Posted on 08/09/2002 8:59:43 AM PDT by NYer
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Ten Americans and six foreigners were charged Friday with taking sexually explicit photographs of their own children or children in their care and sending them over the Internet to an international child pornography ring, the U.S. Customs Service said.
Forty-five children, including 37 in the United States, were victims and have been removed from the care of those indicted, Customs officials said. Most of them are in the custody of another parent or relative.
The defendants include nine people from seven states who were indicted in Fresno, Calif., along with six residents of Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands. The indictment alleges that members of the ring, referring to themselves as ``the club,'' traded messages across the Internet requesting photographs of specific sexual poses. One man asked for an audiotape so he could hear a child crying while being spanked, the indictment said, and another posed naked with an underage girl.
The Customs Service coordinated the U.S. investigation that began last November with a request for help from the Danish National Police, who were acting on a tip about an international child pornography ring. ``I congratulate the investigators whose ingenuity and perseverance brought these people to justice,'' Customs Commissioner Robert C. Bonner said in a statement.
The Americans charged include: Lloyd Alan Emmerson of Fresno County, Calif.; Paul Whitmore and Brooke Rowland, San Diego County, Calif.; Tracy Reynolds, Texas; Leslie Peter Bowcut, Idaho; Michael David Harland, Florida; Harry Eldon Tschernetzki, Washington state; John Zill, South Carolina; Craig Davidson, Kansas. The identity of the tenth American was not immediately available.
The foreigners were identified as Eggert Jensen and Bente Jensen of Denmark; Jean-Michael Frances Cattin, Marcel Egli and Peter Althaus of Switzerland; and Dirk-Jan Prins of the Netherlands.
On the Net: Customs Service: http://www.customs.ustreas.gov
AP-ES-08-09-02 1114EDT
Hmmmmmm.
And here, I thought that this thread had avoided the "because I say so" approach to discussing a concept.
I do not apologize for rejecting that as a way to avoid the accusation of "dodging the point".
Your "clearly moral imperatives" are double speak for "here is what I believe, dammit!"
Congratulations.necessary for him to follow with his absurd conclusion.
He is very good at destroying his own straw men.
The crux of that point is that no 8-year olds can give informed consent; the hard part is demonstrating why, other than simply saying "because it is".
I would question the term "sex". Sorry that sounds so Clintonesque, but I would agree that he did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. I would think that sex with an 8-year-old is impossible, given that I think sex is for the purpose of procreation. Maybe what is in view here is merely genital stimulation between individuals.
Let’s get our facts straight. Informed Consent is for medical treatment and a legal contract which is not required for sexual relations between “consenting people”, simple consent is strictly demonstrating “mental capacity”. Mental capacity for an emancipated individual in most states is 70-75 adult IQ, it’s also the threshold now being used in determining the applicability of the death penalty. The truth is many children have the “mental capacity” to consent and only arbitrary age laws forbids it.
Dim., That means you would allow children to engage in sexual behavior that would further demoralize our society into your Liberaltarian utopia. Just add this one on to your list, now you must admit incest, bestiality and pedophilia along with homosexuality make the four legs of the table that will bring our society down to the basest repugnance it can possibly be. It’s not where I want to live, why don’t you try Amsterdam?
You haven't, however, that is the only other source you can derive an opinion if not a religious source. Locke and Paine defined it quite nicely. Our liberty ends when another's rights are violated. Without invoking any religious source, tell me how we determine if the right of a child to consent for themselves overrules their right to not be exploited. When is the EXACT age that that child gains the ability to consent? Give me absolute proof that a well educated and highly intelligent 10 year old cannot consent without any religious morals as your guide. Prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that that child would suffer harm.
We currently have the luxury of simply stating that. I fear that in the future that we will have to prove that.
Bingo. Now tell me one other thing in this society that is illegal just because it is wrong, just because (barring old laws that have yet to be changed). Used to be sodomy, that's gone, mostly. Adultery...... nope. Pornography..... huh uh.
When discussing laws, simply stating personal opinion is hardly productive. Sadly, society sees sex as our new national pastime to be shared with and between all.
Also, the fact that sex is no longer viewed as a sacred activity shared between a husband and wife helps their cause. Now, since sex is just something we do for fun and now that public schools are teaching our kids about penetration alternatives, such as mutual masterbation, the perverts are starting to have more and more of an argument to include children in sex.
Anyone who knows someone that uses cocaine should be able to see that it cannot be used responsibly and it is too much of a threat to legalize. :P
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.