Gay webmaster jailed on CP charges - someone most of us know

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

Yes I guess you could do that. While they're advertising for affiliates and link trades or trying to sell content, just keep quiet, report it and feel sorry for people replying to their posts not really knowing what they're getting into.

---

Ya I know what your saying man, their is no easy answer to this going to be a down side either way. I know on some occasions the Fed’s will go after affiliates and all, but think this is less likely than dyeing in a terrorist attack. I hate to say think “know its going to open me up to all kinds of crap” but I am sure they use a little common sense, and are not really wanting to go after people that REALLY think they are promoting a legal site “Ccbill and all” after all they would and should go after Ccbill in that case. This whole think is really gray, but do still think keeping quite about a real CP is best and report them, and at the same time if something comes out that someone is charged with CP then everyone should know so they can take another look at their links and content from them.

a witch hunt? he was having sex with a 14 year old boy! he pled guilty to that cp charge - he didn't plead not guilty or no contest. and he went to canada to shoot content, btw, when he ended up with that 14 year old boy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

a witch hunt? he was having sex with a 14 year old boy! he pled guilty to that cp charge - he didn't plead not guilty or no contest. and he went to canada to shoot content, btw, when he ended up with that 14 year old boy.

---

Sorry Bass I think we have hijacked this thread or moved on from that, nothing to really say about what that guy did other than that’s what happens when you have sex with 14 year olds. :shock:

Looks like you're trying to paint everything in shades of grey while totally ignoring documented facts, and admissions, by the accussed himself.

I suggest you know about topics you're commenting on, before you post, to avoid looking foolish.

While having sex with 14 year old children isn't illegal in Canada, luring children for sex via the internet is. I find it interesting that you are defending a man that plead quilty to possessing child porn, and had photos of children under 12 having sex with adults, as being a possible victim of the government and the things he admitted to possibly didn't exist or happen.

Things that make you go hmm...

I always like to take the underdogs side and look at things from a fair perspective but when a person pleads guilty to possessing child porn how can you say they might be innocent? I've heard some people use the excuse that they aren't good with age... but there is a big difference between a shaved 18 year old and a 12 year old, as I've mentioned elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

It would be nice to hear the other side of the story. Someone here that is friends with him should have him write a letter for posting on his behalf once he gets settled into his new home.

A part of me would like to think this is a witch hunt on the part of US authorities for doing something perfectly legal in Canada that is considered incredibly illegal here in the US.

The CP on his home computer, how much of it was legal twink porn and TGP thumbnails in his temp internet files of shaven 18+ twinks? I've heard of people being tried for CP based only on thumbs, so who knows what could be going on here.

Also interesting that none of the news stories mention that he worked in porn. That is something you would think these writers would include for the added shock value. They must not be aware. Is someone trying to hide that the "CP" on his computer may have actually been adults?

Things that make you go hmm...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

While having sex with 14 year old children isn't illegal in Canada, luring children for sex via the internet is.

---

What the Hell is that? Is this really true? I can see it being legal as long as the peoples ages are 5 years or less apart, but how the fuck could it be legal for a 35 year old guy to have sex with a 14 year old?

How could a 14 year old not considered a child if you meet them in the park but online they are? What age does someone have to be to date online 18?

Sorry this stuff sounds really fucked up to me man. :shock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

a witch hunt? he was having sex with a 14 year old boy! he pled guilty to that cp charge - he didn't plead not guilty or no contest. and he went to canada to shoot content, btw, when he ended up with that 14 year old boy.

---

Sorry Bass I missed that guys post and was just thinking you where misunderstanding what me and squirt where saying

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxpower

Sorry this stuff sounds really fucked up to me man. :shock:

---

What's really fucked up is certain webmasters and content producers trying to explain things like this away as being misunderstandings, conspiracies, or acceptable.

Yeah we've seen a couple of CP related issues popup in Gay part of our industry the last week or so, and we're discussing them, but you'll see some people say that discussing it means you're paranoid or somehow involved in it yourself.

There shouldn't be a stigma attached to addressing this issue in a public forum from time to time. Open forums are here to inform eachother and discuss difficult issues when they arise.

Listen, I'm not defending him for what happened in Canada. He met that boy, he filmed him. For that he is guilty as sin unless there is an extraordinary alternative version of events.

