax dollar (which surprisingly
many DAs actually DO care about). Look how much LA spent on the OJ Simpson
case, and STILL didn't get a conviction! Now ... try justifying THAT to either
your boss, or the voters.
goo...@webtv.net
"As applied to CP this means you have to PROVE that the individual KNEW
the materials in question were illegal- not so easy to do with the
definitions of CP being so hazy and open to interpetation."
CP Law is almost identical to the laws governing Child Sexual Abuse.
Anything that would be a crime if acted out with a child... is CP, if
depicted in a photo. It's against the law to have sex with
children...OR encourage them to have sex with each other....OR engage in
sexual activity, or flagrant sexual display, even if they are alone. So
ALL that CP would be clearly easy to keep illegal....because it would be
the "product of a crime".
This is a slam-dunk.
The only "hazy" or "grey areas" are when you get into nudity. "Simple
Nudity" of children is not illegal. But "Sexually Suggestive Nudity" IS
illegal. And flagrant cases of THAT is easy to spot, and correctly
identify.
Again....a slam-dunk.
What are we left with? "Grey-Area Nudity" of children. A small
percentage of CP....and NOT what pedophiles want, given their druthers.
Even this grey area is being further tightened, daily almost...as pedos
are forced to "adjust" to law (at least as far as they do adjust).
What's amazing to me is: How vociferously pedophiles complain that
they...."merely"....want to "admire the BEAUTY of nude children".....but
can't be satisfied with MERELY NUDE CHILDREN.
"Merely nude children" are all over the net! But that is not what is
wanted by pedophiles. They want nude children acting like performing
sex-monkeys. They want "kiddie porno-performers".
All their talk about "nudity" is a crock of baloney. Child NUDITY does
nothing for them! They want pictures that sexually-objectify children.
Just as adult-porno fans want sexually-objectifying pictures of adults.
Pedophiles want..in their porno...EXACTLY what adult-porno fans want.
The MOST BEAUTIFUL children they can find...in EVERY SEXUAL ACT that can
possibly be concieved....so EACH ONE OF THEM can find... as many images
as possible.... of the EXACT COMBINATION that gives them the biggest
thrill they can get.
They want the same sexual cornucopia that non-pedophiles "enjoy" on the
internet.
And if rape....or any other horror has to be inflicted on children to
get it....it's a SMALL PRICE to be paid....compared with what they get.
**************
The public is not fooled. The public knows exactly what is going on.
"Love" has NOTHING to do with pedophilia.
It's the other L-word.
************
Lust.
***********
Pedophiles Are Child Abuse Photography
Timothy Murphy
Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:qqsMOKLwHc=3kR45x9O...@4ax.com...
> Well, almost.
> I think you missed the point about the limited budget though.
> It would be HARD to justify spending the entire budget on one person, even
if
> you DID get a conviction, when you could convict many criminals with the
same
> money. It's a case of getting the most from your tax dollar (which
surprisingly
> many DAs actually DO care about). Look how much LA spent on the OJ
Simpson
> case, and STILL didn't get a conviction! Now ... try justifying THAT to
either
> your boss, or the voters.
>
You're right. But it still boils down to picking on the little guys because
they're easier to pick on.
Timothy Murphy
<goo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17846-38...@storefull-115.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Timothy wrote:
> "As applied to CP this means you have to PROVE that the individual KNEW
> the materials in question were illegal- not so easy to do with the
> definitions of CP being so hazy and open to interpetation."
>
> CP Law is almost identical to the laws governing Child Sexual Abuse.
> Anything that would be a crime if acted out with a child... is CP, if
> depicted in a photo. It's against the law to have sex with
> children...OR encourage them to have sex with each other....OR engage in
> sexual activity, or flagrant sexual display, even if they are alone. So
> ALL that CP would be clearly easy to keep illegal....because it would be
> the "product of a crime".
>
> This is a slam-dunk.
On this point we are in agreement.
>
> The only "hazy" or "grey areas" are when you get into nudity. "Simple
> Nudity" of children is not illegal. But "Sexually Suggestive Nudity" IS
> illegal. And flagrant cases of THAT is easy to spot, and correctly
> identify.
>
> Again....a slam-dunk.
Not quite a slam dunk- what you think is 'flagrant' might not be considered
such by someone else.
>
> What are we left with? "Grey-Area Nudity" of children. A small
> percentage of CP....and NOT what pedophiles want, given their druthers.
> Even this grey area is being further tightened, daily almost...as pedos
> are forced to "adjust" to law (at least as far as they do adjust).
>
Unfortunately neither you or I can judge what percentage any type of picture
makes of CP- you state you've only seen one photo and I haven't seen any.
Hold your breath a second- I'm about to do something you're not going to
like.
HELLO OUT THERE. Frank indicated that there are people from this Asylum
that Goody talks about reading this group. If there is one who downloads
pictures reading this- could you give us some idea of what perecentage of
each type of picture described above constitutes of the pictures posted to
that group?
> What's amazing to me is: How vociferously pedophiles complain that
> they...."merely"....want to "admire the BEAUTY of nude children".....but
> can't be satisfied with MERELY NUDE CHILDREN.
>
Okay- Frank has proven he's willing and able to back up his statements by
reposting from his archives- now it's your turn to go into your meticulously
maintained archive and produce a post to back up the above statement.
> "Merely nude children" are all over the net! But that is not what is
> wanted by pedophiles. They want nude children acting like performing
> sex-monkeys. They want "kiddie porno-performers".
>
> All their talk about "nudity" is a crock of baloney. Child NUDITY does
> nothing for them! They want pictures that sexually-objectify children.
> Just as adult-porno fans want sexually-objectifying pictures of adults.
>
And produce posts to back up these claims.
> Pedophiles want..in their porno...EXACTLY what adult-porno fans want.
> The MOST BEAUTIFUL children they can find...in EVERY SEXUAL ACT that can
> possibly be concieved....so EACH ONE OF THEM can find... as many images
> as possible.... of the EXACT COMBINATION that gives them the biggest
> thrill they can get.
>
> They want the same sexual cornucopia that non-pedophiles "enjoy" on the
> internet.
>
> And if rape....or any other horror has to be inflicted on children to
> get it....it's a SMALL PRICE to be paid....compared with what they get.
>
On what basis do you make these remarks? This is a very sweeping
conclusion- explain how you reached it, what evidence exists to substantiate
your claims.
There may be hope for you yet- you started this post out pretty reasonably.
Frank McCoy
>HELLO OUT THERE. Frank indicated that there are people from this Asylum
>that Goody talks about reading this group. If there is one who downloads
>pictures reading this- could you give us some idea of what perecentage of
>each type of picture described above constitutes of the pictures posted to
>that group?
Hell, just because I don't look at the pictures there, doesn't mean I can't see
the headers! My kill-filter just marks the ones I don't want to see as "ignore"
not "delete" so I usually don't see them.
HOWEVER, if I switch views to "Show ALL headers" from my usual "Show unread
headers", then I can see what I missed out on, so I can (if necessary) adjust my
kill-filters, or look at a thread of conversation that looks interesting that my
filters had set to be ignored.
And it's fairly obvious from the requests AND complaints, that there are mainly
six types of pictures posted there. You don't have to look at the pictures,
just the comments, to figure out what each series is (often they are
well-labeled as well). The six types are:
Cute pictures of kids.
"Jap Crap" (trademarked)
Nude pictures.
Panty Ads
Soft core
Hard core
The first, is just pictures of kids, like anybody would take.
The second, is (usually slightly censored) pictures of naked girls, usually from
oriental countries, with (generally) the genitalia covered in some manner.
The third is stuff copied from nudist magazines or Amateur Action BBS or
similar.
The fourth is just what it sounds like ... pictures cut from advertisements.
The fifth is nude kids posing in erotic positions or situations.
The fifth is kids actually having sex ... usually with other kids, but not
always. MOST of those are old, but not all.
Some (of course) don't fit neatly into the categories.
What percentages are they?
From looking at the headers over a period of time, my guess is the first group
is very small ... less than five percent. The other four groups probably are
about equal over time, with floods of one type or another running from month to
month.
You don't have to download pictures to get this information; just read the
requests, read the comments, but most important: read the headers.
I go back and read ALL the headers periodically ... just to see what I've
missed. Sometimes my kill-filters makes me miss messages to ME!
Frank McCoy
>On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 12:53:25 -0400, "Timothy Murphy"
><timoth...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
>Without getting too cynical about it, it's true that a DA has a job to
>do just like anybody else. And he has a boss just like anybody else.
>And that boss uses arbitrary metrics to evaluate his performance. And
>one of those metrics is the percentage of convictions. So you can
>take that to mean he picks his fights like a playground bully or like
>someone who is trying to optimize his job rating or like someone who
>is trying to not waste the taxpayers' money - no sense bringing
>unwinnable cases to court.
The point I was trying to make ... only better said.
The Viewer
wrote:
>"Timothy Murphy" <timoth...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Well, almost.
>I think you missed the point about the limited budget though.
>It would be HARD to justify spending the entire budget on one person, even if
>you DID get a conviction, when you could convict many criminals with the same
>money. It's a case of getting the most from your tax dollar (which surprisingly
>many DAs actually DO care about). Look how much LA spent on the OJ Simpson
>case, and STILL didn't get a conviction! Now ... try justifying THAT to either
>your boss, or the voters.
>
You'll find the same Prosicutor was the same one who pushed the
McMartin case.
goo...@webtv.net
"In spite of goody's claim that all "child pornography" is rape and
Frank McCoy is deliberately lying in the above sentence. I always
include sexual exploitation, when I define CP....unless I am discussing
that segment of it that ONLY depicts an adult's hands (or other bodily
parts) touching the abused child's body.
So why is Frank McCoy LYING about me, and my "claims"?
There can only be two reasons. Because he is a liar... or too stupid to
notice...or remember....what I actually DID claim.
If the latter (and he has indicated having a memory problem)...then he
has no business commenting upon my claims, and should remove himself
from the discussion.
*************
Child Pornography is: The photographs obtained for pedophiles via the
rape, sexual assault, molestation, and sexual exploitation of babies,
children, adolescents, and minor teen-agers.
Eric Cordian
> Frank McCoy is deliberately lying in the above sentence. I always
> include sexual exploitation, when I define CP....unless I am discussing
> that segment of it that ONLY depicts an adult's hands (or other bodily
> parts) touching the abused child's body.
You are deliberately using a word, "exploitation," which has a dual
meaning.
It may mean productively using something without negative connotations, as
in "we have been very successful in exploiting our nation's offshore oil
resources."
It may also suggest the production of something to the detriment of
someone involved, as in "women are sexually exploited when they are
featured in Playboy."
When you, by definition, label all erotica featuring minors as "sexual
exploitation," you employ the first definition to defend your position.
Yet, when you make statements about "rape, molestation, and sexual
exploitation," being involved in all such material, you are implying the
second.
This is a common technique used by child sex hysterics when creating
slogans, that of using ambigious meanings of the same word to argue one
thing while suggesting a second.
Certainly you would not argue that everyone under the age of 18 is harmed
in some way whenever a reference is made to their sexuality in visual or
printed media, or when a member of an audience exposed to such a depiction
finds it pleasant or sexually arousing.
--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Timothy Murphy
<goo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14431-38...@storefull-111.bryant.webtv.net...
> Sobber McCoy wrote:
> "In spite of goody's claim that all "child pornography" is rape and
> molestation, what..."
>
> Frank McCoy is deliberately lying in the above sentence. I always
> include sexual exploitation, when I define CP....unless I am discussing
> that segment of it that ONLY depicts an adult's hands (or other bodily
> parts) touching the abused child's body.
>
> So why is Frank McCoy LYING about me, and my "claims"?
>
> There can only be two reasons. Because he is a liar... or too stupid to
> notice...or remember....what I actually DID claim.
There is a third reason- the correct one in this case. You toss out so
many false statements and accusations that YOU can't remember what you've
claimed. I'd be careful here- unlike you Frank does keep meticulous records
of newsgroup postings.
>
> If the latter (and he has indicated having a memory problem)...then he
> has no business commenting upon my claims, and should remove himself
> from the discussion.
Your claims are based on nothing- so by your own logic you should remove
yourself from the discussion.
>
> *************
> Child Pornography is: The photographs obtained for pedophiles via the
> rape, sexual assault, molestation, and sexual exploitation of babies,
> children, adolescents, and minor teen-agers.
>
You still can't get around that "obtained for pedophiles" bit- you do
realize that this definition excuses all sorts of sexual abuse of children,
and the recording of it, so long as the primary motive of the abusers has
nothing to do with any attraction to children. Why are you so determined to
let Sadists off the hook here?
Anonymous
> they...."merely"....want to "admire the BEAUTY of nude children".....but
> can't be satisfied with MERELY NUDE CHILDREN.
