1 posted on
01/13/2003 11:00:09 AM PST by
WL-law
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-25 last
To: Torie
Do you have any thoughts on this thread?
To: WL-law
In California the law specifies intentionaly receiving child porn. I don't see why other places should have a very different approach. It's always been possible for someone to just stuff some kiddie porn in your mailbox.
To: WL-law
3)Yes he was an 'end-user' (pardon the pun), but is that, or should that be, the proper focus of the authorities?Yes. Without the end users paying for it, there would be no market, and the child abuse industry would be almost nonexistent. End users can also be dangerous to people around them.
80 posted on
01/13/2003 10:42:02 PM PST by
xm177e2
To: WL-law
Yes, I know that purchases "fund" the criminal enterprise, but remember -- someone is trying to make you out to be a criminal because you drive an SUV based on the same logic...You fund a criminal enterprise if you buy things that are illegal. Go back to square one and rethink this.
94 posted on
05/08/2003 9:42:39 AM PDT by
js1138
To: WL-law
"child porn" seems to be a bit of a witch hunt to me.
97 posted on
05/08/2003 9:59:33 AM PDT by
biblewonk
(Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-25 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson