 |
| |
|
|
The Mad Viking
|
 |
of the Great White North
Feb 2000
time: 05:25
|
|
Man, its not worth getting famous...
OK, here's my prediction.
Townsend did contact the authorities before they charged him. In fact, maybe they charged him BECAUSE he let them know he was going access porn.
Other facts:
Townsend is writing an autobiography. Townsend very likely was sexually abused as a small child.
Townsend has admitted to being bisexual, not that it's relevant but to set the record straight. He is also married and a father.
The $20 or so he paid to hardly will fund the child porn industry.
Opinion:
If viewing child porn is a crime, so is owning a handgun. If the first "supports" making child porn, the second "supports" the murder industry. Smoking marijauna supports the illegal drug industry who sell heroin to teenagers.
The police always seem more interested in a high profile bust of a user than in gettting the stuff of the street / web.
I have a picture of my two sons, when they were aged about 7 and 10, stark naked (full frontal) singing a song. Are the police coming to arrest me? What if I show it to my parents, does it become porn then? What if I show it to a friend of the family? Is it only porn if the person looking at it gets a boner? Should the police put electronic devices in all our pants? 
If someone breaks into my house and steals my photo album and posts the picture on the web, do I go to jail?
If someone thinks about pedophilia, should they be arrested?
If they draw a picture of what they were thinking about, should they be arrested?
CRIME:
Making images which involves mistreatment of children,
Profiting from traficking in such images.
Leave Pete alone.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lazarus and the Gimp
|
 |
Whale-raping abomination
Aug 2000
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Man, its not worth getting famous...
OK, here's my prediction.
Townsend did contact the authorities before they charged him. In fact, maybe they charged him BECAUSE he let them know he was going access porn.
|
According to the Metropolitan Police, he came forward a few days before he was due to be arrested. My guess is that he heard of someone else being arrested for doing the same thing, as it's been on the news lately
quote:
Other facts:
Townsend is writing an autobiography.
|
Great defence. If he gets off, I bet it'll prove popular in all future trials.
quote:
Townsend very likely was sexually abused as a small child.
|
As were most paedophiles.
quote:
Townsend has admitted to being bisexual, not that it's relevant but to set the record straight. He is also married and a father.
|
Irrelevant on every count. Gary Glitter was married and a father too, incidentally.
quote:
The $20 or so he paid to hardly will fund the child porn industry.
|
Congratulations. You just made the "dumb statement of the year" shortlist. Are you suggesting everyone gets a quota of kiddyporn they can download without facing charges?
quote:
Opinion:
If viewing child porn is a crime, so is owning a handgun.
|
In Britain that's not an opinion. It's a fact. What's your point here?
quote:
If the first "supports" making child porn, the second "supports" the murder industry.
|
Am I supposed to disagree here? Well I'll play ball. I believe that the pro-gun lobby point out the lawful and laudable uses of guns. Please feel free to do so for pictures of children being raped.
quote:
Smoking marijauna supports the illegal drug industry who sell heroin to teenagers.
|
It probably does, which is why it's illegal in Britain. The phrase "so what?" springs to mind at this point.
quote:
I have a picture of my two sons, when they were aged about 7 and 10, stark naked (full frontal) singing a song. Are the police coming to arrest me? What if I show it to my parents, does it become porn then? What if I show it to a friend of the family? Is it only porn if the person looking at it gets a boner? Should the police put electronic devices in all our pants?
|
A picture of a naked child does not equate to child porn. If they were pictured in a sexually suggestive context then it can become so.
Mens Rea can be the determining factor. If you put that picture on-line and advertised it as "Sexy little naked boys", then you would almost certainly be in trouble.
quote:
If someone breaks into my house and steals my photo album and posts the picture on the web, do I go to jail?
|
Nope. Even if it's ruled that the photo constitutes actus reus, there's no mens rea.
quote:
If someone thinks about pedophilia, should they be arrested?
|
Thoughts are not illegal. There is no actus reus in a thought alone.
quote:
If they draw a picture of what they were thinking about, should they be arrested?
|
The law says "no" as no abuse of children is involved. The same goes for stories.
quote:
CRIME:
Making images which involves mistreatment of children,
Profiting from traficking in such images.
Leave Pete alone. |
Wrong.
Crime= creating an obscene image (on a PC hard drive). In other words, it looks like "guilty as charged".
Just out of interest, would you take this tack if he was a librarian, or minor civil servant? A nobody?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:25
|
|
Well, first of all, many people would argue that watching an act of murder/rape/abuse in progress and not doing anything to stop it should be illegal, and in many places, it is. By a similar strain of logic, one could say that by viewing child porn (and paying for it, too), one is creating a market for pornographers to continue abusing children in such a manner. By creating the demand, you're aiding in the crime and encouraging it to take place. You can't encourage people to commit murder, so you can't encourage people to make child porn.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
For one, I believe Townshend's explanation.
However, it excuses nothing--he became part of the problem the second he logged onto that website, and he should be prosecuted for it.