Probably this is because you still do not realize that not all of us are the
same. Did you never realize that perhaps there are SOME pedophiles who "merely
want to admire the beauty of nude children" (or clothed children for that
matter) and OTHERS who want 'more' in the sexual sense? You say you have been
around in abpep-t. I have not, but I have in other groups met people who used
to go there and got sick of the ever-lasting discussion between those two
groups.
> And if rape....or any other horror has to be inflicted on children to
> get it....it's a SMALL PRICE to be paid....compared with what they get.
Unfortunately, there are some who feel that way. Sadly. There are even those
who rape children themselves. It can make one mad. But I would not like to
be included in that group just because I am a pedophile too. Please do not
use 'pedophile' as a synonym of 'hard core child porn user', and you will
find a much more sympathetic ear with me.
Anonymous
> Is this ridiculous, or what?
To add to your USA examples: In Canada the AOC is 14 - yet it is forbidden
to make a writing that is considered promoting sex with people under 18! As
someone once noticed - if a 14 yo girl has (willing) sex with someone, both
parties go free - but if she writes about it in her diary it is suddenly CP.
> In spite of goody's claim that all "child pornography" is rape and molestation,
> what possible claim could be made of that for the above cases? Still, as goody
> points out so clearly, "That IS the law!"
Not to mention that the laws on CP often go much further than the laws on
sex - here in the Netherlands a picture of a nudist girl was once considered
child porn because she was sitting with her legs spread, and more than once
it has been tried (and sometimes succeeded) to regard pictures of nude boys
as CP because the boys had erections. In the UK people have been arrested
for filming their child while playing nude in the living room after bath
(IIRC, this person was acquitted but her reputation demolished). In the USA
a man has been convicted because he had photographed (or was it filmed?)
girls' crotches - even though the girls were wearing bathing suits. Many
countries have made it illegal, or plan to make it illegal, to produce CP
on the computer, even if no children at all are involved. Canada and Ireland
have included written texts 'advocating sex with minors'.
> In spite of goody's claim that all "child pornography" is rape and molestation,
> what possible claim could be made of that for the above cases? Still, as goody
> points out so clearly, "That IS the law!"
And to show it's not just academic: An American boy had been arrested on
producing, possessing and distributin child porn after showing a film of
him and his former girlfriend having sex to his friends. (note: the sex
and the filming were consensual, although showing it to his friends was
not)
> However, YOUR suggestion above at least would clear up this matter.
> If it wasn't rape or illegal activity, then it wouldn't be CP.
> THAT however, would set people's teeth on edge, because they wouldn't be able to
> ban pictures of what they don't like.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Earlier in this thread you
complained that the laws were so vague. Now you say my proposal will
never get through because it is not vague.
Timothy Murphy
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote in message
news:1999102019...@sofuku.monster.org...
>In the USA
> a man has been convicted because he had photographed (or was it filmed?)
> girls' crotches - even though the girls were wearing bathing suits.
I believe I recall hearing about this case- it was filming and the girls
were in ballet leotards- IIRC he filmed ballet classes then distributed the
tapes. The basis of the prosecution was that he had focused on the genital
areas too much so the intent of the film must have been sexual. I don't
know if he was convicted in a lower court and won on appeal- but when I
heard about it he had been acquited because the court ruled that there was
no way the prosecutor could prove what his intention was. But he had
already been tarred by the press for producing 'Kiddy Porn' and was out all
his legal fees.
Frank McCoy
>Frank McCoy writes:
>> Is this ridiculous, or what?
>
>To add to your USA examples: In Canada the AOC is 14 - yet it is forbidden
>to make a writing that is considered promoting sex with people under 18! As
>someone once noticed - if a 14 yo girl has (willing) sex with someone, both
>parties go free - but if she writes about it in her diary it is suddenly CP.
>
>> In spite of goody's claim that all "child pornography" is rape and molestation,
>> what possible claim could be made of that for the above cases? Still, as goody
>> points out so clearly, "That IS the law!"
>
>Not to mention that the laws on CP often go much further than the laws on
>sex - here in the Netherlands a picture of a nudist girl was once considered
>child porn because she was sitting with her legs spread, and more than once
>it has been tried (and sometimes succeeded) to regard pictures of nude boys
>as CP because the boys had erections. In the UK people have been arrested
>for filming their child while playing nude in the living room after bath
>(IIRC, this person was acquitted but her reputation demolished). In the USA
>a man has been convicted because he had photographed (or was it filmed?)
>girls' crotches - even though the girls were wearing bathing suits. Many
>countries have made it illegal, or plan to make it illegal, to produce CP
>on the computer, even if no children at all are involved. Canada and Ireland
>have included written texts 'advocating sex with minors'.
>
>> In spite of goody's claim that all "child pornography" is rape and molestation,
>> what possible claim could be made of that for the above cases? Still, as goody
>> points out so clearly, "That IS the law!"
>
>And to show it's not just academic: An American boy had been arrested on
>producing, possessing and distributin child porn after showing a film of
>him and his former girlfriend having sex to his friends. (note: the sex
>and the filming were consensual, although showing it to his friends was
>not)
>
>> However, YOUR suggestion above at least would clear up this matter.
>> If it wasn't rape or illegal activity, then it wouldn't be CP.
>> THAT however, would set people's teeth on edge, because they wouldn't be able to
>> ban pictures of what they don't like.
>
>You can't have your cake and eat it too. Earlier in this thread you
>complained that the laws were so vague. Now you say my proposal will
>never get through because it is not vague.
Exactly!
The people who support the law, WANT it vague!
They WANT to be able to arrest anybody for anything that even SMELLS like KP to
them. If the law is concrete and defined, then they would have to allow things
to be printed or distributed that they personally would abhor, even though it
would be legal under the new law.
For example, that couple I mentioned, who were married and having legal sex
COULD have pictures taken of them doing so, and the blue noses wouldn't be able
to have them or the photographer thrown in jail for doing so.
Do you REALLY expect me to believe that the moralists would go for that? No
matter HOW consensual the sex is, they want the LAW to call it rape. If they
can't get that, then they want to make it illegal anyway, in any manner that
they can. And most especially, they don't want pictures of that.
The moralists lost a BIG battle in regular pornography. Before about 1960 or
so, ANY depiction of even adults over 35 having ANY kind of sex, or even being
completely nude ("Full frontal nudity") was not only banned, but mere possession
could land you a trip to jail, along with being labeled as a sex-offender
similar to what child-pornographers are treated as today.
That the law back then was deliberately vague, was one of it's strong suits in
prosecuting anybody having any picture with less than a full one-piece bathing
suit on. (Yes, when the bikini came out there WERE prosecutions of public
indecency, and people arrested for having pictures of women in those indecent
bathing suits!)
The laws today are worded so that the POSSESSOR must be able to prove that the
pictures he has are pictures of adults ... the prosecutor doesn't have to show
any evidence at all that they are of underaged persons ... merely that he
suspects that they MIGHT be. Also, instead of defining WHAT is indecent (almost
impossible, unless you get right down to penetration or ejaculation, or go back
to saying ANY nude picture ... which has already been defined as NOT indecent by
the SC) they use words like "lascivious" or "blatant display of sexuality" which
are most obviously terms defined by the individual viewer. To me, what would be
lascivious or blatant sexuality would be completely innocent behavior to
somebody else ... and vice-versa. Just being completely nude is blatant
sexuality to some people; and many prosecutions have been based on just that.
If you make the laws strict and well-defined like in the above listed examples I
gave, where teens COULD take pictures of themselves having legal sex, then
almost every "pervert's" desire to see pictures of "children" having sex could
be done legally, except those who truly wanted to see pre-pubertal children
being raped. For the "children" that MOST people would be turned on to see
having sex, are those in the prime of their sexuality ... the young teenage
years. And if some of them COULD have legal sex, and COULD sell, post, and
distribute their pictures while doing so, while making a profit at it, then the
moralists claims that they are being raped would be shown to be the sham that it
is. They would never put up with that.
Heck, just as an example, I'll bet that SOME people will respond to this post
claiming that I am supporting the rape of children, by supporting the idea that
it would be a good idea that if it was legal for them to have sex, then it
SHOULD be legal for them to take pictures of it, and yes sell the pictures if
they so wished to.
Being forced into doing so should still bring all the present laws against rape
and pandering into effect.
But if you thing there's a snowflake's chance in a blast-furnace of such a law
being passed, then you obviously have NOT paid attention to the way politicians
and moralists work.
The ONLY way such rules could come into force, is the way the present rules
allowing regular "porn" and abortion to be legal came into effect ... by
judicial rulings. And you have seen the continuing controversy both of THOSE
rulings made.
Some "child" say of 16 or 17 or so, would have to take pictures of himself and
his wife of several years having LEGAL sex, and sell them ... thus forcing the
government to prosecute him for producing "child pornography" and selling it.
Then, that person would have to appeal the adverse ruling all the way to the
Supreme Court, in the manner of Roe vs Wade, until the Court ruled that taking
pictures of completely legal activities either was or was-not legal in and of
itself.
But don't hold your breath.
And ... the SC might STILL hold that pictures taken of legal sex acts could be
illegal.
The neat thing though, is that would still knock the prop out of all the
proponents of such rules that the reason for making such pictures illegal was
because they are pictures of illegal acts taking place, and thus supporting
statutory rape and molestation. That is NOT the real reason for such laws. The
real reason is (like the original laws against even nudity of adults being
photographed) legislated morality, where the government is in the business of
telling people what they must think and HOW they must think to stay out of jail.
The moralists would never sit still for that.
goo...@webtv.net
here?"
I didn't know they were ON the hook here. Are they? Can't believe I
would have missed that. But if so.....I would find them also
reprehensible.
***********
Pedophiles Are Child Pornography
goo...@webtv.net
"Please do not use 'pedophile' as a synonym of 'hard core child porn
user', and you will find a much more sympathetic ear with me."
I will use the term 'pedophile' as a synonym for "hard core child porn
users"...."soft core child porn users".....and "illegal sexual
exploitation child porn users"....for as long as I still believe the
correllation to be a correct one.
Because I am more interested in the truth than I am in gaining your
sympathetic ear....no matter how comforting your ear might be.
We have put Child Pornography Laws in place to protect children. So if
anyone flouts those laws....or advocates or excuses such....they have
only themselves to blame for society's reaction.
***************
Pedophiles Are Child Pornography
goo...@webtv.net
ballet classes then distributed the tapes. The basis of the prosecution
was that he had focused on the genital areas too much so the intent of
the film must have been sexual. I don't know if he was convicted in a
lower court and won on appeal- but when I heard about it he had been
acquited because the court ruled that there was no way the prosecutor
could prove what his intention was. But he had already been tarred by
the press for producing 'Kiddy Porn' and was out all his legal fees."
Here's a pretty good example of a borderline case. And the resolution
was also borderline.
Sounds fair, actually. People engaged in borderline activity have to
expect they may reap some unpleasant results.
************
Child Pornography Is Child Abuse
goo...@webtv.net
ignore the sole 'class' of people who ACTUALLY DO BENEFIT FROM IT."
Is anadvocate saying that pedophiles do NOT BENEFIT FROM KP?
Gee! I coulda SWORN I heard they kind of.... liked it..... somewhere!
Even to the point where some "collect" it. To quite an impressive
degree, even.
But maybe that's all just an......"urban legend"!!!
Timothy Murphy
<goo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19533-38...@storefull-112.bryant.webtv.net...
> Desire made this request of me:
>
> "Please do not use 'pedophile' as a synonym of 'hard core child porn
> user', and you will find a much more sympathetic ear with me."
>
> I will use the term 'pedophile' as a synonym for "hard core child porn
> users"...."soft core child porn users".....and "illegal sexual
> exploitation child porn users"....for as long as I still believe the
> correllation to be a correct one.
Which will be forever- since you made up your mind, then closed it and threw
away the key.
>
> Because I am more interested in the truth than I am in gaining your
> sympathetic ear....no matter how comforting your ear might be.
You're about as interested in the truth as Hitler was in setting up a safe
haven for Jewish people.
>
> We have put Child Pornography Laws in place to protect children. So if
> anyone flouts those laws....or advocates or excuses such....they have
> only themselves to blame for society's reaction.
>
The Child Pornography laws are as flawed as all the other blue laws- they
leave it up to individual DA's and LEA officers to determine what is or is
not 'acceptable', as such they are overbroad and unconstitutional- what part
of this are you unable to understand? I have no problem with solid content
based laws prohibiting certain materials that either result from harming a
child or could cause harm to a child- but the way the current laws are
written a DA COULD charge a woman with possessing Child Pornography for
having a picture of her 3 year old son running out of the bathroom naked.
She thinks it's just a cute picture of a little kid being a kid- but the DA
concludes that it is 'lascivious'. Likewise- a man who possesses a picture
of an eighteen year old woman's shaved vagina which is too close-up to
identify the woman and might be mistaken for a younger girls vagina can be
prosecuted- and under current laws HE has to produce the identification of
the girl and prove that she's of age. That is what we are objecting to.
