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

[desslock]

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

[gaybucks_chip]

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.

[maxpower]

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.

[Squirt]

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.

The reason the mere possession of child porn is punishable has to do with intent to commit a crime, mens rea, and solicitation via the exchange of CP, not people trying to control what others think.

The act of sex with a child is illegal. Sending or receiving images of actual children being victimized is seen as a form of solicitation which, among other things, is the act of enticing, inviting, or urging someone to commit a crime.

Solicitation is considered a specific criminal intent offense in the commission of a crime and when two or more people are knowingly exchanging CP it's conspiracy to commit a crime (i.e. someone provides CP on a site and you visit that site and view/download the content).

Mens rea, (guilty mind) is established with the knowing exchange or ownership of CP as well.

Mens rea and criminal intent are what allows a burglar in your house, who hasn't stolen anything, to be arrested for intent to commit burglary. Conspiracy to commit murder, abduction, etc. etc. are all based on these grounds as well.

I think the laws on ownership and distribution of CP stand on solid ground and aren't based on the "thought police" but more on solicitation and the criminal intent reasons that people own, buy, or trade CP. Do you agree?

[Matt 26z]

There is no valid argument for CP. A crime has to be committed in the first place to make it. The demand for this material from **** consumers is what drives other pedos to produce it, and thus commit a non-CP crime that may not have otherwise taken place. That is the primary argument against CP, and it is a good one.

One thing that requires a bit more thought is when you factor in age of consent. 3/4 of the US and every major country is 16 or 17, assuming the age chart I looked at is correct. Therefore under CP laws you've got one or two ages where it is considered highly illegal to depict something in photos that is perfectly legal to do in real life.

What do you guys think is the reasoning for that? Not that I think the laws should be changed, I just can't think of anything.

[desslock]

Chip/Squirt - I think that you do make valid arguments. Like I said in my earlier wordchoice - "I lean against it".... (yes, it's possible to have an opinion that is not staked firmly into the Earth! hehe)

I just am skeptical, and I know that possession of child porn images can go to a particular sinister motive, but so what? Does my possession of Das Kapital by Karl Marx imply that I am a communist, or that I'm supportive of an armed revolution against the United States government?

Or let me invoke the frustrations we all have about the 2257 law. It is one thing to criminalize filming movies with underage models...... but it is something else to criminalize the failure to maintain records on models which appear in such movies.

Or another well-intentioned but ultimately dumb law - insider trading laws. Martha Stewert talked to her boyfriend about stock that they own, and that is deemed a federal crime? It is one thing to commit fraud (like Enron's executives) but talking about stock that you own is something completely different.

All in all.... we have way too many federal crimes. I'm sure that possessing child porn pics is a crime in Texas, so let Dawgy go through the state process, not the creeky, overcrowded federal one.

Steve

[DonMike]

I just am skeptical, and I know that possession of child porn images can go to a particular sinister motive, but so what? Does my possession of Das Kapital by Karl Marx imply that I am a communist, or that I'm supportive of an armed revolution against the United States government?

I have to disagree with you, Steve. You have the right to own any type of media that contains any type of ideas because these things are not infringing on anyone else's right. However, there is no protection for someone owning pictures where the subject of the picture is being brutalized or harmed, and any situation where there is someone underage having sex with an adult could be extremely harmful to their psyche.

One thing that I find really interesting is that people are being put in jail for these sorts of things, the FBI is going through people's records to make sure all of the models on people's websites are 18 and over and that we have the records to prove it, but go into the bathroom of any Bucco Du Beppo restaurant and the walls are covered with pictures of small children peeing, yes, many of them naked or at least with their genitals exposed. And somehow that deemed socially acceptable.

[Squirt]

I just am skeptical, and I know that possession of child porn images can go to a particular sinister motive, but so what? Does my possession of Das Kapital by Karl Marx imply that I am a communist, or that I'm supportive of an armed revolution against the United States government?

I'm with you. I know exactly where you're coming from here as this can become a very slippery slope even though the current CP laws stand on solid ground.

Our current administration is pushing an invalid anti porn propoganda based on CP fears, as their anti porn propaganda wouldn't hold on it's own merits without the crutch of CP to keep it going.

Again they are using the crutch of fear to effect change that most of America would find unconstitutional if the real basis were unvailed and left to stand on their own merits. Their real motive, of course, being the curbing of legal sexual freedom of expression.

I read something today that is earily similar to something we are experiencing in American society today. Read it and tell me your thoughts:

------------

Although his party never won an overall majority in Germany, on 30 January 1933 Hitler became chancellor of a coalition government. Many believed power would 'tame' him, but the descent into the hell of the Third Reich was rapid. By 1938 radicalism, terror, and expansionism had become the norm, and many Germans tolerated the situation - with fear and propaganda being partial explanations for this acceptance.

Hitler sought world domination (he always took war to his enemies, not they to him), and his policies led inexorably to World War Two. His murderous racial and political intentions were always clear, although secrecy sometimes shrouded the precise means of their execution. source

------------

Sound familiar?

[desslock]

Squirt -

No. Everybody trots out those old Weimar Republic/Hitler examples to paint a scary picture of whatever is happening at the present time.

Honestly for me I think the "scariest" turn in politics now is the embrace of xenophobia regarding illegal alien fears. But going back to 1930s comparisons.... it was a protectionist Congress (Republicans were mostly high tarrifs/protectionist in those days) that triggered the Great Depression. So right now we are looking at Republicans leaning heavily on anti-immigration and protectionist fears to keep their power.

Unfortunately the alternative Democrats would move in that direction even faster. Their constituency.... unions, oppose cheap labor coming into the country as well. And they would be happy in protecting big American business from those cheap goods from China and services from India.

All in all, it would make the costs of living and doing business a lot higher, and people like TakeMyTaco would have to endure the humiliation of paying even more to get into his local street fair in SilverLake.

Steve

[Lee]

Anyone know what the outcome of Dawgys court hearing was on Oct 27th?

Havent heard or seen anything posted by anyone in respect of this yet.

I recall he was possibly looking at 5-20 years inside.

Regards,

Lee

[procam]

:morning: Oh the drama~