Jump to content
CrazyBoards.org

how fucked up is this?


Recommended Posts

It's shocking but I don't find it surprising.

Here in the UK there was a judge who let a man go free for molesting a little girl because the judge thought she was "asking for it".

If the courts won't protect kids, then I don't hold out much hope for the world becoming a safer place for children.

SW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to think its a fairly poor defense in this instance...

OTOH: I've downloaded and read some documents in the past (when somewhat younger) out of pure curiosity that would undoubtedly land me some serious jail time on terrorism charges nowadays... (no... I don't still have them)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OTOH: I've downloaded and read some documents in the past (when somewhat younger) out of pure curiosity that would undoubtedly land me some serious jail time on terrorism charges nowadays... (no... I don't still have them)

And once again the voice of reason steps in and calls bullshit. It's called the First Amendement dear, and when youtube can continue to host videos from terrorists (including snuff videos!) then anything you merely deign to read is quite safe, unless it offends some liberal somewhere or you're on a college campus with a speech code.

Now those liberals, THEY'RE the ones who'll lock you up for what you read or say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OTOH: I've downloaded and read some documents in the past (when somewhat younger) out of pure curiosity that would undoubtedly land me some serious jail time on terrorism charges nowadays... (no... I don't still have them)

And once again the voice of reason steps in and calls bullshit. It's called the First Amendement dear, and when youtube can continue to host videos from terrorists (including snuff videos!) then anything you merely deign to read is quite safe, unless it offends some liberal somewhere or you're on a college campus with a speech code.

Now those liberals, THEY'RE the ones who'll lock you up for what you read or say.

oh really... dear... shows how much you know about whats going on in the rest of the world... have a look sugarplum

[link=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7030096.stm"'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7030096.stm" target="_blank]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7030096.stm[/link]

The second (charge) relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism."

They happen to be referring to a well known publication "the anarchist's cookbook"... which has been widely available for many years on the internet and still is very easily located.

[link=http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/jihad-bomb-man-faces-life-sentence/2006/06/19/1150701485021.html" target="_blank]http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/jih...0701485021.html[/link]

"He was also convicted of possessing a 15-page "terror manual" in his native language of Urdu, which included information on making poisons and bombs"... and the main prosecution argument was his "gathering of information" etc

[link=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/06/1971527.htm"'>http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/06/1971527.htm" target="_blank]http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/06/1971527.htm[/link]

and "inciting" terrorist activities on the internet will also get you in severe trouble... maybe not in America perhaps... yet.

So yes, you can get in serious shit for what you decide to download and read... dear.

(p.s. calling me "dear" is probably a bit like someone calling you "liberal" ;) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(p.s. calling me "dear" is probably a bit like someone calling you "liberal" ;) )

Sorry honey, I'll try to remember that in the future.

shows how much you know about whats going on in the rest of the world

I know VERY damn well what goes on in the rest of the world, and therefore when I mention the First Amendment of the Constitution of these United States of America I am thereby specifically excluding the rest of the world.

I know that in parts of the world calling someone a "terrorist" can get you sued, maybe even thrown in jail. I know that in Canada they have tribunals for hate speech. I know that drawing cartoons considered insulting to a religion can incite riots that prompts governments to crack down on newspapers...and I'm talking "democratic" governments.

I also know that on college campuses in these United States, there are things you cannot say or do, thoughts you can't safely express, speech codes, and indoctrination. And none of it is done under the auspices of the Bushitler regime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know VERY damn well what goes on in the rest of the world

Glad to hear it sweetie, that, however, was not apparent from what you previously wrote.

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

edit:removed uneccessary sarcasm ;)

(unsarcastic version reads: I do not want to start an argument for the sake of it though, I have enough futility in my life at present)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if we take the terrorism subject out of the argument, how do people here feel about the curiosity defense then? say, let's pretend there were no laws governing what you were allowed to read about concerning international/national defense information, or information on procuring or assembling weapons (or anything that is now deemed to be a terrorist threat). does this defense of curiosity then differ in your judgement, let's say if you were among a jury of his peers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[link=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7030096.stm"'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7030096.stm" target="_blank]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7030096.stm[/link]

The second (charge) relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism."

They happen to be referring to a well known publication "the anarchist's cookbook"... which has been widely available for many years on the internet and still is very easily located.