Eric Cordian
> We have put Child Pornography Laws in place to protect children. So if
> anyone flouts those laws....or advocates or excuses such....they have
> only themselves to blame for society's reaction.
So you agree with so-called child pornography laws which criminalize
written works and visual depictions which do not involve child models?
Exactly how do these things protect children more than they infringe
on free communication amongst citizens?
Eric Cordian
> "it was filming and the girls were in ballet leotards- IIRC he filmed
> ballet classes then distributed the tapes.
The case involved a graduate student named Knox in his 20's, who was
charged with child porn possession for owning said tapes, featuring girls
in leotards doing exercises.
The court first found him guilty by claiming that the inner surface of the
thigh constituted a lewd and lascivious exhibition of the genital area.
When a higher court ruled this silly, and sent it back for
reconsideration, the trial court then invented the fiction that a lewd and
lascivious exhibition of the genitals could exist even if the genitals
were covered by clothing.
Since this was a major reinterpretation of child porn laws, this version
of the case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Clinton
administration was going to argue on behalf of the defendant, but after
Fundamentalist Christian groups organized all their members to call the
Justice Department and rendered their phone system unusable for three
days, the administration reversed course, and argued on behalf of the
prosecution.
The conviction was upheld, and "fully clothed child porn" was magically
created. Thanks to Orrin Hatch, this was soon followed by child porn
containing no children at all.
Text is next. "Death in Venice" will probably become a banned book.
> Child Pornography Is Child Abuse
good22 is WebTV and Usenet Abuse
Timothy Murphy
Eric Cordian <e...@chao.insync.net> wrote in message
news:UU4Q3.9492$Ph7.60866@insync...
> goo...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > "it was filming and the girls were in ballet leotards- IIRC he filmed
> > ballet classes then distributed the tapes.
>
> The case involved a graduate student named Knox in his 20's, who was
> charged with child porn possession for owning said tapes, featuring girls
> in leotards doing exercises.
>
> The court first found him guilty by claiming that the inner surface of the
> thigh constituted a lewd and lascivious exhibition of the genital area.
>
> When a higher court ruled this silly, and sent it back for
> reconsideration, the trial court then invented the fiction that a lewd and
> lascivious exhibition of the genitals could exist even if the genitals
> were covered by clothing.
So much for the concept of "Double Jeapordy"- change the charges and insist
it's a different crime. No problem.....
>
> Since this was a major reinterpretation of child porn laws, this version
> of the case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Clinton
> administration was going to argue on behalf of the defendant, but after
> Fundamentalist Christian groups organized all their members to call the
> Justice Department and rendered their phone system unusable for three
> days, the administration reversed course, and argued on behalf of the
> prosecution.
>
> The conviction was upheld, and "fully clothed child porn" was magically
> created. Thanks to Orrin Hatch, this was soon followed by child porn
> containing no children at all.
And next we will be banning all versions of "Hansel & Gretel" because of the
implied canibalism in the story- wouldn't want to encourage that now would
we.
>
> Text is next. "Death in Venice" will probably become a banned book.
>
> > Child Pornography Is Child Abuse
>
> good22 is WebTV and Usenet Abuse
>
> --
> Eric Michael Cordian 0+
> O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
> "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
--
goo...@webtv.net
"So you agree with so-called child pornography laws which criminalize
written works and visual depictions which do not involve child models?"
If you wish me to answer you, Eric, you are going to have to re-phrase
your question. They are not...."so-called"... laws. They are laws.
And I strongly object to you casting aspersions on what I consider a
very positive motivation for such laws (protecting children).....by
using the qualifier "so-called".
So, if you want to take the qualifier out, you can ask me the same
question again.....as regards written works.
Regarding the 2nd part of your question....pertaining to "not involving
child models":
Again....you'll have to rephrase it. The children in Child Pornography
are not "child models".... they are sexually abused children. And it's
an insult to them to refer to them as "child models", because it
minimizes the crimes done to them. I find that minimalization extremely
offensive.
Rephrase if you want to, and ask me again.
Not that I flatter myself that anybody should go out of their way for
me. I just think that posters to this group should be willing to go a
little out of their way for children.
And if they're not....they don't deserve much attention, I don't think.
But that's just my opinion.
*************
Pedophiles Enjoy Child Pornography
Laurence Taylor
e...@chao.insync.net "Eric Cordian" writes:
-> The conviction was upheld, and "fully clothed child porn" was magically
-> created. Thanks to Orrin Hatch, this was soon followed by child porn
-> containing no children at all.
As well as face or head-and-shoulders views, if the judge thinks that
the person's naughty bits might have been visible had the camera pointed
at them.
-> Text is next. "Death in Venice" will probably become a banned book.
Don't give them ideas. Actually, I'm very surprised that "Blue Lagoon"
wasn't banned within minutes of release, as naked children are plainly
visible throughout much of the film.
rgds
LAurence
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Save a child's life by recycling - www.cartridge-recycling.org.uk
===================================================================
->> This message produced entirely in DOS <<-
Laurence Taylor
goo...@webtv.net writes:
-> I will use the term 'pedophile' as a synonym for "hard core child porn
-> users"...."soft core child porn users".....and "illegal sexual
-> exploitation child porn users"....for as long as I still believe the
-> correllation to be a correct one.
The problem with relying on such a correlation is that many paedophiles
do _not_ use pornography.
-> We have put Child Pornography Laws in place to protect children. So if
-> anyone flouts those laws....or advocates or excuses such....they have
-> only themselves to blame for society's reaction.
Unfortunately, the anti-porn laws don't protect children. There's no
evidence to show that the incidence of child abuse reduced at all when
posession of such material was made illegal.
As has been related elsewhere, in a number of cases where these laws were
enforced the defendant has been a child.
Laurence Taylor
goo...@webtv.net writes:
-> anadvocate wrote: "You whine about a market for KP and completely
-> ignore the sole 'class' of people who ACTUALLY DO BENEFIT FROM IT."
->
-> Is anadvocate saying that pedophiles do NOT BENEFIT FROM KP?
Probably most peole who enjoy using pornography gain little actual
benefit from it. And those who don't, of course, aren't affected one way
or the other.
Timothy Murphy
<goo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6862-381...@storefull-114.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Eric asked me:
>
> "So you agree with so-called child pornography laws which criminalize
> written works and visual depictions which do not involve child models?"
>
> If you wish me to answer you, Eric, you are going to have to re-phrase
> your question. They are not...."so-called"... laws. They are laws.
> And I strongly object to you casting aspersions on what I consider a
> very positive motivation for such laws (protecting children).....by
> using the qualifier "so-called".
Eric called them "so-called child pornography laws", probably in reference
to the fact that the laws he's talking about pertain to materials that don't
involve any actual children at any stage of their production. If you had
read his post you would see that he is referring to laws involving materials
where no children were involved in the production of the materials. Some
people are pushing to include written works and visual depictions made
without any real children as models in child pornography laws- and I beleive
some of those measures have been passed.
>
> So, if you want to take the qualifier out, you can ask me the same
> question again.....as regards written works.
>
> Regarding the 2nd part of your question....pertaining to "not involving
> child models":
>
> Again....you'll have to rephrase it. The children in Child Pornography
> are not "child models".... they are sexually abused children. And it's
> an insult to them to refer to them as "child models", because it
> minimizes the crimes done to them. I find that minimalization extremely
> offensive.
>
> Rephrase if you want to, and ask me again.
Ducking the question does not help- you know exactly what he meant.
Timothy Murphy
Laurence Taylor <laur...@iapetus.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:940684...@iapetus.demon.co.uk...
> In article <UU4Q3.9492$Ph7.60866@insync>
> e...@chao.insync.net "Eric Cordian" writes:
>
> -> The conviction was upheld, and "fully clothed child porn" was magically
> -> created. Thanks to Orrin Hatch, this was soon followed by child porn
> -> containing no children at all.
>
> As well as face or head-and-shoulders views, if the judge thinks that
> the person's naughty bits might have been visible had the camera pointed
> at them.
>
>
> -> Text is next. "Death in Venice" will probably become a banned book.
>
> Don't give them ideas. Actually, I'm very surprised that "Blue Lagoon"
> wasn't banned within minutes of release, as naked children are plainly
> visible throughout much of the film.
>
"Blue Lagoon" wasn't banned for much the same reason "Pretty Baby" hasn't
been- it pre-dates the laws that would make it illegal, and under the
constitution you can't "grandfather" something in under the law. This is
why they can't make you put seat belts in a car that never had them. This
doesn't always stop the government from going ahead and applying laws to
previously existing materials- but those movies are owned by studios with
the money to fight if they tried to ban them.
Frank McCoy
Um ... how come they can arrest people for owning legal pictures taken (like
that Danish pornography) back before there were laws against it, if that's the
case?
Frank McCoy
>In article <19533-38...@storefull-112.bryant.webtv.net>
> goo...@webtv.net writes:
>
>-> I will use the term 'pedophile' as a synonym for "hard core child porn
>-> users"...."soft core child porn users".....and "illegal sexual
>-> exploitation child porn users"....for as long as I still believe the
>-> correllation to be a correct one.
>
>The problem with relying on such a correlation is that many paedophiles
>do _not_ use pornography.
>
>-> We have put Child Pornography Laws in place to protect children. So if
>-> anyone flouts those laws....or advocates or excuses such....they have
>-> only themselves to blame for society's reaction.
>
>Unfortunately, the anti-porn laws don't protect children. There's no
>evidence to show that the incidence of child abuse reduced at all when
>posession of such material was made illegal.
>
>As has been related elsewhere, in a number of cases where these laws were
>enforced the defendant has been a child.
>
Two cases in Canada:
One, the 14-year-old author of "The Forrestwood Kids" got arrested and convicted
of distributing "Child Pornography", because he posted his fairly nice and
consensual but rather amateurishly written story to a local BBS, where other
people took it and posted it to the net. No children were involved in the
creation of the story ... in fact, no children like those in the story existed
outside of the author's imagination. The story is still making the rounds;
being reposted every few months by people who liked the story.
Second, another kid got arrested for cutting and pasting pictures (like those
other cases we were discussing elsewhere. I can't remember his age, but I know
he was under 18. I believe he was 14 also, but can't be sure. I don't remember
hearing anything further than that he was arrested for having the pictures, and
the case made it to the papers. Other than that, nothing. Perhaps they have a
gag-order in place.
Like I said, both of THESE cases were in Canada ... where they seem even more
anally retentive than here in the US (if possible).
Timothy Murphy
Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:JGoSOLNe4tK3kU...@4ax.com...
Like I said,
>>This
> >doesn't always stop the government from going ahead and applying laws to
> >previously existing materials-
How many of the people arrested have the money to take it to the Supreme
Court?
They won't go after the two movies because that involves trying to take on
major motion picture studios- and the millionaires or corporations that own
them- which gurantees a trip to the Supreme Court and a possible judgement
that prevents them prosecuting any case where the materials are older than
the law (or have been in the country longer than the laws been in place.).
Easy to see why they stick to going after the little guys ain't it.
Eric Cordian
>"So you agree with so-called child pornography laws which criminalize
> written works and visual depictions which do not involve child models?"
> If you wish me to answer you, Eric, you are going to have to re-phrase
> your question.
Please feel free to hold your breath and turn blue while waiting for this
to happen.
> Regarding the 2nd part of your question....pertaining to "not involving
> child models":
> Again....you'll have to rephrase it. The children in Child Pornography
> are not "child models"....
The hallmark of any pseudo-science crackpot agenda is insistance on the
use of a special vocabulary constructed by the crackpots in order to be
admitted to the discussion.
Remember. These are the people who are trying to make "molest" into a
noun.
Since you are being asked whether you favor the criminalization of
depictions of the sexuality of children which involve no actual children,
whether or not we refer to the children who are not in the pictures as
"child models" is immaterial and irrelevant.
> Not that I flatter myself that anybody should go out of their way for
> me. I just think that posters to this group should be willing to go a
> little out of their way for children.
Well, I think you have answered the question indirectly anyway. You are
trying to push the envelope as far as you can in the direction of
outlawing any suggestion that minors are sexual beings, and you are
willing to lie through your teeth as to what you want at any particular
moment, as you advance that process.
Just like all the child sex whackos do.
> Pedophiles Enjoy Child Pornography
Child sex whackos like good22 lie about their agenda, and try to
hide it behind legitimate child protection issues.
goo...@webtv.net
"As well as face or head-and-shoulders views, if the judge thinks that
the person's naughty bits might have been visible had the camera pointed
at them."
I've never heard of the above being deemd CP...in the U.S., or anywhere
else....so I think LAurence is lying, here.
But he is welcome to provide sources to back-up what appears to be a
fraudulent claim.
goo...@webtv.net
"Again....you'll have to rephrase it. The children in Child Pornography
are not "child models".... they are sexually abused children. And it's
an insult to them to refer to them as "child models", because it
minimizes the crimes done to them. I find that minimalization extremely
offensive. Rephrase if you want to, and ask me again. "
To which Timothy responded:
"Ducking the question does not help- you know exactly what he meant."
I'm not "ducking the question". And I knew exactly what he meant....and
I'd be happy to discuss those points with Eric, or anyone. But I rarely
feel motivated to reply to people who phrase their questions in a manner
that is insulting (in my view) to children....and their protection.
I'm sure Eric will live without my opinion regarding the points he
seemed to want my opinion on. And I'll live without giving that opinion
to him.
So we're both fine, thank you, Timothy.
*****************
Pedophiles "Enjoy" Child Abuse Photography
Timothy Murphy
<goo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15041-38...@storefull-112.bryant.webtv.net...
Still ducking I see- let me rephrase the question using words you can
understand.
Hmm- nothing over two syllables-
If no child used in making it, should it be illegal?
Now- would you please answer the question? Or would you rather show
everyone how big a coward and hypocrite you really are?
Laurence Taylor
goo...@webtv.net writes:
-> "So you agree with so-called child pornography laws which criminalize
-> written works and visual depictions which do not involve child models?"
->
-> If you wish me to answer you, Eric, you are going to have to re-phrase
-> your question. They are not...."so-called"... laws. They are laws.
-> And I strongly object to you casting aspersions on what I consider a
-> very positive motivation for such laws (protecting children).....by
-> using the qualifier "so-called".
OK. Do you agree with laws which class written works and pictures that
do not show actual children as "child pornography" and therefore illegal?
Anonymous
> "Please do not use 'pedophile' as a synonym of 'hard core child porn
> user', and you will find a much more sympathetic ear with me."
good answered:
> I will use the term 'pedophile' as a synonym for "hard core child porn
> users"...."soft core child porn users".....and "illegal sexual
> exploitation child porn users"....for as long as I still believe the
> correllation to be a correct one.
Well then, I guess this means I have to stop talking to you. I see no need
in aiding my own insult.
> Because I am more interested in the truth than I am in gaining your
> sympathetic ear....no matter how comforting your ear might be.
But in which truth are you interested? Apparently not in the truth that
I am a pedophile and not a child porn user. Apparently only in those
truths that conform to your beliefs.
Anonymous
> "So you agree with so-called child pornography laws which criminalize
good22 reacted:
> If you wish me to answer you, Eric, you are going to have to re-phrase
> your question. They are not...."so-called"... laws. They are laws.
I think he meant that they are laws about "so-called" child pornography,
not that they were so-called laws.
> Rephrase if you want to, and ask me again.
Just because I still have some hope you answer:
Do you agree with child pornography laws which criminalize written works
and visual depictions where no children were involved in the production?
> Not that I flatter myself that anybody should go out of their way for
> me. I just think that posters to this group should be willing to go a
> little out of their way for children.
And how are children helped by this? I go out of my way for children quite
often, but only when I think that is beneficial to them. Nothing is beneficial
about having to repeat a question only because you regard it as non-PC.
Anonymous
> evidence to show that the incidence of child abuse reduced at all when
> posession of such material was made illegal.
In fact, there is evidence which does not show, but does hint that it might
actually _increase_ because of it. Research in countries like Sweden show
that the amount of sexual crimes decreased upon the legalization of (adult)
porn. Of course, we still have to deal with the child abuse that might occur
in the _production_ of CP, but I think it is an important point to remember
when talking about extending CP laws to cases where no sexual use of a child
is necessary in their production.
goo...@webtv.net
"the way the current laws are written a DA COULD charge a woman with
possessing Child Pornography for having a picture of her 3 year old son
running out of the bathroom naked. She thinks it's just a cute picture
of a little kid being a kid- but the DA concludes that it is
'lascivious'."
Tim is getting into Rubber Ducky Territory with his above "Scary Story"
about a photo which would NOT be deemed CP....because it would be a
photo of "simple nudity". The qualifier "lascivious" refers to an
emphasis on the genitalia of a particular child in a particular
photo.....NOT to what any DA might think about a "simple nudity" photo.
I really don't get what Tim is so worked up about here. So worked up
that he would make such a misleading post. And what's wrong with laws
that caution people to be A LITTLE CAREFUL when photographing
children....so those children are less likely to find themselves
splashed all over the world on the internet...as unwitting Pedophile
Sex-Monkeys for the rest of their lives?
And Tim is arguing against laws when he doesn't even know what those
laws ARE!
Simple Nudity is NOT Child Pornography according to the law. And
neither I or anyone else here has argued that it should be considered as
such.
So....with his above example....he shows himself as a fool who is
fighting against something that doesn't even exist.
Methinks Tim needs to get a life...or at least learn what the law is.
************
Pedophiles Like Photographs That Child Molesters Take For Them When They
Are Molesting Children.
And Then Pedophiles WONDER Why People Get
Pedophiles...er..."Mixed-Up"... With Child Molesters!
Pretty funny.....those pedophiles are!
Eric Cordian
> that they only wanted to criminalize *production* and commercial of
typo - that should read "*production* and commercial distribution"
Sorry. I was so overwhelmed by Goody's return that I neglected
to proofread.
Eric Cordian
things, including the following...
> Simple Nudity is NOT Child Pornography according to the law. And
> neither I or anyone else here has argued that it should be considered as
> such.
Under federal child pornography law, this depends upon a lot of very
subjective things, such as whether the photograph was posed, the
expression in the minor's face, the prominance of the genital region, and
how well the above things can be sold to a jury of yahoos by the
prosecutor.
Generally, studio nudes, images in imported nudist periodicals, and the
like are prosecutable, even though the feds don't always win. Even if
they don't, having your family terrorized at gunpoint by federal agents
who break down your door at 6 AM in the morning, screaming at your
children to confess alleged sexual abuse, can really dampen the enthusiasm
of the typical family who wishes to include "simple nudity" in the family
photo album.
Additionally, most child pornography prosecutions are state prosecutions,
not federal ones, and the Supreme Court has ruled that states may
criminalize anything they choose as child pornography, even things that
are not illegal under federal law.
Ohio, for instance, has made all depictions of child nudity illegal.
Several other states have as well.
Whackos like good22 will push the envelope as far as they can, while lying
about their true agenda at any particular point in time. Such people have
every intention of criminalizing "simple nudity" as well as fictional
depictions of the sexuality of minors, as soon as they can engineer enough
public support to get the laws passed.
Remember, these are the same people who swore up and down in the 1970's
that they only wanted to criminalize *production* and commercial of
erotica featuring minors, in order to protect children from the horrid
working conditions the pornography industry, and wouldn't even think of
going after Constitutionally-protected possession of any sort of material
in a citizen's home.
They were lying then, and they are lying now. Who knows what they will
lie about tomorrow.
Frank McCoy
>Simple Nudity is NOT Child Pornography according to the law. And
>neither I or anyone else here has argued that it should be considered as
>such.
I'll agree that simple nudity may not be Child Pornography under the law.
However, some District Attorneys don't agree with that statement; and some
people *have* been charged, arrested, *and* convicted of possessing Child
Pornography for merely having nude pictures of their own children.
The last that I heard about was in (where else) Florida, about two years ago.
The person convicted argued his case up to the appelate level, then gave up for
lack of money. I believe it was something like two years, with the actual time
in jail just being "time served" where he got immediate probation. But the
conviction remains on his (Her? I'm not sure.) record, and just for taking that
picture will remain on the books forever in the same category as a child rapist.
The point:
If the definition of what is Child Pornography is as open to interpretation as
this, then are such laws against same something we really want to support?
Timothy Murphy
<goo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8077-381...@storefull-111.bryant.webtv.net...
> Timothy wrote:
> "the way the current laws are written a DA COULD charge a woman with
> possessing Child Pornography for having a picture of her 3 year old son
> running out of the bathroom naked. She thinks it's just a cute picture
> of a little kid being a kid- but the DA concludes that it is
> 'lascivious'."
>
> Tim is getting into Rubber Ducky Territory with his above "Scary Story"
> about a photo which would NOT be deemed CP....because it would be a
> photo of "simple nudity". The qualifier "lascivious" refers to an
> emphasis on the genitalia of a particular child in a particular
> photo.....NOT to what any DA might think about a "simple nudity" photo.
The term 'lascivious' is not defined- which leaves it up to the
interpetation of the local DA. If the DA concludes that he THINKS the
picture is 'lascivious' then he can prosecute.
>
> I really don't get what Tim is so worked up about here. So worked up
> that he would make such a misleading post. And what's wrong with laws
> that caution people to be A LITTLE CAREFUL when photographing
> children....so those children are less likely to find themselves
> splashed all over the world on the internet...as unwitting Pedophile
> Sex-Monkeys for the rest of their lives?
>
> And Tim is arguing against laws when he doesn't even know what those
> laws ARE!
You're showing yourself to be an idiot here- I'm the one who went and found
the law and posted it here. I know exactly what the law says.
> Simple Nudity is NOT Child Pornography according to the law. And
> neither I or anyone else here has argued that it should be considered as
> such.
Unfortunately there is not definition of 'simple nudity' and 'lascivious'.
It is left up to individuals to make a determination.
>
> So....with his above example....he shows himself as a fool who is
> fighting against something that doesn't even exist.
>
> Methinks Tim needs to get a life...or at least learn what the law is.
>
Once again I point out that I do know what the law is- I'm the one who found
it and posted it here.
billy...@my-deja.com
Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
> Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
> >Frank McCoy writes:
> >> Is this ridiculous, or what?
> >
> >To add to your USA examples: In Canada the AOC is 14 - yet it is
forbidden
> >to make a writing that is considered promoting sex with people under
18! As
> >someone once noticed - if a 14 yo girl has (willing) sex with
someone, both
> >parties go free - but if she writes about it in her diary it is
suddenly CP.
> >
> >> In spite of goody's claim that all "child pornography" is rape and
molestation,
> >> what possible claim could be made of that for the above cases?
Still, as goody
> >> points out so clearly, "That IS the law!"
> >
> >Not to mention that the laws on CP often go much further than the
laws on
> >sex - here in the Netherlands a picture of a nudist girl was once
considered
> >child porn because she was sitting with her legs spread, and more
than once
> >it has been tried (and sometimes succeeded) to regard pictures of
nude boys
> >as CP because the boys had erections. In the UK people have been
arrested
> >for filming their child while playing nude in the living room after
bath
> >(IIRC, this person was acquitted but her reputation demolished). In
the USA
> >a man has been convicted because he had photographed (or was it
filmed?)
> >girls' crotches - even though the girls were wearing bathing suits.
Many
> >countries have made it illegal, or plan to make it illegal, to
produce CP
> >on the computer, even if no children at all are involved. Canada and
Ireland
> >have included written texts 'advocating sex with minors'.
> >
> >> In spite of goody's claim that all "child pornography" is rape and
molestation,
> >> what possible claim could be made of that for the above cases?
Still, as goody
> >> points out so clearly, "That IS the law!"
> >
> >And to show it's not just academic: An American boy had been arrested
on
> >producing, possessing and distributin child porn after showing a film
of
> >him and his former girlfriend having sex to his friends. (note: the
sex
> >and the filming were consensual, although showing it to his friends
was
> >not)
> >
> >> However, YOUR suggestion above at least would clear up this matter.
> >> If it wasn't rape or illegal activity, then it wouldn't be CP.
> >> THAT however, would set people's teeth on edge, because they
wouldn't be able to
> >> ban pictures of what they don't like.
> >
> >You can't have your cake and eat it too. Earlier in this thread you
> >complained that the laws were so vague. Now you say my proposal will
> >never get through because it is not vague.
>
> Exactly!
> The people who support the law, WANT it vague!
> They WANT to be able to arrest anybody for anything that even SMELLS
like KP to
> them. If the law is concrete and defined, then they would have to
allow things
> to be printed or distributed that they personally would abhor, even
though it
> would be legal under the new law.
>
> For example, that couple I mentioned, who were married and having
legal sex
> COULD have pictures taken of them doing so, and the blue noses
wouldn't be able
> to have them or the photographer thrown in jail for doing so.
>
> Do you REALLY expect me to believe that the moralists would go for
that? No
> matter HOW consensual the sex is, they want the LAW to call it rape.
If they
> can't get that, then they want to make it illegal anyway, in any
manner that
> they can. And most especially, they don't want pictures of that.
>
> The moralists lost a BIG battle in regular pornography. Before about
1960 or
> so, ANY depiction of even adults over 35 having ANY kind of sex, or
even being
> completely nude ("Full frontal nudity") was not only banned, but mere
possession
> could land you a trip to jail, along with being labeled as a
sex-offender
> similar to what child-pornographers are treated as today.
>
> That the law back then was deliberately vague, was one of it's strong
suits in
> prosecuting anybody having any picture with less than a full one-piece
bathing
> suit on. (Yes, when the bikini came out there WERE prosecutions of
public
> indecency, and people arrested for having pictures of women in those
indecent
> bathing suits!)
