Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Hmph. Pardon me if I fail to drum up much (if any) sympathy for the guy. After all, "He knew it was wrong."

It does seem odd, though, if a child porn possessor would get a longer sentence than a child molester. And, if downloading is enough to land him in the sex offender registry, I suppose it's more evidence that the registry is a good idea gone bad. Then again, it's not as if he was only caught peeing behind a bush.

It's like the system sees no difference between someone who has committed a violent sex crime and somebody who has simply viewed this stuff in his own home, he said.

Nice try but, unless I'm mistaken, the registry will list your crime(s). If the system really saw no difference, every registrant would simply be a "sex offender" with no further explanation. Be glad that anyone who cares can see you're not a (convicted) child molester.

He knew it was wrong, but he thought that since he was not paying for these videos, he was not really contributing to the exploitation of children.

Good luck with that.

They know me, and they know this doesn't define me, he said.

Yeah, right. They only thought they knew you.

Perhaps we should spend more resources trying to catch the people who make these videos instead of spending them on the people who view them. But nobody would want to suggest that because nobody wants to appear to be defending a person who views this stuff. It's easier to think of them as monsters — until you meet one.

Anyone who understands capitalism knows that supply will ALWAYS strive to meet demand. Supply-side prosecution will never be enough. Look at the failed "war on drugs" for all the proof you'll ever need. The key is to eliminate demand. Only then will the supply diminish.

So, yes, go after the producers. But, if you don't squash the customers, there will always be new producers to meet the continuing demand for the product.

1 posted on 04/28/2008 1:31:54 PM PDT by newgeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: newgeezer
The first time he accessed a video containing child pornography, he did not realize what he was getting.

Oh, please.

"The first time Billy snorted cocaine, he didn't realize it was cocaine that he was snorting."

2 posted on 04/28/2008 1:37:35 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newgeezer

Sounds like the writer of the piece is quite sympathetic to pervs like this. Yes, the producers of the stuff are worse, but it’s pervs who like to view it that keep them in business. Yes, I’d like to see them get more of the producers, but this jerk should be punished as well.

Nice touch for him to invoke the Almighty when the cops announced the reason for their call. s/


3 posted on 04/28/2008 1:40:45 PM PDT by Bigg Red (Tagline is in the shop -- being retooled as a hybrid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newgeezer

The worst perpetrators involve homosexuals entering schools to try and sell their disgusting perversion to grade school kids and getting away with it.


6 posted on 04/28/2008 1:44:34 PM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Hallmarks of Liberalism: Ingratitude and Envy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newgeezer
Better to cut off child porn at the source

hmmm...I was thinking of a different place to make the "cut off" in the effort to fight child porn.

8 posted on 04/28/2008 1:46:31 PM PDT by Gator101 (Don't tase me, Bro!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newgeezer

I cannot relate to anyone who is sexually aroused by looking at images of children. I am baffled by it, as I am baffled by this reporter’s obvious attempt at generating sympathy.


9 posted on 04/28/2008 1:46:40 PM PDT by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newgeezer
The article states that "investigators have a list of 22,000 Internet addresses in Missouri that have offered pornographic images of children."

That seems to imply that he got caught because he was sharing material; not only downloading it.

11 posted on 04/28/2008 1:49:01 PM PDT by seacapn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newgeezer

I have no sympathy for this guy, either, or anyone else like him, but it seems to me that with the laws the way they are, it would be extremely easy to frame someone you didn’t like for this stuff............


14 posted on 04/28/2008 1:50:44 PM PDT by Red Badger ( We don't have science, but we do have consensus.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newgeezer

“...nobody wants to appear to be defending a person who views this stuff. It’s easier to think of them as monsters — until you meet one.”
Does this guy think molesters sit around watching reruns of old cooking shows or something?
When the child molesters were caught on camera none viewed themselves as really bad people. But how many of them do you think were deeply involved with child pornography? Maybe monsters is too mild a word after you meet one.


18 posted on 04/28/2008 2:03:39 PM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newgeezer
It does seem odd, though, if a child porn possessor would get a longer sentence than a child molester.

That's because it's one of those "Hey, look what we found!" add-on charges they can make stick to somebody they really want for crimes the Federal Government considers truly heinous, like tax evasion or drug trafficking without paying political kickbacks. Easy to plant the evidence, destroys all public sympathy for the defendant, and guarantees a long enough sentence to keep the inconvenient perpetator off the streets for a while.

20 posted on 04/28/2008 2:08:42 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ("One man's 'magic' is another man's engineering. 'Supernatural' is a null word." -- Robert Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newgeezer

I think it’s high time to make sex illegal.


21 posted on 04/28/2008 2:28:08 PM PDT by Rudder (Klinton-Kool-Aid FReepers prefer spectacle over victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newgeezer
Hmph. Pardon me if I fail to drum up much (if any) sympathy for the guy. After all, "He knew it was wrong."

Of course he knew it was wrong. And, yes, it is pretty hard to sympathize with him. However, and without excusing what he did, I can feel bad for how easy it was for him to develop a life-destroying interest in child porn.

Prior to the internet if one wanted to view pornography, they had to drive to the seedy adult bookstore out on the edge of town and purchase magazines or movies. If one wanted to view child porn, they had to search for it. You couldn't buy it at the adult bookstore. One had to ask around to find underground clubs where the material was discretely traded amongst the members.

The internet has brought pornography into the privacy of peoples' homes. No longer is someone afraid of having their car identified by a neighbor or coworker when they park it at the adult bookstore. Men (and women) can procure pornography in privacy without anyone knowing. The ability to do this privately (and without paying money) has led many people into addiction where they can spend hours each evening looking at porn on the internet. It is conceivable that in looking at hundreds of porn sites, someone might stumble upon something inappropriate and, out of curiosity, click on it. The next thing they know, they've found this site and proceed to download image upon image.

So here we have people that prior to the internet might have never actively searched out underage porn but because they "found" some on line, saw something they never saw before and developed an attraction to it.

And, yes, these people are criminals by virtue of the fact that they continue to download these images.

What people need to realize is it is becoming increasingly easier for authorities to monitor what we are downloading. Looking at porn at home is no longer a private affair. Guys like this failed to realize that and now he's going to be made an example of. You can guarantee there are hundreds if not thousands of people who read this article and thought, "There but for the grace of God..." and are scrubbing their hard drives.

The internet has created an audience for child pornography where there didn't used to be one before, except amongst the most dedicated of pedophiles who actively sought it out. As monitoring becomes more commonplace, we can expect to see a lot more people from all walks of life find themselves in the same boat as this fellow.

Just my $0.02.

24 posted on 04/28/2008 3:27:54 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson