[Fred Mertz]

How did he get caught? Did the Thought Police strike again?

I must have a fading memory, because when I saw this hit the Internet news last night, I kept thinking it was Peter Tork of the Monkees.

[dirtboy]

Three points. First, if no one bought the stuff, there would be no market for it on the internet, so IMO the end user has a high level of culpability here. Second, Pete from his statements seems well aware that what he was doing was illegal. And third, he's in Britain, and they have different laws altogether - for example, in a libel trial, the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the plaintiff - so I have no idea what Pete is facing here.

[Registered]

I say let's make an example out of him!

String him up in the public square for a good flogging and castration!

[SunStar]

Pete Townshend, and ALL other users of such child porn sites, are ENABLERS of child porn. Without a customer base, the sickos who molest and abuse children for profit would have no reason to.

[11th Earl of Mar]

If you need more arguments to support your point of view, just go back to the impeachment days... "It's only about sex... and everybody does it."

In other words you sound like James Carville.

[okkev68]

If they found it on his personal computer then he was in possession of it and that is against the law (and extremely sick). If he was arrested because they found his credit card number then his lawyers should have an easy time presenting a "defense".

[Revolting cat!]

Why not ask Guvnor Ryan? I bet the answer would tell us a lot!

[sharktrager]

Well, lets look at the facts as outlined by Pete himself.

This information did not just "pop-up" on his system. He has admitted that he sought out the information. While he states that it was for "research" because he believes he may have been abused as a child, it would easily be able to determine if he had also been doing research in to abused children. If that is not the case, his claim begins to sound hollow. It is important to realize that his reason is a variation on the standard claim, which is that the images were purchased as part of research in to child pornography.

Secondly, he has admitted purchasing the images. While you are focusing on the clear evils of the distributors, it is important to realize that the commercial distribution channels exist solely because there is a market. While child pornography is abundant outside the commercial realm, any and all images created with the intention of selling them are not the responsibility of only their creators, but of those who purchase them. Were there no market commercial pornography would not be created.

I don't know the truth behind Pete's story. I am familiar enough with abuse to know that it can affect behaviors for long after the abuse has stopped. As such, it is entirely possible that Pete is telling the truth. Abuse victims often do not act in ways that seem logical to those who are not themselves victims.

I also know that those who are abused are also more likely to become abusers themselves. Those who engage in the purchase of images of abused children are abusers of a different ilk.

Ultimately, regardless of motive, Pete has essentially confessed that he has personal responsibility for the creation of child pornography by those who's motives are profit.

[Billthedrill]

Well, possession itself is illegal in Great Britain - whether the possession of his credit card number constitutes proof that he actually downloaded anything is questionable, but Pete seems to have admitted at least to wanting to find out what was there, so my guess would be that he did. If so, and it's still on his HD, then Pete's in a spot of bother with the constabulary...

[You Dirty Rats]

Your point 3 attempts to draw a moral equivalence between buying child porn and buying an SUV.

You can't be serious!

[MarkL]

Well, I can say that this sort of stuff can come to you completely unsoclicited, and this happened to me once. I followed the link to what was, without a doubt, a kiddie porn site. I made a note of the URL, and called the local office of the FBI, who referred me to the web site of the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, where I filed a report. Out of curiosity, I checked the site a few days later and found that it was no longer there.

While this stuff is sick, sometimes the government HAS gone too far in trying to entrap people, based on what the government thinks they MIGHT do. I recall a case where a man in California was suspected in being interested in child porn. The postal inspectors sent him a package of illegal kiddie porn, WHICH HE HAD NOT SOLICITED OR REQUESTED. It was shipped in an unmarked box, and when he accepted it, he was arrested for solicitation and possession of child porn, even though he had no idea what it was. Because he also ran a business from him home, he normally got packages a few times a week, so it wasn't unusual to get boxes in the mail. Eventually, the government had to drop the charges, due to the fact that he unwittingly accepted child porn that he never solicited.

Mark

[drjimmy]

As might be gathered from my screen name, I am one of Pete Townshend's biggest fans. I think he is the greatest writer of rock music, and no slouch in the performing department as well.