>
> The laws today are worded so that the POSSESSOR must be able to prove
that the
> pictures he has are pictures of adults ... the prosecutor doesn't have
to show
> any evidence at all that they are of underaged persons ... merely that
he
> suspects that they MIGHT be. Also, instead of defining WHAT is
indecent (almost
> impossible, unless you get right down to penetration or ejaculation,
or go back
> to saying ANY nude picture ... which has already been defined as NOT
indecent by
> the SC) they use words like "lascivious" or "blatant display of
sexuality" which
> are most obviously terms defined by the individual viewer. To me,
what would be
> lascivious or blatant sexuality would be completely innocent behavior
to
> somebody else ... and vice-versa. Just being completely nude is
blatant
> sexuality to some people; and many prosecutions have been based on
just that.
>
> If you make the laws strict and well-defined like in the above listed
examples I
> gave, where teens COULD take pictures of themselves having legal sex,
then
> almost every "pervert's" desire to see pictures of "children" having
sex could
> be done legally, except those who truly wanted to see pre-pubertal
children
> being raped. For the "children" that MOST people would be turned on
to see
> having sex, are those in the prime of their sexuality ... the young
teenage
> years. And if some of them COULD have legal sex, and COULD sell,
post, and
> distribute their pictures while doing so, while making a profit at it,
then the
> moralists claims that they are being raped would be shown to be the
sham that it
> is. They would never put up with that.
>
> Heck, just as an example, I'll bet that SOME people will respond to
this post
> claiming that I am supporting the rape of children, by supporting the
idea that
> it would be a good idea that if it was legal for them to have sex,
then it
> SHOULD be legal for them to take pictures of it, and yes sell the
pictures if
> they so wished to.
>
> Being forced into doing so should still bring all the present laws
against rape
> and pandering into effect.
>
> But if you thing there's a snowflake's chance in a blast-furnace of
such a law
> being passed, then you obviously have NOT paid attention to the way
politicians
> and moralists work.
>
> The ONLY way such rules could come into force, is the way the present
rules
> allowing regular "porn" and abortion to be legal came into effect ...
by
> judicial rulings. And you have seen the continuing controversy both
of THOSE
> rulings made.
>
> Some "child" say of 16 or 17 or so, would have to take pictures of
himself and
> his wife of several years having LEGAL sex, and sell them ... thus
forcing the
> government to prosecute him for producing "child pornography" and
selling it.
> Then, that person would have to appeal the adverse ruling all the way
to the
> Supreme Court, in the manner of Roe vs Wade, until the Court ruled
that taking
> pictures of completely legal activities either was or was-not legal in
and of
> itself.
>
> But don't hold your breath.
>
> And ... the SC might STILL hold that pictures taken of legal sex acts
could be
> illegal.
>
> The neat thing though, is that would still knock the prop out of all
the
> proponents of such rules that the reason for making such pictures
illegal was
> because they are pictures of illegal acts taking place, and thus
supporting
> statutory rape and molestation. That is NOT the real reason for such
laws. The
> real reason is (like the original laws against even nudity of adults
being
> photographed) legislated morality, where the government is in the
business of
> telling people what they must think and HOW they must think to stay
out of jail.
>
> The moralists would never sit still for that.
>
> --
> _____
> / ' /
> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
are 0-13 yo . older is no child porn!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
goo...@webtv.net
Law, Timothy wrote:
"Once again I point out that I do know what the law is- I'm the one who
found it and posted it here."
I don't recall you posting the actual law....just your own paraphrasing
of it. So would you please post (or repost?) the ACTUAL Law where all
references to the word "lascivious" is employed?
That should clear all this up in a jiffy!
*****************
The Question:
Why Do Rapists And Sexual Abusers Photograph Their Crimes Against
Children?
The Answer:
Because Pedophiles Want To See Photographs Of Children Being Raped And
Sexually Abused.
Frank McCoy
>On Tue, 02 Nov 1999 19:39:46 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
>wrote::
>
>>goo...@webtv.net babbled:
>>
>>>Simple Nudity is NOT Child Pornography according to the law. And
>>>neither I or anyone else here has argued that it should be considered as
>>>such.
>>
>>I'll agree that simple nudity may not be Child Pornography under the law.
>>However, some District Attorneys don't agree with that statement; and some
>>people *have* been charged, arrested, *and* convicted of possessing Child
>>Pornography for merely having nude pictures of their own children.
>>
>>The last that I heard about was in (where else) Florida, about two years ago.
>>The person convicted argued his case up to the appelate level, then gave up for
>>lack of money. I believe it was something like two years, with the actual time
>>in jail just being "time served" where he got immediate probation. But the
>>conviction remains on his (Her? I'm not sure.) record, and just for taking that
>>picture will remain on the books forever in the same category as a child rapist.
>>
>>The point:
>>If the definition of what is Child Pornography is as open to interpretation as
>>this, then are such laws against same something we really want to support?
>
><laughs>
>
>once upon a time, in a kinda strange place, there was a four story
>high painting of the Copper tone girl, shown from the back, topless
>and having her bottoms pulled away by a small dog showing her 'tan
>line'.
>
>This painting was more than just in public, it was a landmark of
>sorts.
>
>It was also painted on the side of an 'Art Deco' building that had
>been determined 'officially' to be historic and that determination
>INCLUDED THE PAINTING.
>
>Forty years later, the subject of renovating the building comes up
>and the owner was attempting to find an artist to redo the painting so
>that the 'historical ambiance' would be maintained.
>
>Couldn't find one willing to do it.
>
>The fundies found out of this and besieged the commission that make
>these sort of 'historical ambiance' decisions and lo and behold, no
>more Copper Tone girl.
>
>Don't remember the entire story (we had just moved here and kinda had
>other things on our minds {like committing nasty acts upon the decayed
>carcasses of school board members for one...}) but we can just imagine
>the fuss. The owner just wants to finish the job as cheap as he can.
>The historical commission wants to preserve their pet Art Deco motif
>and the fundies, well, we imagine they did what they do best,
>hysterically overreacted all over the place.
>
>Kinda like goodie.
That CopperTone girl was the genesis for the Country-Music song, "The girl
wearing nothing but a smile and a towel in the picture on the billboard in the
field near the big old highway!"
Always got a giggle out of that.
I guess the CopperTone Ad is now considered Child Pornography?
Frank McCoy
BZZZZTT!
Wrong answer.
The law says 18 is the dividing line.
(I happen to agree that over 13 looks a lot more reasonable though.)
goo...@webtv.net
"In spite of goody's claim that all "child pornography" is rape and
molestation......"
Never said that McCoy. Never "claimed" that.
Never!
So.....since Sobber McCoy and others here seem hell-bent on lying....I
will reiterate what I DO claim. Which is:
Child Pornography is :
"The photographs obtained for pedophiles via the rape, sexual assault,
molestation, and sexual exploitation of babies, children, adolescents,
and minor teen-agers."
Definition of Pedophile....
A Pedophile is one who:
Is sexually aroused by children...wants to have sex with them...is
denied that by law....and acts out by viewing pictures of them being
raped, molested, and/or sexually exploited that are provided for him by
child abusers."
Got that Sobber?
Good.
Try not to forget it. Or....LIE about it!
Eric Cordian
> Child Pornography is :
> "The photographs obtained for pedophiles via the rape, sexual assault,
> molestation, and sexual exploitation of babies, children, adolescents,
> and minor teen-agers."
Yes, but you will use the generic meaning of "exploitation" to say that
this covers all sexual material in which minors appear, and then imply
"exploited to their detriment" when you later use it again, which is a
different meaning of the same word.
You reinforce this by placing your weasel-word "exploitation" juxtiposed
with "rape, sexual assault, and molestation" which further gives this
impression.
Word games.
> Definition of Pedophile....
> A Pedophile is one who:
> Is sexually aroused by children
That's "prepubescent children," leaving about 5 or 6 years of waffle
room between puberty and the age of legal majority at 18.
> ...wants to have sex with them...is
> denied that by law....and acts out by viewing pictures of them being
> raped, molested, and/or sexually exploited that are provided for him by
> child abusers."
Some pedophiles do this. Some pedophiles don't. Many non-pedophiles
do this too. Something that appears to be a point here is seriously
lacking.
Frank McCoy
>Speaking of me, Frank McCoy wrote:
>
>"In spite of goody's claim that all "child pornography" is rape and
>molestation......"
>
>Never said that McCoy. Never "claimed" that.
>
>Never!
>
>So.....since Sobber McCoy and others here seem hell-bent on lying....I
>will reiterate what I DO claim. Which is:
>
>Child Pornography is :
>"The photographs obtained for pedophiles via the rape, sexual assault,
>molestation, and sexual exploitation of babies, children, adolescents,
>and minor teen-agers."
>Definition of Pedophile....
>
>A Pedophile is one who:
>Is sexually aroused by children...wants to have sex with them...is
>denied that by law....and acts out by viewing pictures of them being
>raped, molested, and/or sexually exploited that are provided for him by
>child abusers."
>
>Got that Sobber?
>
>Good.
>
>Try not to forget it. Or....LIE about it!
Goody, if that was *ALL* you were against, I might actually support your cause.
Heck, I might imagine a majority of those over in the asylum might support the
cause, if you were *only* interested in suppressing those pictures where kids
got hurt.
Sadly, you are not.
Instead, you:
A. Support the current legal fiasco, where anything suggestive of
sex is considered obscene.
B. Keep suggesting that *all* such pictures (as ill-defined by law)
are a result of kids being hurt ... no matter what evidence
is produced to the contrary.
C. Keep equating somebody enjoying the picture of a kid having
a HELL of a good time, even wishing that he or she could be
that kid, with somebody enjoying a kid being tortured, or caring
not if the kid was hurt.
Back when I used to look at those pictures (now over four years, I think) I
remember some where I literally ached with envy that I was never allowed to have
the fun those kids in some pictures were obviously having, when I was that age.
To you, that is not caring how those kids feel. To me, that is the exact
opposite: truly CARING how they feel. You don't!
All you care about is your crusade to remove dirty pictures from the world. You
don't give a shit about how the kids feel or felt. If you did, you'd
acknowledge that some of them not only had a good time, but even years later
look back to those times as the best in their lives. But no, you still rate
such things as abuse. And you keep ranting that anybody who looks at those
pictures with pleasure likes knowing kids are abused, when the exact opposite is
true.
You WANT kids to be abused, when such pictures are taken. You couldn't stand it
to find out they weren't, and even had such a good time they might treasure the
memory for the rest of their lives.
For that would make your rants out to be what they are: Lies.
MOST of the people who view those pictures want to see kids having fun. Most of
those people TAKING the pictures WANT the kids to have fun. They are willing to
go to great lengths to MAKE it fun for the kids, just like any producer of
pictures involving children. But you can't see that, can you? You have to
demonize those who have different viewpoints than you do.
Yes, SOME kids ARE hurt. Usually, you can tell too. Some aren't hurt, but just
aren't happy about it. And yes, SOME people enjoy looking at those pictures
too. (Yuck!) But again, you won't see that, because you deliberately put your
blinders on.
To you, if it's illegal, whether a picture of a little girl diddling herself
when she thought nobody noticed, or a picture of a child coming out of the
bathroom that some DA thought lingered too much on the genitals, or an
out-and-out forcible rape picture, matters not ... it's illegal, and thus (in
your mind) a picture of a child being abused.
And the nutty thing is: You see nothing illogical in that stance.
Worse yet, you don't even see yourself MAKING that stance.
But in all your raving about child-Pornography, that's the stance just about
everybody else in here sees you as taking.
Do you ever wonder, why even those people who *have* been molested, raped, and
hurt in sexual manners seem to be disavowing you as a spokesman for them?
If what you were REALLY against, was just those pictures where kids *were*
abused to make them, then you might get far more support than you ever expected,
from people you would least expect to give it.
But you're not. You're just for censorship, for censorship's sake.
And every word you post proves it.
You don't WANT people looking at a picture of a kid having fun having sex ...
even if that kid is having sex with himself, and the sex was his own idea.
It's *not* the abuse that bothers you ... it's the sex.
You keep equating sex with abuse.
From what I gather, you cannot imagine sex not being abuse.
That's why you keep insisting that *any* picture of a kid having sex *must* be
abuse, and that therefore anybody who likes *looking* at such a picture, likes
to look at the results of abuse. For, if sex was not abuse, you couldn't say
that.
(Which makes me wonder what kind of horrible sex life you had to make that so.)
You keep denying this ... and then keep proving that it's true.
Which truly makes me sad for you.
A person who can't even imaging a kid enjoying having sex, must truly have had a
horrible life as a child himself.
But my sadness at your loss, does *not* make me appreciate your viewpoint. You
see, *I* have beautiful memories about finding out about sex as a child, and how
wonderful it was for me. So, (unlike you) I have no difficulty in imagining
another kid in a picture having almost as much fun as I did when I was that age.
