Posted on 09/08/2007 11:36:08 PM PDT by TheMole
A former Arlington County youth sports coach and civil rights lawyer who once headed Virginia's American Civil Liberties Union chapter was sentenced today to seven years in federal prison for buying child pornography that prosecutors labeled sadistic and masochistic.
Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, pleaded guilty in June to downloading hundreds of pornographic images of children as young as 4. Authorities said Rust-Tierney used a computer in his 11-year-old son's bedroom to view the files, which included a six-minute video that depicted sexual torture of children, set to a song by the rock band Nine Inch Nails.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Patronizing things that feature the sexual torture of children supports those things. If you support things that feature the sexual torture of children you support the sexual torture of children.
Things are not always so clear cut, what about images that are completely fantasy, that are images that are computer generated, that in reality no children are involved. What about text descriptions with no images at all? Should people be subjected to jail for merely having a bit of text in their possession?
I have no problem jailing people for what they actually do. I am not comfortable with the idea of the government jailing people for having images, merely be cause of the slippery slope and all that.
In this case, yes they are.
If you want to defend someone going to jail for having fictional text descriptions on his computer, you have to find someone going to jail for having fictional text descriptions on his computer.
And if you should find one, I suspect you would also find a lot more people supporting your position on this board.
I don't pick my positions to be popular.
I understand the motivation to put people in jail for having forbidden pictures, no one likes child abusers.
I think we need to be careful about what we ask for, because once we get comfortable for jailing people for their pictures and images, who knows where it will lead?
I know you disagree with me, but I would rather have folks jailed for their actions.
You don't understand the motivation. It's not the pictures. It's the abuse. The pictures are a record of somebody's real suffering.
Read what I said. I did not say the motivation was the pictures. The pictures are the excuse. The motivation as I said very clearly was, and I'll repeat it, "no one likes child molesters".
Why after reading my post would you say that I did not understand the motivation?
Paying for child porn increases the incentive for it to be produced. Paying makes you an accessory by giving the ‘producers’ the means and motivation to commit a crime. You’re paying for cameras, sets, ‘actors’, etc.
REAL kids are being raped because of guys like this paying for the images. If there was nobody paying, kids would not be raped for profit.
It is difficult to go after producers in other countries so the demand has to be stopped here.
Americas Funniest Videos shows lots of folks getting hurt. Really hurt. Skateborders, morons who drive while standing on top of their cars,etc. I suppose all those folks sitting in front of the tube are accessories to these violent episodes? They are supporting those who enables these acts?
Thought crimes in our brave new world.
So, if you got the images for free, you would not be contributing to the producers.
It is up to the other countries to stop the production. Wasn't it Gary Glitter who found out the hard way in Vietnam how other countries treat child predators? He was facing life imprisonment, until he weaseled out. Those who abuse real children, get no mercy from me.
I’ve always thought that lawyers and judges, who are so simpathetic to child rapists and such, are so because they often swing that way themselves.
I realize that this is a blanket condemnation, but it seems a reasonable working assumption to me.
As I said, very clearly, you don't understand the motivation.
It's not "no one like child molesters".
It is people want to protect children.
Are saying that if you pay for the images you should be considered a criminal?
ACLU and NAMBLA are in bed together!From the very beginning.
You are right, Tribune7. After reading this exchange I am absolutely certain that Mark does not understand this issue at all. He wants to balance legal angels on the head of a juridictional pin while real children are put through real torture to make real videos that are shared amongst real criminals.
Come down of off your high horse and get some oxygen to your brain. As I said very clearly and you refuse to accept, for some reason that only you could fathom. Yes the motivation for putting people with illegal images in jail is because PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE CHILD MOLESTERS! It naturally follows that they want to put them in jail to protect the children from them. YES IT IS THE MOTIVATION, how more dense can you be?
Can you begin to comprehend the same thing can be said several ways?
To say I do not understand the motivation is just one of the dumbest things I have ever read on the Free Republic.
Ever.
All that being said and maybe it will sink in, and maybe not, my concern is that allowing the government to jail people for possessing images deemed illegal, may lead to worse things in the future.
For example smoking bans started out only on airplanes for short rides, now in some places it is illegal to smoke in a park. See how things can get out of hand?
I understand why people want to jail some folks for having illegal pictures, in this case depicting the abuse of children, what images do you see warranting jail time next?
Judging by your answers Mark, a whole, whole whole lot more.
The reason why people want punishment for those who create a support network -- i.e. downloading actual pixs of sexual abuse of children -- for child molesters isn't because the molesters violate their sense of aesthetics -- i.e. "they don't like child molesters --but because they don't want children being hurt.
And Mark, if you can't see the difference, you don't understand the motivation.
I know :-)
You just can not admit that I am saying the same thing.
Not liking people with child porn is because some are harmed in it's production.
Yes it is obvious to me, and Lord help me I would have bet a million dollars it would be obvious to you also.
My only concern here is where the line is drawn when deciding to jail people for having images. It is not hard to imagine some folks who would want others jailed for pictures of naked women.
My concern here is not to defend porn, but we should always strive to keep the government in check.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
To some extent I agree with you, but when things involve minors, general rules of liberalism are not identical. What you are arguing would make it ok for Michael Jackson to lie in bed with 6 year old boys even if he didn’t touch them. The majority of the country (99.9%) do not find this acceptible. If Michael Jackson wants to lie next to a 25 year old man, with or without sex, in his own bed I don’t care. I dont care what pictures you take of yourself doing anything you can think of for the most part and sell them to anyone 18 years of age of older or give them away for free. The second it involves a minor, I’m going to (and 99%+ of the country) are going to disagree with you.
I clicked on the link for this article just knowing someone would be defending this guy's right to view children being raped, tortured and abused sexually.
Your argument completely ignores the social costs of people who engage in child pornography. It also pretends that there is no progression from pornography to actual abuse. It also pretends that there is a complete separation of the viewer of the child pornography (torture, rape, sexual abuse) from the production of it. It also ignores the imperative of any society which will survive longer than a hundred years or so that it must protect the innocent and powerless from those who would abuse them. Justice is not only a mental exercise, it is the working out of what is right in humanity. If it is simply sophistry, it has ceased to be justice.
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.