I'm just saying there is a lack of facts available in the media on the US charges. We don't know what they actually found. Reduce the photo size of an 18yo twink to 10-15%, what do you see now? This is the sort of stuff I'm talking about, but maybe they did have him on full size photos that were clearly kids. Who knows.

People do often plead guilty for crimes they did not commit if it looks like they do not have the evidence to exonerate themselves. It's to throw yourself at the mercy of the court in hopes of getting a shorter sentence.

If his side of the story even outside of the courtroom is that he is guilty and had CP on his computer at home, fine, so be it. We had a **** in our midst that is now off the streets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

I find it interesting that you are defending a man that plead quilty to possessing child porn, and had photos of children under 12 having sex with adults, as being a possible victim of the government and the things he admitted to possibly didn't exist or happen.

Things that make you go hmm...

---

Consider yourself lucky in your wording of that, and stopping where you did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Consider yourself lucky in your wording of that, and stopping where you did.

---

What exactly are you trying to say? Sounds like a vailed threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Listen, I'm not defending him for what happened in Canada.

---

Yes you are. You said "A part of me would like to think this is a witch hunt on the part of US authorities for doing something perfectly legal in Canada.." What he did was ILLEGAL in Canada, that's why he was charged, pleaded guilty, and served time there.

If you're going to say something then stand your ground don't backpeddle and if you were wrong or changed your mind then just say so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

People do often plead guilty for crimes they did not commit if it looks like they do not have the evidence to exonerate themselves.

---

He filmed himself having sex with a 14 year old kid. The authorities have the tape as evidence. Now why do you think he plead guilty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

We don't know what they actually found. Reduce the photo size of an 18yo twink to 10-15%, what do you see now?

---

You think it's possible that a 33 year old adult webmaster, and content producer, who lures 14 year old kids on the internet for sex, and films it, would not have pictures and videos of underage kids having sex on his computer? Are you serious? I guess if he was smart he would have covered his tracks but hard to do that when you're in possession of video, that you filmed, of you having sex with a 14 year old. :cop:

He was also in possession of a laptop at the time he was doing the filming... now I wonder what an adult webmaster, who is filming himself having sex with a 14 year old kid, would be doing with a laptop, while he's in a foreign country filming sex with a minor? Any ideas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

What exactly are you trying to say? Sounds like a vailed threat.

---

I don't know, what were YOU trying to say? :bunnypancake:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

Yes you are. You said "A part of me would like to think this is a witch hunt on the part of US authorities for doing something perfectly legal in Canada.." What he did was ILLEGAL in Canada, that's why he was charged, pleaded guilty, and served time there.

---

Let my clarify. I was commenting on his meeting with the 14yo in general. That in itself is legal in Canada, but 30something on 14yo is grounds for a huge prison sentence here in the US.

A few years ago one of the hot stories in the media was sex tourism by Americans going to Thailand. Dawgy's situation is similar, but not illegal here in the US since it wasn't for money. Still, it's enough to enrage people. It would then only be natural that US authorities bust him for everything they can back home since they can't get him here for what happened in Canada.

I believe he ran a TGP. I have never operated a twink TGP, but I would imagine the gallery reviewers of such TGP's may have a number of "questionable materials" in their internet cache. Am I wrong on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

He filmed himself having sex with a 14 year old kid. The authorities have the tape as evidence. Now why do you think he plead guilty?

---

The 14yo was actually going on 15. So we are talking about a high school freshman here. Pure speculation on my part, but what if the boy looked older and lied about his age to Dawgy? Even if he looked 16 or 17 and lied and said he was 18, that would be enough since a lot of 18yo's do look a year or two younger.

The bottom line is the guilty plea got him off on time served. If he takes it to trial and wins, how is he anywhere ahead? It just creates the risk of a guilty verdict and prison sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

You think it's possible that a 33 year old adult webmaster, and content producer, who lures 14 year old kids on the internet for sex, and films it, would not have pictures and videos of underage kids having sex on his computer? Are you serious?

---

I'll agree with you there. If this kid looked like the typical 14yo and he knew his age when they agreed to meet, then he should certainly be suspected of having CP on his computer.

He did two guilty pleas instead of taking them both to trial. So we have no idea what his side of the stories are.

I have no problems agreeing to disagree

I'm focused on facts and what he's done, and admitted to doing.

You are focused on what we don't know and how those things we don't know could possibly be explained away.

There is nothing wrong with that and defense attornies make it their business to specialize in the area of what ifs and we don't know.

At the end of the day the undisputed facts are that someone a lot of us know travelled to a foreign country, had sex with a 14 year old, filmed it, was arrested, pleaded guilty, served time, and is now in custody in the U.S. pending trial for charges. Those are the facts and that's enough to make me step back and reconsider who I'm doing business with and how well I know them. If that's not enough for some people to be a bit introspective then no dramas :bunny:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

but when a person pleads guilty to possessing child porn how can you say they might be innocent?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

People do often plead guilty for crimes they did not commit if it looks like they do not have the evidence to exonerate themselves. It's to throw yourself at the mercy of the court in hopes of getting a shorter sentence.

---

People also plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit in plea bargains to not be charged with more serious crimes. (not even suggesting that is the case with the subject of the thread starting post, just commenting on the 2 quotes above)

Hmmm..... his trial and sentencing is under Judge Melinda Harmon, a Bush 41 appointee.....

Harmon was the judge who ran the trial that convicted Arthur Anderson of obstructing justice by shredding all of its documents regarding Enron. The Supreme Court ultimately overruled that trial..... maybe he has a good lawyer....

For the record, I lean against the legitimacy of laws criminalizing the mere possession of child porn images. My first thought is that images constitute speech, and is a different thing from actually doing it. Similar to having documents inciting racism, homophobia, or religious persecution - that's just talking about something, not acting on it.

Twenty years for some photographs on your hard drive? But this is probably a good example of how royally screwed up the United States federal court and prison system is.

We have way to many federal criminal laws...... and I'd extend that to the legal morass and new crap that would be added if "Net Neutrality" were to become an unfortunate reality.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

For the record, I lean against the legitimacy of laws criminalizing the mere possession of child porn images. My first thought is that images constitute speech, and is a different thing from actually doing it.

---

That's an interesting argument, and one I hadn't really thought of before, but I think I have to respectfully disagree on that one.

While the importance of protected speech can't be overstated, I do think that the harm that comes to a child by being convinced, cajoled, encouraged, or whatever it is into participating in porn (or, for that matter, *any* sexual acts with an adult) far, far outweighs the damage to first amendment protections by restricting that specific kind of expression.

I actually had a series of IM conversations couple years back with a guy who was 19 at the time, was thinking of modeling for us, and in later conversations with him, I found out that he'd been cajoled into shooting porn (as a model) when he was 12 or 13. He described the whole process, how they basically validated and normalized it so at the time he didn't feel it was weird, but by the time he was 16, he was a basket case, suicidal, and every time the material would surface somewhere it was devastating for him. He said that of the other kids that were involved (they'd all been friends and pulled into the "fold"), all were either dead, addicted to drugs, or in jail. Clinically valid data? No. But pretty powerful testimony for the damage that is caused. He wanted to do porn again (at 19) to essentially "take back" his body and *choose* to be doing that, but I suggested that he wait and think about it for another year or so, and he ended up deciding he didn't need to do that to heal, which for him, was probably the better choice. But that series of conversations really drove home what happens in a way that I could understand viscerally rather than intellectually... and made me realize that there are probably times when restricting expression is OK.

Absent the limitation on that form of expression, there would be little teeth to enforcement actions; you'd end up with a situation where it is illegal to *produce* it, but not illegal to *own* it, so with a demand for a product that's legal to own, there would be strong incentive to produce, even though it's illegal and unethical. At least when it's illegal to possess AND to produce, there's a strong disincentive to produce it, so the market is limited. In this case, I can't think of a more effective way to limit the demand.

Without re-opening a long-argued can of worms, there's a similar analogy here with bareback porn. Arguably, bareback porn is risky or harmful to the models that participate in it, and some producers refuse to produce it for that reason alone. But because there's a huge demand for it (at least at the moment), producers continue to make it. Of course it's legal to view and to produce, so the analogy is flawed, but I think the market dynamics would be similar. And I think that is reason enough for there to be laws in place to punish those who produce CP.

Sorry I know I am normally on the other side of some of these things, but I have to agree with Chip here. To knowingly own CP “guys as young as 10-15” should not be tolerated. This would encourage more of this stuff and hurt allot of people, hell I don’t even think foot fetish or really any news groups for that matter should be showing 8 year old kids feet or anything sexual in that manner at all. We have to draw the line someplace, I am fine with using content of guys that are 18 that might look a bit young, or bareback stuff, but damn I really do not see how anyone could try to justify CP or anything like that being used in anyway.