I certainly wouldn't mind having pictures of me either ... as long as my parents
didn't beat me for having them taken anyway. When I got older and could afford
it, I took pictures of my own.
That you cannot imagine having such joy is your loss, and a tragedy.
Somebody must have stolen something precious from you.
Frank McCoy
>goo...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>> Child Pornography is :
>> "The photographs obtained for pedophiles via the rape, sexual assault,
>> molestation, and sexual exploitation of babies, children, adolescents,
>> and minor teen-agers."
>
>Yes, but you will use the generic meaning of "exploitation" to say that
>this covers all sexual material in which minors appear, and then imply
>"exploited to their detriment" when you later use it again, which is a
>different meaning of the same word.
>
>You reinforce this by placing your weasel-word "exploitation" juxtiposed
>with "rape, sexual assault, and molestation" which further gives this
>impression.
>
>Word games.
>
>> Definition of Pedophile....
>
>> A Pedophile is one who:
>> Is sexually aroused by children
>
>That's "prepubescent children," leaving about 5 or 6 years of waffle
>room between puberty and the age of legal majority at 18.
>
>> ...wants to have sex with them...is
>> denied that by law....and acts out by viewing pictures of them being
>> raped, molested, and/or sexually exploited that are provided for him by
>> child abusers."
>
>Some pedophiles do this. Some pedophiles don't. Many non-pedophiles
>do this too. Something that appears to be a point here is seriously
>lacking.
Goody's "points" are about as pointed as a river boulder.
Unless, of course, you're referring to his head?
Laurence Taylor
e...@chao.insync.net "Eric Cordian" writes:
-> Eric Cordian <e...@chao.insync.net> wrote:
->
-> > that they only wanted to criminalize *production* and commercial of
->
-> typo - that should read "*production* and commercial distribution"
->
-> Sorry. I was so overwhelmed by Goody's return that I neglected
-> to proofread.
Always proofread carefully in case you any words out.
Timothy Murphy
<goo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14219-38...@storefull-111.bryant.webtv.net...
> Regarding the use of the adjective "lascivious" in Child Pornography
> Law, Timothy wrote:
>
> "Once again I point out that I do know what the law is- I'm the one who
> found it and posted it here."
>
> I don't recall you posting the actual law....just your own paraphrasing
> of it. So would you please post (or repost?) the ACTUAL Law where all
> references to the word "lascivious" is employed?
>
> That should clear all this up in a jiffy!
>
No, it wouldn't- it would just result in this same run around- and in two
weeks you would be saying:
> I don't recall you posting the actual law....just your own paraphrasing
> of it. So would you please post (or repost?) the ACTUAL Law where all
> references to the word "lascivious" is employed?
>
> That should clear all this up in a jiffy!
So why should I bother- everyone else here KNOWS I posted the laws here- in
response to you claiming that they were oh so clear.
Laurence Taylor
mcc...@millcomm.com "Frank McCoy" writes:
-> Goody, if that was *ALL* you were against, I might actually support your cause.
-> Heck, I might imagine a majority of those over in the asylum might support the
-> cause, if you were *only* interested in suppressing those pictures where kids
-> got hurt.
->
-> Sadly, you are not.
-> Instead, you:
-> A. Support the current legal fiasco, where anything suggestive of
-> sex is considered obscene.
-> B. Keep suggesting that *all* such pictures (as ill-defined by law)
-> are a result of kids being hurt ... no matter what evidence
-> is produced to the contrary.
-> C. Keep equating somebody enjoying the picture of a kid having
-> a HELL of a good time, even wishing that he or she could be
-> that kid, with somebody enjoying a kid being tortured, or caring
-> not if the kid was hurt.
Goody has still refused to answer the question, from myself and others,
as to whether she supports the criminalisation of material which
involved no real people in its production, such as written works or
mechanically-produced images like paintings or computer-generated
graphics.
Laurence Taylor
-> it an easy thing: child porns are pornograhie with children. children
-> are 0-13 yo . older is no child porn!
That may be your own opinion, (and one with which I could agree if the
numbers weren't so specific), but as a legal definition it depends
entirely on where you happen to be.
goo...@webtv.net
"in the UK, National Geographic magazine is indecent, hence unlawful;
textbooks of paediatric anatomy are indecent, hence unlawful;"
You mean National Geographic is illegal in the UK? Are you sure? I
think maybe I'll give their corporate office a ring tomorrow and see if
that's really true.
And are you saying that medical schools can use NO textbooks... with
pictures of children's anatomy in them....when training pediatric
doctors? And do the British people actually take their children to
these.... "doctors"?
You wouldn't happen to have the name of a British medical school handy
for us, so we can check on this, too...would you, Witt?
****************
Pedophiles Are Child Pornography
Frank McCoy
>In article <sbEgOIaR7IySxU...@4ax.com>
> mcc...@millcomm.com "Frank McCoy" writes:
>
>-> Goody, if that was *ALL* you were against, I might actually support your cause.
>-> Heck, I might imagine a majority of those over in the asylum might support the
>-> cause, if you were *only* interested in suppressing those pictures where kids
>-> got hurt.
>->
>-> Sadly, you are not.
>-> Instead, you:
>-> A. Support the current legal fiasco, where anything suggestive of
>-> sex is considered obscene.
>-> B. Keep suggesting that *all* such pictures (as ill-defined by law)
>-> are a result of kids being hurt ... no matter what evidence
>-> is produced to the contrary.
>-> C. Keep equating somebody enjoying the picture of a kid having
>-> a HELL of a good time, even wishing that he or she could be
>-> that kid, with somebody enjoying a kid being tortured, or caring
>-> not if the kid was hurt.
>
>Goody has still refused to answer the question, from myself and others,
>as to whether she supports the criminalisation of material which
>involved no real people in its production, such as written works or
>mechanically-produced images like paintings or computer-generated
>graphics.
>
Do you really expect him to answer that?
(I decided a few weeks ago to refer to goody as "him" until proven different.)
He states over and over again He's against "Child Pornography."
He also states that such material hurts the kids, even if the evidence is to the
contrary.
I'm fairly sure he is against such pictures being made or being legal.
BUT, with his other statements, there's no way to defend that stance.
So, he wisely keeps his yap shut.
I think he hopes you'll go away, or forget about the question.
so...@boom.com
Taylor) wrote:
>In article <sbEgOIaR7IySxU...@4ax.com>
> mcc...@millcomm.com "Frank McCoy" writes:
>
>-> Instead, you:
>-> A. Support the current legal fiasco, where anything suggestive of
>-> sex is considered obscene.
>-> B. Keep suggesting that *all* such pictures (as ill-defined by law)
>-> are a result of kids being hurt ... no matter what evidence
>-> is produced to the contrary.
>-> C. Keep equating somebody enjoying the picture of a kid having
>-> a HELL of a good time, even wishing that he or she could be
>-> that kid, with somebody enjoying a kid being tortured, or caring
>-> not if the kid was hurt.
>
>Goody has still refused to answer the question, from myself and others,
>as to whether she supports the criminalisation of material which
>involved no real people in its production, such as written works or
>mechanically-produced images like paintings or computer-generated
>graphics.
I know I'm not "Goody," but I'd like to ask "WHAT evidence" was ever
produced to the contrary? The individual's opinion that it appears in
the photograph that the child was having a "HELL of a good time?"
Isn't there the slightest chance that one can be delusional about
that? In other words, projecting his/her own need or desire for that
kid to be loving it?
Someone here has said before that he has read and heard accounts of
kids who had done pornography as children and that they weren't
affected negatively in the least; in fact, they enjoyed it. That's
the only account they will listen to! I've posted on my own
experience, and that I have heard MANY to the contrary of that
person's idyllic account, to say the least, but that doesn't have any
impact at all on changing his opinion or even him allowing that to
stand. It's like you (general) just deny it.
Like I said in my "tongue and cheek" post, some people will just blame
the good folks who try to help children and former children recover
from such abuse (I do believe it is abuse, even if it *appears* they
are not hurt), and totally exonerate the deed altogether. Frank even
goes so far as to say that the "opposite" is where a child "is
tortured" or "gets hurt." How do you know they are not hurt?? The
fact is, they are hurt, because they are exploited so personally and
in such a raw manner. It is also possible that the pictures chosen do
not reflect the physical pain they may actually be going through.
It is so unfortunate that some of you guys can't understand that,
because child porn will continue as long as there are folks of the
same frame of mind, that it is not harmful to children. Tsk.
Laurence Taylor
wi...@gamma.ru "Witt" writes:
-> Tim is getting into Rubber Ducky Territory with his above "Scary Story"
-> about a photo which would NOT be deemed CP....because it would be a
-> photo of "simple nudity". The qualifier "lascivious" refers to an
-> emphasis on the genitalia of a particular child in a particular
-> photo.....NOT to what any DA might think about a "simple nudity" photo.
->
-> I really don't get what Tim is so worked up about here. So worked up
-> that he would make such a misleading post.
->
-> Actually, not so. In the UK, a well-known TV newsreader was actually
-> investigated
Witt, check your mail reader settings - there's nothing to indicate
quoted text. )Of course, we can recognise Goody's stuff a mile away).
-> The police here seem to think that any exposure of the genitals of a person
-> under 16
-> is indecent; hence, in the UK, National Geographic magazine is indecent,
-> hence unlawful;
-> textbooks of paediatric anatomy are indecent, hence unlawful; even a
-> snapshot taken by
-> a loving parent of his or her child cavorting innocently on a beach, if it
-> happens to be a naked shot,
-> is against the law. I ask you, in all seriousness, is this what you want to
-> criminalise?
Not to mention the Tomorrow's World baby, in which the genitals are
plainly visible, the Nirvana album cover with a very similar picture, a
number of newspaper adverts for all sorts of things showing naked
children .... no-one thinks to prosecute the BBC, EMI or News
International etc for publishing child pornography. Yet they are all
guilty under the law.
(Note for overseas readers: Tomorrow's World is a TV programme, the
title sequence of which shows this naked baby in a tank. In fact, you
can download it as a screensaver - www.bbc.co.uk).
goo...@webtv.net
as to whether she supports the criminalisation of material which
involved no real people in its production, such as written works or
mechanically-produced images like paintings or computer-generated
graphics."
To which McCoy responded:
"Do you really expect him to answer that? (I decided a few weeks ago to
refer to goody as "him" until proven different.) He states over and over
again He's against "Child Pornography." He also states that such
material hurts the kids, even if the evidence is to the contrary.
I'm fairly sure he is against such pictures being made or being legal.
BUT, with his other statements, there's no way to defend that stance.
So, he wisely keeps his yap shut.
I think he hopes you'll go away, or forget about the question."
Hey....Sobber! No sooner did I finish posting my answer, then I came
back here and found this! Let's check the clocks on our posts...and see
who was first!
***********
Pedophiles Make Up Disgusting "Jokes" About Extremely Violent Abuse Of
Children.
goo...@webtv.net
"Goody has still refused to answer the question, from myself and others,
as to whether she supports the criminalisation of material which
involved no real people in its production, such as written works or
mechanically-produced images like paintings or computer-generated
graphics."
You are talking about 2 very different things here. Written works and
images have far different impacts.
Written works is a pretty easy one. Uncomfortable though I am....I'd
have to say they are non-criminal things.
The "images" are a completely different thing, however...and many
aspects woud need to be considered when changing law regarding it. Even
the question of "How could you tell the difference?" would be enough to
slap it right down, immediately......if there were no way to tell.
And..."Was a real child used as a model?" And there would be a myriad of
other questions and problems to resolve as well. I've given it some
thought.....but it's clear that it's a very extensive area, and I'm not
motivated right now to explore it with the attention and time it
deserves.
(I still have some mountains I think I can climb...and I mean that
literally.)
Why does everybody want to know what I think about all this, anyway?
I'm...."nobody"....so to speak.
I'm just an ordinary person. A person who is appalled at what I've
learned about pedophiles, from the Net. (And wish I hadn't.) The Child
Abuse Photos....the grotesque Child Abuse "jokes".....the "defending" of
it all. And all by people who claim their tender little hearts are SO
TOUCHED by the cute-as-hell-little-tykes...that they can hardly STAND
IT!!!!
Yeah....right! Hey...with friends like that.....kids don't need
enemies.
************
BTW LAurence....you never adressed your role in The Rubber Ducky Fiasco.
Why not?
**********
Pedophiles Enjoy The Child Abuse Photographs That Child Abusers Take For
Them.
Frank McCoy
>Hey....Sobber! No sooner did I finish posting my answer, then I came
>back here and found this! Let's check the clocks on our posts...and see
>who was first!
Look at the thread.
Yours was posted after mine.
BTW, you still didn't answer the question.
Like always, you avoided it.
This time though, you walked very carefully all around the question; looked it
all over; then decided to have nothing to do with answering it; because to do so
would show your agenda for what it truly was.
I gather from your comments that you would want such pictures (designed ones,
not involving real children) to be illegal, because if they were not, it might
allow people to claim real pictures were fake. But you didn't want to commit
yourself, on even that.