Hey, *I* used to have a copy of that!

I picked it up at a bookstore near campus many years ago, but I forget if I sold it or just gave it away. The recipe for nitroglycerin has long been generally considered more dangerous to the "anarchist" and anyone within his kitchen's blast radius... It's best use is as a idea source/reference for RPGs set in the 20th c. Otherwise, it only exists to scare easily-swayed judges, juries, and legislators, and to help crackpots nominate themselves for the Darwin Awards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if we take the terrorism subject out of the argument, how do people here feel about the curiosity defense then? say, let's pretend there were no laws governing what you were allowed to read about concerning international/national defense information, or information on procuring or assembling weapons (or anything that is now deemed to be a terrorist threat). does this defense of curiosity then differ in your judgement, let's say if you were among a jury of his peers?

I think in the case of child porn, citing curiosity is fucking ridiculous. Sexualizing children in this country is taboo. Even if we did not have any laws regarding child porn, I think it would still be taboo. Taking pictures of children doing sexual things hurts them. A lot of people have that intuition.

As for at what age someone has an adult body (not just at the start of puberty) and can more or less make "adult" decisions, I dunno. I'm not going there today.

Most other things though, I don't know. I'm a pretty curious person, and I find a lot of things interesting. I have absolutely no intention of making things go boom and hurting people, but the science of weapons is fascinating. I'm geeky, though. ;)

It's difficult to prove whether or not someone is simply curious or being malicious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if we take the terrorism subject out of the argument, how do people here feel about the curiosity defense then? say, let's pretend there were no laws governing what you were allowed to read about concerning international/national defense information, or information on procuring or assembling weapons (or anything that is now deemed to be a terrorist threat). does this defense of curiosity then differ in your judgement, let's say if you were among a jury of his peers?

See, I'm fine with curiosity; my problem with, say, child porn is that the material itself the depiction of harm to innocents, The viewing of such material is, imo, giving those who produce it more incentive to distribute it--especially if one pays money to view, even if just for "curiosity".

Obviously looking at bomb making material (and yes, a friend once gave me a copy of the anarchist's cookbook) could lead someone to creating something harmful. But I can do that by taking chem classes or owning a gun, both entirely legal. I judge by proven intent, and in my view merely owning or accessing "terroristic" material (i.e. the cookbook) does not prove intent. It could well be a factor in a trial where there is other compelling evidence, but by itself it holds no value.

Child porn, otoh, I see as intent. It's known that the subjects were harmed and any complicity in the process causes further harm, even if it is tangential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

I won't comment on this case but will give you a real case that happened. A friend was watching an O_prah W_infrery show and it was when the net was still fairly new. She had on an "expert" who showed how easy it was to get porn by typing in certain normal words. She made a big point of showing how some common words - like boy or girl could get you to a child porn site. My friend ( a female) thought this was shocking and wanted to see if it was so. so they tried it. indeed it worked. They were telling workmates about this and before they knew it they were hauled in and written up /fired for an "inappropriate conversation" and asked if this was their "hobby". They won and got unemployment b/c it was the most asinine thing in the world. ;)

Recently someone on another religious board was hauled in at work b/c the religious site they were on was featuring banners on p_edophiles. They almost lost their job.

I recall in the 90's there were literally witch hunts regarding day Care's that supposedly had satanic rituals at them. People were put in jail and several years later found to be innocent. It seems no matter what we go from doing nothing about something to dong too much.

and BTW, I agree. Liberals will be the first ones to take away your freedoms .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't comment on this case but will give you a real case that happened. A friend was watching an O_prah W_infrery show and it was when the net was still fairly new. She had on an "expert" who showed how easy it was to get porn by typing in certain normal words. She made a big point of showing how some common words - like boy or girl could get you to a child porn site. My friend ( a female) thought this was shocking and wanted to see if it was so. so they tried it. indeed it worked. They were telling workmates about this and before they knew it they were hauled in and written up /fired for an "inappropriate conversation" and asked if this was their "hobby". They won and got unemployment b/c it was the most asinine thing in the world. ;)

Recently someone on another religious board was hauled in at work b/c the religious site they were on was featuring banners on p_edophiles. They almost lost their job.

