Posted on 07/05/2018 3:25:28 PM PDT by Forgotten Amendments
Cleveland sex offender faces child pornography charges
A grand jury returned a two-count indictment charging Adam Libbey-Tipton, 29, of Cleveland, with one count of accessing with intent to view visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct; and one count of possessing visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, said Carole S. Rendon, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio.
Libbey-Tipton is a registered sex offender, according to court documents.
How many of you readers have child pork on your computers, punishable by a decade on prison, by the mere fact that you connected to the internet??
Every one of you.
Pictures remain on your pc hidden while many sites have massive ads that you do not know the ages of the sales pics. Misclick a link, your child misclicks, your spouse misclicks and hidden pics are on your computer.
You cannot delete it.
“How many of you readers have child pork on your computers, punishable by a decade on prison, by the mere fact that you connected to the internet??”
Fake news. Research the law.
The girl was too young to consider the future effects of being in public pornography.
When her pervert ex distributed the picture, that is when he got in trouble. Not when they made the picture together.
Are you ethically cognizant enough to comprehend that there is a distinction here?
I would say society recognizes that people that young are that foolish, ant that is why the law is written to protect them from their own foolishness until they are older.
But the twenty year old’s later room mate who is on trial for banging a thirteen year old, and to whom he gave her picture is a pedophile.
Perhaps you should actually read the article.
Of course, I have a phone and a low power tablet, and don’t even own a real PC since I gave up computer gaming and went back to Wargaming.
So no, everyone doesn’t.
He wasn’t put on trial.
He actually confessed while on the stand at his pedophile roommate’s trial, like in an old detective novel.
Now he will be put on trial, and the person who put him in that position is himself.
The usual crowd all upset that distribution of pornography has an age of consent law.
Yes that waste of carbon is. But I thought the contention was that the twenty year old having consensual sex with a seventeen year old was a pedophile.
Well you leave out the fact that he thought that since it was legal for him to have sex with his girlfriend it would also be legal to take photos as long as she consented. It is not that far of a leap. So he had no idea that he had committed a serious crime under child pornography laws.
How? Note I wrote “normal” so we are assuming we are not discussing a mentally challenged seventeen year old. Nor are we discussing a seventeen year old with delayed puberty making her or him attractive to a pedophile.
I did write that if the person who had possession of the photo did not have the poser’s consent then that would be a crime. If the person who took the photo sold it or gave it without the poser’s consent that too would be a crime. But it should not be classified as “child pornography”.
But simply taking the photo should not be a crime. If a seventeen year old is presumed mature enough to consent to sex then to remove that presumption because a photo is involved does not make sense to me.
But I am not discussing him. I am discussing the subject of both articles.
“But I am not discussing him. I am discussing the subject of both articles.”
The dude that is sharing naked photos with a convicted pedophile child porn trafficker?
ROTFLMAO!
“But simply taking the photo should not be a crime. “
But sharing them with a convicted child molester and kiddie porn trafficker is.
I wonder how many all over the world have seen her all.
You know the girl?
LOL!
He was sharing photos with a convicted child molester kiddie porn trafficker and you say ... He had no idea?
Dude, get real.
How would you feel if your daughters naked photos were turned over to a convicted child molester kiddie porn trafficker?
“a thirteen year old”
The affidavit says ‘less than thirteen’.
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.