So, let's make the question easier.
What about art, where it's *obvious* that no real child was involved. Artwork,
cartoons, drawings, charcoal sketches, etc.? Never mind the gray-area pictures
where somebody morphs a grownup to look young, or otherwise modifies real
photographs. Those should be distinct enough from real photos for you to
decide.
Frank McCoy
>On Thu, 04 Nov 99 07:01:19 GMT, laur...@iapetus.demon.co.uk (Laurence
>Taylor) wrote:
>
>>In article <sbEgOIaR7IySxU...@4ax.com>
>> mcc...@millcomm.com "Frank McCoy" writes:
>>
>>-> Instead, you:
>>-> A. Support the current legal fiasco, where anything suggestive of
>>-> sex is considered obscene.
>>-> B. Keep suggesting that *all* such pictures (as ill-defined by law)
>>-> are a result of kids being hurt ... no matter what evidence
>>-> is produced to the contrary.
>>-> C. Keep equating somebody enjoying the picture of a kid having
>>-> a HELL of a good time, even wishing that he or she could be
>>-> that kid, with somebody enjoying a kid being tortured, or caring
>>-> not if the kid was hurt.
>>
>>Goody has still refused to answer the question, from myself and others,
>>as to whether she supports the criminalisation of material which
>>involved no real people in its production, such as written works or
>>mechanically-produced images like paintings or computer-generated
>>graphics.
>
>I know I'm not "Goody," but I'd like to ask "WHAT evidence" was ever
>produced to the contrary? The individual's opinion that it appears in
>the photograph that the child was having a "HELL of a good time?"
>Isn't there the slightest chance that one can be delusional about
>that? In other words, projecting his/her own need or desire for that
>kid to be loving it?
>
*I* was the person who made that post.
And nowhere in it did I even suggest that some kids were not abused.
I merely suggested (and still suggest) that *some* kids, even by their own
accounts, *did* have a good time.
That others did not, was never in doubt.
As to evidence, the person's own words should be enough.
But it seems you are doing what you accuse others of doing:
Not accepting *any* evidence of *any* cases to the contrary.
Might I suggest that *you* are doing the same thing you accuse me (I was the
poster there) of? Projecting YOUR beliefs and experiences that the kid *must*
be having a terrible time, against all evidence to the contrary.
BTW, the pictures *I* was talking about, it's almost impossible to fake a kid
having that much fun. *SOME* pictures I'll freely admit are ambiguous ... the
smile on the faces of some of them could easily be forced ... or the kid might
just be scared of the camera. (Ever see the pictures of kids taken on Santa's
lap?) Others are definitely *not* fun for the kids. Even if not painful, the
kids are not enjoying it.
But people like you seem to say that *any* such picture *must* be hurting the
kid ... whether the kid thinks so or not. You just won't believe anything else.
Not even that same kids own recollection.
Then, you turn right around and accuse people like me of not believing that some
kids might be having a bad time; which I've never said. I just said that *some*
kids did have a good time.
Don't you think you need to examine your own prejudice first?
>Someone here has said before that he has read and heard accounts of
>kids who had done pornography as children and that they weren't
>affected negatively in the least; in fact, they enjoyed it. That's
>the only account they will listen to! I've posted on my own
WRONG!
I said, *SOME* kids. Repeat, SOME!
You won't admit ANY!
>experience, and that I have heard MANY to the contrary of that
So have I!
And MOST of those have NOT been taken under the conditions of which I spoke.
In fact, I'll go so far as to say that NONE of those I've ever heard of were
taken under the controlled conditions the kids who *did* have fun were under.
ALL of the stories of kids being abused that I have ever heard, were of kids
being abused *in private* with no controls at all; especially no controls by the
kids having pictures taken of them. They couldn't say no. No bloody wonder
they were abused!
>person's idyllic account, to say the least, but that doesn't have any
>impact at all on changing his opinion or even him allowing that to
>stand. It's like you (general) just deny it.
>
Like you consistently deny that *any* kid could *ever* be having fun while
having sex? Tell me, were you ever a kid? Or don't you enjoy sex now?
>Like I said in my "tongue and cheek" post, some people will just blame
>the good folks who try to help children and former children recover
>from such abuse (I do believe it is abuse, even if it *appears* they
>are not hurt), and totally exonerate the deed altogether. Frank even
>goes so far as to say that the "opposite" is where a child "is
>tortured" or "gets hurt." How do you know they are not hurt?? The
How do you know that they are?
>fact is, they are hurt, because they are exploited so personally and
>in such a raw manner. It is also possible that the pictures chosen do
>not reflect the physical pain they may actually be going through.
>
See. You ASSUME they are hurt.
No evidence, just assumption.
I remember how much fun I thought sex was as a kid.
If I had ever had the chance to have sex, and somebody had taken pictures of it,
I *KNOW* I would have had a big smile on my face, and it wouldn *not* have been
forced! Sex feels good, in case you forgot!
Why can't you imagine kids enjoying sex? Feelings that make sex enjoyable, are
NOT restricted to grownups. If you find yourself forced to believe that *any*
kid having sex is being tortured, then I truly feel sorry for you. Somebody
obviously has stolen one of the greatest joys in life from you.
>It is so unfortunate that some of you guys can't understand that,
>because child porn will continue as long as there are folks of the
>same frame of mind, that it is not harmful to children. Tsk.
Porn is not harmful to children.
Being forced into something you don't want to do, is.
Being photographed doing something you enjoy, is not.
Having sex can be fun ... even for kids.
It might not be politically correct to allow kids to have sex.
It might even truly be against public policy and public good to allow them to do
so.
But that doesn't keep them from having fun doing it ... whether some pervert
takes pictures of them doing it or not. And, contrary to popular opinion,
having consensual sex as a child, does NOT destroy the child ... it can even
have positive effects later in life. Being denigrated, called evil, taken from
loving families, or ridiculed for having sex however, *can* be quite
detrimental, even if the sex was not.
Being *forced* to have sex is not fun for anybody.
Not for kids; not for adults. That is rape.
One of the worst of crimes. And thus a terrible crime against kids too.
Taking pictures of rape turns *some* people on, and yes, some people do do that.
There are some mighty sick people in the world.
But *I* think those that cannot even *imagine* a child having fun, posing
sexually, or even having genuine sex with somebody he or she likes, is almost as
sick; while a person who thinks sex is evil and wicked, and thus children should
be protected by beatings and ridicule and other such abuse from ever enjoying
sex, are almost as evil as those who rape children.
so...@boom.com
wrote:
>so...@boom.com wrote:
Re-read my post. And calm down. Have a drink. Smoke some of
Anadvocate's pot.
>Then, you turn right around and accuse people like me of not believing that some
>kids might be having a bad time; which I've never said. I just said that *some*
>kids did have a good time.
No no no, I didn't accuse you of not believing. I *asked* if there
wasn't the slightest possibility that the child was not having such a
great time, and that the viewer could be projecting his own desires
onto an image, in other words, being delusional.
>Don't you think you need to examine your own prejudice first?
No. Because I'm not being prejudiced.
>>Someone here has said before that he has read and heard accounts of
>>kids who had done pornography as children and that they weren't
>>affected negatively in the least; in fact, they enjoyed it. That's
>>the only account they will listen to! I've posted on my own
>
>WRONG!
>I said, *SOME* kids. Repeat, SOME!
>
>You won't admit ANY!
... any WHAT?
>
>>experience, and that I have heard MANY to the contrary of that
>
>So have I!
>And MOST of those have NOT been taken under the conditions of which I spoke.
>In fact, I'll go so far as to say that NONE of those I've ever heard of were
>taken under the controlled conditions the kids who *did* have fun were under.
>
>ALL of the stories of kids being abused that I have ever heard, were of kids
>being abused *in private* with no controls at all; especially no controls by the
>kids having pictures taken of them. They couldn't say no. No bloody wonder
>they were abused!
>
>>person's idyllic account, to say the least, but that doesn't have any
>>impact at all on changing his opinion or even him allowing that to
>>stand. It's like you (general) just deny it.
>>
>Like you consistently deny that *any* kid could *ever* be having fun while
>having sex? Tell me, were you ever a kid? Or don't you enjoy sex now?
<cold stare>
>>Like I said in my "tongue and cheek" post, some people will just blame
>>the good folks who try to help children and former children recover
>>from such abuse (I do believe it is abuse, even if it *appears* they
>>are not hurt), and totally exonerate the deed altogether. Frank even
>>goes so far as to say that the "opposite" is where a child "is
>>tortured" or "gets hurt." How do you know they are not hurt?? The
>
>How do you know that they are?
I did not say that I KNOW THEY ARE. I ASKED IF IT WAS POSSIBLE. AND i
BELIEVE THEY ARE, EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
>>fact is, they are hurt, because they are exploited so personally and
>>in such a raw manner. It is also possible that the pictures chosen do
>>not reflect the physical pain they may actually be going through.
>>
>See. You ASSUME they are hurt.
>No evidence, just assumption.
Nope, but okay. You still don't have the evidence to prove your view,
either.
>I remember how much fun I thought sex was as a kid.
>If I had ever had the chance to have sex, and somebody had taken pictures of it,
>I *KNOW* I would have had a big smile on my face, and it wouldn *not* have been
>forced! Sex feels good, in case you forgot!
A kid? What age are we talking about?
>Why can't you imagine kids enjoying sex? Feelings that make sex enjoyable, are
>NOT restricted to grownups. If you find yourself forced to believe that *any*
>kid having sex is being tortured, then I truly feel sorry for you. Somebody
>obviously has stolen one of the greatest joys in life from you.
Fuck you and your pity, Frank.
SICK PERSON HERE!!!
Frank McCoy
What can I say?
You won't even allow me the evidence of my own memories of enjoying sex while
*I* was a child, to contradict your contention that all kids are hurt by having
sex.
You seem so convinced by *your* memories of pain, that you cannot even imagine
anybody *not* having pain.
At least, that's the way I read your response.
When your world-view is that warped by what happened to you, what is the point
of anybody trying to discuss anything different than what you're already
convinced is the truth?
If nobody's memories and feelings count but yours, there logically is no
discussion.
so...@boom.com
wrote:
>so...@boom.com wrote:
>
>What can I say?
>You won't even allow me the evidence of my own memories of enjoying sex while
>*I* was a child, to contradict your contention that all kids are hurt by having
>sex.
Frank, I got mad at you in my last post. I really hate the way you
put your own misconceptions of how or what I think into my
mouth/words. Even so, I do "allow" you that evidence. That's what
I'm saying, it's my own reality and yours is your own.
However -- I do know of many others who feel the same way I do. I am
sure you will say the same thing about your stance. This is where we
vehemently disagree!
>You seem so convinced by *your* memories of pain, that you cannot even imagine
>anybody *not* having pain.
Okay, fair enough. But...
... I am saying that there are probably few and far between actual
children who grow up really proud of the stuff they were coerced or
forced into making, at the hands of an adult who was in full control
of the act. They were only players at the time, whether they
"enjoyed" it or not (sorry, just can't bring myself to say that, since
I don't truly believe it -- I'll work on that, though), and now they
are exploited solely for the pleasure of those who could care less,
really, about how these materials were generated.
You don't have to agree with this. I just know it to be true and
that's good enough for me (for now).
I believe it was you who at one time stating that the last time you
had viewed actual child porn was about 7 or 8 years ago. I saw it not
too long ago, so my exposure to it was more recent. I could not see
one child who had a smile on his/her face that was really convincing
to me that they were fully conscious of what was going on and what
they were really doing this for. There were not many I have seen with
smiles at all. Most were body shots with the heads cut off. But
there were plenty with the head in the picture, too.
And for those who don't know my background, once again, I *used to*
work for a child protection agency who reported to *the* official
agency in this country in attempts at trying to stop child porn. I
went through security clearance and the whole bit. I have not done
work for the group in over a year, and have come to realize I didn't
have much of an impact and we will probably never rid this world of
such abuse in our lifetime.
So please, refrain from the snarky questions such as "do you download
child porn often?" because I've already answered your questions. I
hated it, but felt it was necessary to do something about it at the
time. And I no longer have that computer.
And damn it all, I will probably still be harassed or get in some kind
of trouble for saying this. But you can believe that I have proof I
was on the up and up, always.
>At least, that's the way I read your response.
>
>When your world-view is that warped by what happened to you, what is the point
>of anybody trying to discuss anything different than what you're already
>convinced is the truth?
It would not particularly bother me if we did not discuss this again,
Frank. Yet I would ask the same question of you.
>If nobody's memories and feelings count but yours, there logically is no
>discussion.
TSK. I didn't say that or even imply that... ugh....
Witt
I really don't get what Tim is so worked up about here. So worked up
that he would make such a misleading post.
