Skip to comments.
Former ACLU chief admits guilt. Sentenced to 8 years for having 'graphic and violent' child porn
ABC News 7 ^
| June 1, 2007
| Leon Harris Maureen Bunyan Emily Schmidt
Posted on 06/02/2007 2:35:21 AM PDT by aclusux.com
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
To: aclusux.com
The video is quite informative.
2
posted on
06/02/2007 2:41:41 AM PDT
by
kinoxi
To: kinoxi
3
posted on
06/02/2007 2:49:13 AM PDT
by
television is just wrong
(Amnesty is when you allow them to return to their country of origin without prosecution.)
To: television is just wrong
They need to send him down here to the Baltimore prison system for a few days.
4
posted on
06/02/2007 2:55:09 AM PDT
by
kinoxi
To: television is just wrong
5
posted on
06/02/2007 2:55:58 AM PDT
by
kinoxi
To: aclusux.com
Is it true that written descriptions of child abuse, that were pure fantasy, can get one thrown in jail?
No, I have no interest or desire to even be near such materials, I am merely asking from a Freedom lovers, point of view. I think people deserve jail for what they do, not simply what they think.
Yes, it is funny that Mr. ACLU is off to the Big House.
6
posted on
06/02/2007 3:01:14 AM PDT
by
Mark was here
(Hard work never killed anyone, but why take the chance?)
To: television is just wrong
Yeah, shocked he’s not threatening to sue the Feds are violating his civil rights...
7
posted on
06/02/2007 3:04:23 AM PDT
by
endthematrix
(a globalized and integrated world - which is coming, one way or the other. - Hillary)
To: aclusux.com
Imagine how this would be covered if the organization in question were the NRA instead.
8
posted on
06/02/2007 3:09:16 AM PDT
by
Dahoser
(Never question Mr. Nibbles!)
To: aclusux.com
The issue is whether this attorney had used his aclu position to advocate adult sexual use of children or of pornography in any way.
9
posted on
06/02/2007 3:11:29 AM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
To: aclusux.com
No surprise, given what that communist front organization believes.
To: Mark was here
I’m not a lawyer, but didn’t the Scotus decided several years ago that mere cartoon, or description of children having sex (as long as there’s no real children involved) were not against the law because they are protected by the 1st amendment?
11
posted on
06/02/2007 3:19:19 AM PDT
by
paudio
To: aclusux.com
ruth buzzy ginsburg will be horrified when she wakes up from a nap on the SCOTUS bench!!!
To: paudio
I think these were ‘real children’.
13
posted on
06/02/2007 3:30:00 AM PDT
by
kinoxi
To: endthematrix
14
posted on
06/02/2007 3:46:09 AM PDT
by
television is just wrong
(Amnesty is when you allow them to return to their country of origin without prosecution.)
To: kinoxi
I couldn't get the video to play in either Firefox or IE. Waiting on the AP in both cases.
Anyways, I hope the scumbag suffers while he's in the joint. His wife is a big wheel for the ACLU as well. You have to wonder what she knows about this scumbag's need for child porn.
15
posted on
06/02/2007 4:11:02 AM PDT
by
csvset
To: csvset
I think his wife heard it.
16
posted on
06/02/2007 4:18:40 AM PDT
by
kinoxi
To: Mark was here
I think people deserve jail for what they do, not simply what they think. Downloading child porn and viewing it is an action, and if done intentionally, it violates the law. He would no more be arrested for what he thinks than you or I are for the terrible thoughts we sometimes have. I often have had revenge fantasies about people that have done me wrong. That is not a crime against society (it is against God). But I would be arrested if I bought a gun and filed off the serial number in preperation for the revenge. As far as it being a victimless crime, he is the demand side of the business, and the children in the pornography are the victims.
17
posted on
06/02/2007 4:26:11 AM PDT
by
Greg F
("One man with courage is a majority." Thomas Jefferson)
To: aclusux.com
Rust-Tierney, who also coached Little League baseball in Arlington, Very creepy.
18
posted on
06/02/2007 4:27:00 AM PDT
by
livius
To: kinoxi
Yeah, in this case, they are. I was responding to a question about written description of child abuse. In thos case, since no image of ‘real children’ involved, IIRC, they are protected by the 1st.
19
posted on
06/02/2007 4:40:54 AM PDT
by
paudio
To: Greg F
Problem is, I’m picturing somebody like Janet Reno or Mike Nifong simply seizing somebody’s computer and loading evil pictures onto it and resetting the dates on them and trying to figure out how anybody would defend themselves from that in a courtroom, and I’m not coming up with anything.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson