Posted on 01/18/2003 5:26:59 PM PST by MadIvan
So "looking at pictures" = the death penalty.
Is that a valid synopsis of your opinion?
You see no distinction between the person who abused the chldren and took the photos, the person who put the images on the Internet, and the person who views those images? I guess you wholheartedly agree then in those anti-drug ads. I suppose you would then agree that Dionne Warwick should be executed for carrying a bag of cocaine through an airport, since it is morally equivalent to the Columbian druglord who produced it.
Paedophila - the death penalty. Absolutely. And here is why - because the people who are paying their money into this site are encouraging a trade which is abominable. It is intolerable. If you can't grasp how this is just beyond the pale, then I can't help you - you have no moral compass.
I guess you wholheartedly agree then in those anti-drug ads. I suppose you would then agree that Dionne Warwick should be executed for carrying a bag of cocaine through an airport, since it is morally equivalent to the Columbian druglord who produced it.
Take a valium before you attempt such parallels - substance abuse is bad, but there is volition on the part of those who snort drugs. These children who are violated have no choice.
One may wonder why you are so vigourously defending the right of people to view child pornography, however.
Ivan
And how am I doing that? Read my post. I am rightly suspicious of government entities which want to spy on everything website we surf on the Internet. Perhaps you approve of the "Information Awareness Office" and its goal of doing just that, in addition to tracking every purchase, phone call, and email we transmit. I do not. I do not approve of paedophiles. I approve of due process.
No you don't. Due process is already served by the person having submitted their credit card and address information, actually paying for the child pornography. If there is credit card fraud, all right. But apart from that, that is an act of purchasing, obtaining child pornography, which can and should be illegal.
You are raising the bar to heights that make it difficult to catch paedophiles out there, who are continuing to fuel sites like this one. Proud of yourself?
Ivan
I oppose the unrestricted right of government to intrude in our lives, particularly without due process. I do not defend paedophiles. But you are too emotional to see that. Too bad.
So what is the issue of civil liberties when an investigation into a crime turns up a name?
I wan't lecturing you, I was suggesting that child porn and child molestation is so serious that perverts who indulge in that should be pursued vigorously. Many people don't understand how devastating it is to the child.... just thought I would give you a little heads up on that.
On the contrary, you are the one being emotional. You are so afraid that government might do the wrong thing, you want it to do nothing. Even when the case is utterly egregious. I have tirelessly pointed out to you that the standard at present is unreasonable, and the logic behind it. However your emotionalism, your fear of the government, makes you want it to do nothing, even when it should be doing something.
Think about it.
Ivan
I am not raising the bar. And I agree that purveyors should be executed. I view consumers as distinct from purveyors, as does the law in most cases. And what if someone's child used their credit card, or a friend, or it was stolen? This has happened to me for shopping-type sites, and it could easily happen for paedophile sites, and some teens may not realize what they are subscribing is illegal, when they use their parent's credit card. DA's don't care. I can just see this DA's wanting to put out lists and photos of everyone of the subscriber list...he is dying to do it. I resist the unbridled exercise of power by the government at every turn. DA's are not to be trusted, but checked.
As previously stated, that would have to be investigated. But at the same time, this should not be a bar to making subscription sufficient proof for a prosecution of the genuine cases.
I can just see this DA's wanting to put out lists and photos of everyone of the subscriber list...he is dying to do it. I resist the unbridled exercise of power by the government at every turn. DA's are not to be trusted, but checked.
Now who's being emotional?
Ivan
Not true. If I gave that impression I will end it here. I am afraid of ambitious DA's playing with people's lives for their own political gain. They do it every day. I am afraid of Poindexter's OIA. I am afraid of thought crime, and what will happen if one day you use the "N" word or the word "fag" in an email, unaware that your state has made that illegal as a "hate crime", punishable by 1 year in prison and a $10,000 fine, by slipping it into a law lauded for its protection of "diversity" (this will likely happen first in Canada), and has been tracking every word you type.
But don't you see, this entire statement is an expression of fear in and of itself. OK, there are ambitious and power-mad people. But that should not be a bar on this specific instance - i.e., that people who subscribe, meaning pay, to view child pornography should be brought to justice and have that subscription as evidence. Now they will have to check for fraud, but it is far better that they do a check for fraud than blithely let the paedophile go. And God knows how many thousands are going to escape justice due to this particular barrier being raised.
Ivan
Montag813, you were close on political ambition. Ms. Moore used this prosecution in her campaign for the local criminal district attorney. Fortunately, she was swamped under in the GOP landslide here in Tarrant County.
As a point of political trivia, Ms. Moore's husband was the publisher of Jim Wright's infamous "Reflections of a Public Man" -- whose phony royalties forced Wright out of office.
If you read the article, you have to note that the "DA" that you abhor hasn't been involved at all. This was a crime unit who uncovered a ring of pedophiles, but who can't do anything about it because our laws require catching the pervert in the act.
This article points out that in this country, we can get solid evidence that someone is engaging in this horrendous act, and yet we can't do anything about it unless we actually catch them in the act.
Talk about government interference. If the government has to monitor every online activity to catch someone known to participate in child pornography, how is that better than simply investigating people whose names appear in investigations into these lurid activities?
MY QUESTION EXACTLY!!!!!
kind of like....why do some Priests/Cardinals shove the peodophiles amongst them under the rug....out of sight.....or so it seems.....until they OFFEND AGAIN!!!
I agree. If I can only get the credit card numbers from some of the people who have offended me over the years life will get very bad for them. By merely using their address and the credit card number I can put them in the position of having to prove that they are not deserving of spending a thousand years in jail.
What could such a person possible offer as evidence proving their innocence. Hey, this could be great fun and a very effective tool for political opponents.
Well, it does and it doesn't. I think as much as anything else, the article sort of oversimplifies the situation here. The mere act of subscribing to such a website is not, in and of itself, illegal. What is illegal is possessing child pornography. I think what was meant by "catching them in the act" is that if you have someone that you know is currently browsing the site, then you know they are currently in possession of child porn, thanks to their browser cache, if nothing else. Thus, you could coordinate an arrest with their browsing activity.
However, what I don't understand, is that finding someone's name and credit card number in the records of a site that deals in child porn should easily be grounds for a search warrant. So why not get warrants and start searching computers? If they have something there, you arrest them and prosecute them, and if there's nothing, you let them go and hope they slip up sometime in the future. I can't for the life of me understand why they wouldn't do that, unless the sheer numbers of people involved would have made it impossible - perhaps they were worried that they would nab a few folks, and then the word would get out that the police were on the move. And then, after that, they'd find nothing but a bunch of cleanly-wiped hard drives, and end up wasting a lot of time. But it still makes sense to me to try....
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.