Actually, not so. In the UK, a well-known TV newsreader was actually
investigated
simply because she put her baby in the bath pictures in for developing in a
major
chemists (US = drugstore) chain. The assistant saw something that wasn't
there,
and alerted the police. After a short, but highly publicised, investigation,
she was
released without charge. The sad thing is that anyone in the first place
should even
consider such photos to be indecent. In UK law, it is the content of the
images which
determines indecency, not the intention of the creator or the viewer of the
image, so arguably,
this woman should have been prosecuted: but she wasn't.
The police here seem to think that any exposure of the genitals of a person
under 16
is indecent; hence, in the UK, National Geographic magazine is indecent,
hence unlawful;
textbooks of paediatric anatomy are indecent, hence unlawful; even a
snapshot taken by
a loving parent of his or her child cavorting innocently on a beach, if it
happens to be a naked shot,
is against the law. I ask you, in all seriousness, is this what you want to
criminalise?
There is a problem here with drawing lines, and it should not depend, in my
opinion, on the
effect on the viewer. To argue otherwise is to argue the censorship of shoe
catalogues,
because shoe-fetishists might be "turned on" by such images. Not, as far as
I'm concerned,
that's nonsense, and if you don't think it's nonsense, I'd suggest you have
a problem.
>And what's wrong with laws
>that caution people to be A LITTLE CAREFUL when photographing
>children....so those children are less likely to find themselves
>splashed all over the world on the internet...as unwitting Pedophile
>Sex-Monkeys for the rest of their lives?
You really don't understand what happens. People who photograph children
with
the intent of putting them on the Internet couldn't give a toss what you, or
anyone else,
think. That's life, and it's hard. With regard to "pedophile sex-monkeys",
this is just
another unrealistic analysis. For example, the child models who pose for
underwear ads for the
Sears catalogues, or their parents, hardly think of themselves of "being
splashed over the world as
.. whatever" - but, whether you like it or not, they are. From Calvin Klein
adverts to National Geographic, even the National Gymnastics or Swimming
contests on TV, there will be someone
appreciating the beauty of those girls, whether you like it or not. And
there's nothing you can do about it, because it's PUBLIC, and it's legal.
And Tim is arguing against laws when he doesn't even know what those
laws ARE!
Oh, I think he has a better grasp than yourself. I don't remember you citing
Chapter and
Verse of the Law, despite your "significant other" lawyer (imaginary)
boyfriend.
(So cite me some authorities here).
Simple Nudity is NOT Child Pornography according to the law. And
neither I or anyone else here has argued that it should be considered as
such.
But tell the police that....!"
So....with his above example....he shows himself as a fool who is
fighting against something that doesn't even exist.
Methinks Tim needs to get a life...or at least learn what the law is.
- Ask your "significant other", if any
Witt
<rubbish snipped>
goo...@webtv.net
"Never mind the gray-area pictures where somebody morphs a grownup to
look young, or otherwise modifies real photographs. Those should be
distinct enough from real photos for you to decide."
I'll answer that part this way McCoy......Would you want it to be legal
for someone to morph/modify your picture into a photo of you that would
be a "lie"....and publish it on the internet? A photo of you robbing a
bank..or beating your dog...or raping a baby..or any other million
things that would be...er... "embarrassing"...to say the very least?
(Not to mention.....how would it be "distinct"? Do you want to have to
go on the internet and say: "No, that wasn't me"...a million times,
perhaps...for the rest of your life?)
************
I am not "avoiding the question" because I have an "agenda". I am
avoiding replying to any aspect or facet of it...until I feel I've given
that aspect of it enough consideration to be reasonably confident my
reply is well thought-out.
You obviously have a problem with that. With my wanting to think before
I speak.
************
Morphed, modified....all such CP is a much "greyer area" than the "real
thing". In that greyer area....social impact becomes more the major
concern, to use just one examle. Just as the social impact of morphed
child war-victims...or modified starvation victims would be....if thrown
all over a public forum such as TV or the internet.
And so it's an area requiring much more mental time and effort.
Forgive me if debating the ramifications of the Real Thing is enough
mental excercise for me, at the moment. Is it possible that you have
forgotten that I don't work for you, McCoy?
And put whatever judgement on my "avoidence" that you want to. It
doesn't matter to me, because I have no agenda that I'm trying to
protect...or push.
No matter what you think.
*************
Pedophiles "Enjoy" Seeing Pictures Of Child Abuse That Child Abusers
Take For Them.
Chucky
<snip>
>-> Actually, not so. In the UK, a well-known TV newsreader was
>actually
>-> investigated
>
>Witt, check your mail reader settings - there's nothing to indicate
>quoted text. )Of course, we can recognise Goody's stuff a mile away).
Actually it's something that happens when an Outlook Express user
follows up a WebTV-er.
>-> The police here seem to think that any exposure of the genitals
>of a person
>-> under 16
>-> is indecent; hence, in the UK, National Geographic magazine is
>indecent,
>-> hence unlawful;
>-> textbooks of paediatric anatomy are indecent, hence unlawful;
>even a
>-> snapshot taken by
>-> a loving parent of his or her child cavorting innocently on a
>beach, if it
>-> happens to be a naked shot,
>-> is against the law. I ask you, in all seriousness, is this what
>you want to
>-> criminalise?
>
>Not to mention the Tomorrow's World baby, in which the genitals are
>plainly visible, the Nirvana album cover with a very similar
>picture, a
>number of newspaper adverts for all sorts of things showing naked
>children .... no-one thinks to prosecute the BBC, EMI or News
>International etc for publishing child pornography. Yet they are all
>guilty under the law.
Actually, Witt, Lawence, I think the UK law is a lot vaguer than you
give the impression. Any of the above *might* be regarded as illegal
if someone decides to prosecute; contrary to the letter of the law,
it is the intention on the part of the person who displays or views
the material that determines the outcome. The circumstance in which
it is found is also important, so the same book which is on open
display in a regular bookshop in London might be seized by HM customs
if imported by an individual; photographing a naked toddler on a
crowded beach by her parents would be regarded as acceptable, but the
same act by a stranger could lead to a prison sentence. (This latter
happened about three years ago (at Bournemouth, I think).)
--
Chucky
goo...@webtv.net
"And for those who don't know my background, once again, I *used to*
work for a child protection agency who reported to *the* official agency
in this country in attempts at trying to stop child porn. I went through
security clearance and the whole bit. I have not done work for the group
in over a year, and have come to realize I didn't have much of an impact
and we will probably never rid this world of such abuse in our lifetime.
So please, refrain from the snarky questions such as "do you download
child porn often?" because I've already answered your questions. I hated
it, but felt it was necessary to do something about it at the time. And
I no longer have that computer.
And damn it all, I will probably still be harassed or get in some kind
of trouble for saying this. But you can believe that I have proof I was
on the up and up, always."
And so am I. Which brings up something that needs to be adressed.
Which is:
Pedophiles are banking on the very illegality of CP to keep the public
from knowing what it really IS....and/or REPORTING on what they have
FOUND it to really be.
And they will immediately start to accuse, threaten, libel...and
otherwise "scare".. ANYONE who admits to having seen it AND gives it a
"bad review"....in an attempt to shut them up. And that is because
pedophiles want their "good reviews" of CP to be the ONLY reviews that
see internet print!
These tactics are obvious....they are to be expected....and they even
have some very small measure of success. But the "success" is only due
to how little is there at the moment. The minute it increases to any
degree.....the more "bad reviews" it gets.
So actually, you could say: Child Pornography.... by it's very
nature....carries with it the seeds of it's own
destruction/minimalization.
(Not to mention the destruction of any attempt by pedophiles to be seen
as..."non-monsters".)
So TANSTAAFL is very apt.... when considering The Pedophile CP
Predicament.
Frank McCoy
>I am not "avoiding the question" because I have an "agenda". I am
>avoiding replying to any aspect or facet of it...until I feel I've given
>that aspect of it enough consideration to be reasonably confident my
>reply is well thought-out.
>
>You obviously have a problem with that. With my wanting to think before
>I speak.
>
Hmmm ... you've had about 6 months already to think of an answer.
How much longer do you need?
Twenty years?
A day or so, I can understand. Even a week or two.
Several months generally indicates just that you just don't *want* to answer the
question; and that leaves us to speculate as to why not, since you don't say.
I'd suggest that it's for the reason I suggest, since you haven't given any more
reasonable answer. That you even have trouble deciding what to say, says a lot
to those who are reading what you post.
The issue is fairly black and white; but you seem to feel ambiguous about it.
Considering how you rant about CP, you'd think that such a question would have
an obvious answer. To me, it seems fairly obvious that you *want* it to be
illegal; but are having a hard time justifying your wants.
It will be truly interesting to see how you do justify it, when and if you
manage to come up with a reason. I'm betting that your logic will have more
holes in it than a 20-year-old screen door.
Anybody (other than goody) willing to take that bet?
BTW, I notice how you walked all around the issue that I said was gray.
But your response there was unsurprising; as it showed your agenda pretty well.
Anything in support of censorship; nothing in support of freedom of expression.
Frank McCoy
Seems to me, that the only threats about libel or slander *I* have heard here,
were when somebody like you made accusations that somebody was doing or had done
something illegal, with no proof to back it up.
So ... you object to people defending themselves against lies about what they do
or did?
Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.
You'd just love for those who oppose your attempts to make crimes where there
were none, like down and let you tell lies and stuff about them without
objecting.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
BTW, *I* have never denied that the material is there.
Some of it being almost as bad as what you say it all is.
And there is where you lose your audience.
For some of it *IS* just that bad.
When you spout lies and inferences and just plain garbage saying that all the
stuff you oppose *is* that bad, then people just walk away shaking their heads
in disbelief that you'd think they were that dumb as to swallow the horse-manure
you pass out.
You'd have a lot better chance of getting help in your crusade, if you told the
truth.
>These tactics are obvious....they are to be expected....and they even
>have some very small measure of success. But the "success" is only due
>to how little is there at the moment. The minute it increases to any
>degree.....the more "bad reviews" it gets.
>
>So actually, you could say: Child Pornography.... by it's very
>nature....carries with it the seeds of it's own
>destruction/minimalization.
>
>(Not to mention the destruction of any attempt by pedophiles to be seen
>as..."non-monsters".)
>
>So TANSTAAFL is very apt.... when considering The Pedophile CP
>Predicament.
--
Frank McCoy
I just spend a half-hour answering each point in this post.
Then, when I went to post the reply, I hit the wrong key; and Agent tossed the
whole message.
I'm too tired to try again today.
Maybe tomorrow.
Shit.
so...@boom.com
wrote:
>Sorry, sonic.
>
>I just spend a half-hour answering each point in this post.
>Then, when I went to post the reply, I hit the wrong key; and Agent tossed the
>whole message.
>
>I'm too tired to try again today.
>Maybe tomorrow.
>
>Shit.
No kidding, shit. I really want to hear from you on that. So if you
want me to re-send the post let me know.
Eric Cordian
> Pedophiles are banking on the very illegality of CP to keep the public
> from knowing what it really IS....and/or REPORTING on what they have
> FOUND it to really be.
Doesn't this sequestration and mystification of CP work both ways?
Once something is declared to be CP, it is illegal for anyone outside of
law enforment to examine it. The government and the child sex therapy
industry can say anything about it they want, and not even a journalist
can get the material and examine it for the purpose of reporting to the
public whether the description is factual or imagined.
Since the general public hardly gets reviews of CP by people who violate
CP laws every day, but gets copious coverage from the LEA and Therp
perspective, one would think that the major effect of CP laws would not be
to keep the public from knowing how bad the material is, but to prevent
the public from verifying when the alleged victimization of the young
people appearing in it is oversold.
I mean here we have all this stuff that the government keeps locked away
in a vault somewhere, and which supposedly contains horrendous depictions
of abuse, and we have no way of telling how much of it fits that criteria,
and how much of it is normal childhood sex play which was captured
unobtrusively by the camera, with the models, now adults, not caring one
whit about who views it.
Nor are we ever likely to be able to make that determination.
--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Frank McCoy
>On Sat, 06 Nov 1999 15:45:38 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Sorry, sonic.
>>
>>I just spend a half-hour answering each point in this post.
>>Then, when I went to post the reply, I hit the wrong key; and Agent tossed the
>>whole message.
>>
>>I'm too tired to try again today.
>>Maybe tomorrow.
>>
>>Shit.
>
>No kidding, shit. I really want to hear from you on that. So if you
>want me to re-send the post let me know.
No need. I don't throw anything away.
Though this morning ...
I went to bring up Agent; and it said "No newsgroups, no data."
I looked on the disk; and the two-gigger was full; but Agent thought there was
nothing there!
I couldn't even delete files without deleting the whole set.
If I hadn't been *quite* a good expert in such things, I would have lost
everything ... including that message and all that led up to it.
Thankfully, with about five hours of cut, paste, and swear, I recovered
everything.
That's why I was too tired to do it twice.
Hopefully, tomorrow.
I'll never recover that exact chain of thought though.
I never do.
<Sigh.>