I recall in the 90's there were literally witch hunts regarding day Care's that supposedly had satanic rituals at them. People were put in jail and several years later found to be innocent. It seems no matter what we go from doing nothing about something to dong too much.

and BTW, I agree. Liberals will be the first ones to take away your freedoms .

did any of those people type in the necessary words, find the illegal site, and then PAY to have continued access to it?

there are offensive lawsuits, and then there are offensive interpretations of the law. firing/suing over an anti-porn banner is just stupid. enacting (by legal precedent) curiosity an acceptable defense for a crime is something entirely different.

and what in the love of god does day cares and satanism have to do with this? we're not talking about past claims, we're talking about a current case where the accused has stated that he did indeed participate in the viewing of child porn.

let's not find another way to drag each other into red and blue boxes over this. it doesn't help shape a law that protects our children while allowing us intellectual freedom. we all know where the common ground isn't already. i was hoping to see where the common ground might be.

i did see some common ground, too. nobody really wants to make this stuff legal, or even make it an unfortunate but necessary byproduct of the law. it's just the question of how to proceed that's hard.

- rita

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

No , no one payed to be on a site, they really did just put common words in a search engine . They did exactly what they saw done on daytime TV show mentioned in first post. they then told fellow employees about it. They got written up and fired for this.

It is true that someone almost got fired b/c a religious site had a pedophile banner up on a site- a book someone had written about the prevalence of this in some religious organizations. They were reading the site at work.

I mentioned the Day Care fiasco's in the 90's to illustrate that often people go too far in things, as in the two above examples, extreme reactions to essentially nothing.

Of course we must protect children, far too long they have not had protections. I was just hoping they can do this without over reacting and a lynch mob mentality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyra Banks had a dumb mother on her show who had her 11-year-old daughter, who wants to be a model, pose in some outfits that were rather mature for the girl and, more importantly, in sexual poses. In one photo (shown on the show), for instance, the girl is in a swimsuit and looking up at the camera with what many would call "Fuck me" eyes. Another photo shows her pushing her undeveloped breasts together. The mother saw nothing wrong with it. Anyway, this mother allowed a site that supposedly featured child models to display the photos.

The girl ended up in the hospital at one point--I forget why--and she had her laptop computer with her. She showed some nurses the photos, and one of the nurses called the police. The site was, of course, inappropriate, and her mother had the photos removed. She said she came on Tyra's show for Tyra to help her get her daughter to legitimate agencies. Tyra told her NO LEGITIMATE agency would use those photos, and would call the police on her. The mother refused to see the photos as inappropriate, and says the girl is just "having fun."

I looked at comments about the show on Tyra's website, and one person mentioned the website, which she said she'd visited to see if it was like they said on the show. She said it was, and has banners to all kinds of child models posing in inappropriate poses.

Does this make her a criminal, in your eyes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

I looked at comments about the show on Tyra's website, and one person mentioned the website, which she said she'd visited to see if it was like they said on the show. She said it was, and has banners to all kinds of child models posing in inappropriate poses.

Does this make her a criminal, in your eyes?

\

humm . Good one. No I don't think that makes her a criminal, no more than Tyra showing that photo made her a guilty of child porno on her show. (although I will say that Tyra has at times used poor judgment on what she shows)

Well in the case I mentioned, no particular websites were mentioned. Apparently the woman who was on the show, some Internet expert, (this was several years ago) was just typing in words like boy, girl, love, etc. Miss O never showed the audience what came up but did encourage them to try this out at home. It was to show how easy a person can accidentally find that stuff. Also they were promoting the filters you buy for that stuff.

I may be wrong but I recall hearing on cable news that the N_a_m_b_l_a site is a legal site. For whatever reason they cannot shut it down. Maybe the A_CLU? How sick is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, yes, the NAMBLA site. As I understand, it's a free speech thing. I don't think they show actual images of boys in sexual manner, so I guess that's why it's ok, as far as the law goes. There's also a site for pedophiles that tells them how to avoid getting caught, and other info pedophiles would be interested in, but that guy's site (his name is Jack McClelland) remains up, because it is no longer hosted in the US. Mr. McClelland actually appeared on The Steve Wilkos Show and on Montel Williams, which I must admit, shocked me, because you wouldn't expect an unremorseful pedophile to go on national TV and defend what he does!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...