That being said, not much of what you ask means anything without knowing the specifics of British law. It would seem to me, however, that if he purchased child pornography, he committed a crime. I fervently hope that he is telling the absolute truth as to why he did what he did, and that it will be taken into account when and if any charges are filed.

From reading biographies of Pete's life and from statements he has made over the years, I have no doubt that he was abused as a child himself. What some consider his crowning glory, "Tommy," is all about a child who is emotionally traumatised and then abused. Interestingly, the two "Tommy" songs specifically about abuse--"Cousin Kevin" and "Fiddle About"--were written by bandmate John Entwistle at Pete's request. Perhaps the topics were just too close to Pete's own experience for him to write about.

The bottom line is that I would never excuse Pete if it turns out he has been looking at kiddie porn for his own jollies, let alone committing abuse himself.

[strela]

Is Peter Townshend Really a Criminal?

The title of your article is misleading. He hasn't been convicted of anything ... yet. There is almost no one seriously calling Pete Townshend a "criminal" at this early juncture.

[Rain-maker]

Funny how a electrons flowing thru a wire in a certain pattern can get you prison time.

So when does the Fed mass email child porn to all viewed as opposition and sentences them to hard labor at a prison factory?

Maybe this is good fix for lagging economy, and you won't need a draft either.

[new cruelty]

4) Are the end-users the more- or the less-culpable parties in this enterprise? Why is the focus on the end-user, then, with no mention (no intellectual curiousity,even) in the coverage of the supplier?

And one might assume, since the local ISP isn't being prosecuted for broadcasting this stuff into your home, that it IS legal.

The provider of this muck, in Pete's case, was based in Fort Worth, Texas and was busted sometime last year. Pete's name and thousands of others were noted as having purchased or subscribed to this site. From what I've read (and I'll dig it up if you'd like to read it), authorities from the U.S. and U.K. are working together.

[Uncle Meat]

Pete's more than likely guilty and I don't buy his silly excuse,I wish he'd just come clean and admit he has a problem and get help before he acts out on his compulsion.I'd expect this of Elton John or Michael Jackson,but not him.Hell,Jackson is allowed to this day to collect kids and do whatever his sick mind wants to do with them.Hopefully Pete just got caught with pics and never did anything further than that.I know it may be wishful thinking.I'm a pretty big Who fan myself.

[Jesse]

Driving an SUV is not against the law. Possession of child pornography is. There is nothing similar about it.

In some states, possession of child pornography is considered child sexual abuse...not sure about all states.

We had a case in our state where an OB GYN had a boatload of child porn...first claimed to be doing research for a book...was a crock of baloney. No notes, no research data...he typed up a book outline that a high school teacher would have flunked.

You must be a lawyer if you think criminal activities require a warning label or you get a pass...Ha Ha, good one. I go to banks all the time, stores...have yet to see a warning label that robbing them is illegal.

I doubt that they busted this guy for merely stumbling across a website with child porn...my guess is we will be astonished to hear the volume of child porn on his computer...but will take time...it all has to be examined.

No, you do not have to be in the chain of supply to be in violation of the law.

[TruthFactor]

Yes

[Diddle E. Squat]

So basically you are asking if we should prosecute the person who hires a hit man to commit murder.

And Clinton should not have been impeached but Monica thrown in jail.

Are you referencing Scottish law?

[dennisw]

The guitarist went on, "I saw the first awful photo by accident. It repelled me and shocked me to my very core. I was not breaking the law at the time. This was in the winter of 1996-1997.

It was then illegal to download, which I did not do, not to search and view. I did not think using a credit card was illegal either at the time. As a public figure I would never have given details had I known I would be breaking U.K. law. I need to regain the trust of police and authorities involved in protecting children to continue to use my energies and determination to help what they do...Chasing after people like Gary Glitter (who's been convicted on child porn charges) is important, and it is important that the police are able to convince themselves that--if I did anything illegal--I did it purely for research. I am not a pedophile."