But just because the man is sick it doesn't mean I won't enjoy his music as much I have prior to this week.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
Mad Viking - quote:
Townsend did contact the authorities before they charged him. In fact, maybe they charged him BECAUSE he let them know he was going access porn. |
If true, that puts the case in a different light. What did the police tell him in response to his notification? Did they tell Pete that would be illegal and he will be arrested and charged or did they tell him go right ahead because they let researchers buy child porn?
quote:
The $20 or so he paid to hardly will fund the child porn industry. |
$20 here, $20 there, and soon you have suppliers meeting the demand.
quote:
If viewing child porn is a crime, so is owning a handgun. If the first "supports" making child porn, the second "supports" the murder industry. Smoking marijauna supports the illegal drug industry who sell heroin to teenagers. |
Can you buy child porn without a child being victimised? Nope. Can you buy a gun without someone being murdered with a gun? Yup. Would knife and baseball bat buyers guarantee people are knifed or clubbed to death by the sellers? Nope. Can you use pot without somebody selling heroin to teens? Yup.
quote:
I have a picture of my two sons, when they were aged about 7 and 10, stark naked (full frontal) singing a song. Are the police coming to arrest me? What if I show it to my parents, does it become porn then? What if I show it to a friend of the family? Is it only porn if the person looking at it gets a boner? Should the police put electronic devices in all our pants? |
Parents/people have been arrested and immense harm done to them and their families by social services/police/courts because they had pictures of their kids in the buff, and this is outrageous. That's why I don't like this crusade against child porn, but unlike the witch hunts, child porn does exist. I just wish the people running the crusade had some brains. I don't like child protection agencies having policing powers, they tend to see pedophiles behind every tree when most people not blinded by the crusade can make distinctions. Frankly, outlawing child nudity is part of the problem, outlaw having sex with children and pictures of the behavior. That is how you know if it's child porn, how does one know if the image of a nude child is porn? To people who aren't pedophiles, those images are just pictures of naked children which could have been taken by parents, etc.
quote:
If someone breaks into my house and steals my photo album and posts the picture on the web, do I go to jail? |
Exactly! If authorities cannot nail down the context in which the photos were made, it's silly to call it child porn. To me, child porn is an image of children having sex (or simulating sex). What child porn laws tend to do is make it a crime to have pedophile thoughts - getting excited by child nudity - while also punishing people who produce the images without even thinking like pedophiles, like most parents who take photos of their kids.
quote:
If someone thinks about pedophilia, should they be arrested? |
There is a difference between thinking about it or creating images from thoughts and actually using children.
quote:
If they draw a picture of what they were thinking about, should they be arrested? |
No, but the problem authorities then claim to have is proving an image was of an actual child or a manipulation. While I sympathesize with that argument, I won't support criminalising thoughts put on paper.
Btw, I agree with Jules caution, if Britain's age of consent is 16, then we don't know for sure if Pete accessed a site advertising and containing actual child porn or if it was just older teens. But if Pete is justifying his actions by claiming he was molested as a child, then that implies the site had children and not older teens.
Last edited by Berzerker on 14-01-2003 at 07:52
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
According to the latest article about this on E! Online Townshend had voiced anger over the easy access of Child Porn to both Roger Daltrey and Jerry Hall in the past, so appartently somebody knew he was doing something along the lines of his claim to be researching the subject. He evidently was nabbed as part of a masive effort involving British police and the FBI which also nabbed 1300 other people.
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,11109,00.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seeker
|
 |
London Ontario
Jan 1970
time: 00:25
|
|
On the distinctions, I'd have to say if he actually gave money, then it is illegal.
On what should be illegal, I'd have to say actual sex acts only, or really obvious abuse/fetish type stuff. According to some of these laws, you'd better get that pissin' cherub of your lawn pretty quick...
Research: I don't know what sort of legal grounds it has, but psychological and other research material has involved images, for example child abuse, trauma, abnormal behaviour is one of the big things studied and they do indeed have media images of the things some disturbed/abused kids get up to. However I think that is much more 'legitimate' reserach than some guy on his own.
Also certain medical and human biology texts have real pictures of human sexual development using real models, things like comparing normal sexual develoment to abnormal.
And I believe that some wacky countries use a wierd 'erection monitor' in a test of pedophiles or certain types of job where the testee is shown child porn images and 'tumescence' is measured, which is a BS test IMO, since erections are not a reliable measure of anything.
I remember we had an interesting debate awhile back on faked images, photoshopped stuff, heads on different bodies, and older legal models who just look really young. There are countries with lower consent ages than the US, and sometimes a 16 year old model, with a little preparation, can look 2-3 years younger.
In order to get around these annoying enforcement grey areas, we get these ridiculous blanket 'anything that looks young and naked' laws. It's like it leaves it up to the judge to decide whether they like a guy or not if something is 'porn'.
Last edited by Seeker on 14-01-2003 at 17:06
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-01-2003 10:07
|