Man Charged In 'Virtual Porn' Case, page 7
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 03:51 PM by coven
OK...

Lets get an 'ATS perspective' on this. by that I mean think conspiratorially...

Firstly the articles stating Sexually Explicit photographs are poorly written and worded very shortly when describing the evidence found.

at one point the term Sexually Explicit photographs is used, but shortly after it mentions the same photos as Altered Sexually Explicit photos.
Is it just me or are none of the articles clear on exactly what was found that was evidence enough to arrest this man on Child Pornography/Endangerment charges.

Now, this guy is not in the right, which is evident by the simple fact he gets his jollies off on looking at photo shopped women with little girls faces. What we do not know is whether or not he uses this as his outlet for his disorder (which would be preferred over an actual victimization of a living breathing individual...) or as a pretense to furthering his disorder.

Either way the guy needs Psychological help... Something a police Department is not capable of providing...

Now that said, those of you so willing to throw away the key on this guy need to look at the deeper extent of your perspectives. While his actions are abnormal, and are indeed signs of psychological issues; This does not warrant Orwellian Precognitive Thought Police type Presponses...

How about we give this guy the benefit of the doubt, and quit creating our own 1984 society where some weirdo can't own a picture of a pair of girls panties, or a picture of a Little girls face on a Nude woman's body.

Now you might have a crime if he was pasting adult faces onto little girl bodies...

No Naked Kiddie Pics, No crime.

Maybe this dude thinks its art. Maybe he likes women who are in college (have you seen what some of these 18-20 year old girls look like in college nowadays? I'll give a hint... They look YOUNG... Way Younger than when I was their age...) Maybe he doesn't want to pay for sex, so he creates his own fantasies as to not break the law...

There are a Million Different reasons that may not be socially acceptable, but that doesn't mean they are illegal.

You say nothing when they come for your weirdo neighbor... but what will you do when they come for weirdo you?


Coven


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 04:06 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
Originally posted by atlasastro
Because at the moment, you guys are supporting the bad guys


I'm not supporting anyone. I'm not endorsing the manufacturing, distribution, nor viewing of child pornography. Personally, I would not view it if it were legal. But that does not mean I am going to raise hell and call for the heads of someone who does simply because I would not do it.

In a fair and corruption-free legal system, a 'crime' would be an incident that infringed upon another's rights. I am in complete support of the prosecution of people who manufactured the child pornography, but I believe the prosecution of people who view it - if they had nothing to do with the production of it - is a waste of law enforcement resources and taxpayer dollars.

Some would argue that allowing people to view child pornography encourages them to act out their desires on an actual child. But my argument is, there are always going to be people willing to act out their desires on an actual child no matter what the law is and no matter who views their videos. So all we are really doing by imprisoning people who view child pornography are diverting resources from imprisoning people who actually kidnap, rape, and murder children.

Originally posted by atlasastro
saying that it is a basic right and that there is nothing wrong with having sexual thoughts relating to children


I never claimed there was nothing wrong with it. I am simply saying we can't write laws for something just because we think it's "wrong" or "inappropriate".

Different people have different thoughts and beliefs. The only reason certain thoughts and beliefs are legal and others are not is because of the social standards manufactured by the government and sold by the media. All we did was pick the thoughts and beliefs we thought sounded good and banished the rest.

That should not be the basis of a legal system. A legal system should be based on a system where people who infringe upon another human's rights are arrested and prosecuted. That 'prosecution' does not always have to be decades in prison, either. Believe it or not, there are other methods of "curing" someone.


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 05:32 PM by mattifikation
reply to post by coven


Okay. With the information that we have now, we now know that not only does he have a thing for little girls, he likes to go into their house and take pictures of their underwear without asking.

You still think he shouldn't be in jail? Is that really "Orwellian" as you called it, to not allow people to go through other people's homes taking pictures of our childrens' underwear? Come on dude, you're grasping at straws now.



Edit. I'm going to add one last thing for now. If I had children, and I came home and found this guy in my room taking pictures of my daughter's underwear laid out on my bed, that would be the last night he possessed a head.

I hope that in that situation, those of you who are still sticking up for this guy would just have a good laugh, tell him he needs help, and send him on his way. Otherwise, you're hypocrites.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by mattifikation]


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 05:42 PM by Arbitrageur
It's pretty obvious this guy was a creep. He probably didn't break the child porn law but probably broke some other laws and will be prosecuted for that.

But the fact that a lot of people posting here don't seem to realize is, you can be arrested for being a creep without breaking any laws, like these 3 guys who were very "careful not to do anything in violation of federal law."

independentcountry.blogspot.com...

U.S. Attorney Alice Martin has taken irony to extremes. To her, "suggestive" or "provacative" actually means "sexually explicit." She has arrested three men whose "crime" was taking photographs of minor girls that were consciously and deliberately not sexually explicit. No sexual acts. No nudity.


So if you think nobody can be arrested for just being a creep, think again...no need to break any laws to get arrested.

the U.S. Department of Justice accused Pierson, 43, of being a child pornographer--even though even prosecutors acknowledge there's no evidence he has ever taken a single photograph of an unclothed minor.


From: news.cnet.com...

In fact, you may also be a considered a child pornographer if you have a family photo at the beach where your daughter, wearing a bikini, is on her hands and knees playing with a sandcastle. Is that a suggestive pose? If U.S. Attorney Alice Martin thinks it is, then you have child porn, there doesn't need or be any sex or nudity, just a suggestive pose.
(Edited quote to show as external source)

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Arbitrageur]



reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 05:56 PM by mattifikation
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


Nah, you're not a hypocrite. As long as I can shoot people that I catch breaking into my house taking photos of my (hypothetical) childrens' underwear, I don't need to send them to jail.


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 06:06 PM by Arbitrageur
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

So it's ok to chop his head off as a vigilante, but not ok to use the legal system to put him in jail? I sure hope that's not a majority viewpoint, but even if we don't agree with your opinion, I am glad we live in a society where you are free to express it.


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 06:11 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
reply to post by Arbitrageur


If he is in someone's house without permission, absolutely.

I explained why I feel that way. Personal justice is unbiased, no questions asked. A justice system gives government and law enforcement agencies control over the population, and control is what breeds corruption and tyranny.

I don't doubt that my line of thinking is very much in the minority. But you really only need look at my signature to see why I am such a strong supporter of everything anti-government.


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 11:12 PM by coven
Originally posted by mattifikation
reply to post by coven


Okay. With the information that we have now, we now know that not only does he have a thing for little girls, he likes to go into their house and take pictures of their underwear without asking.


Which is illegal as in Breaking and Entering... Not Child Pornography..


You still think he shouldn't be in jail? Is that really "Orwellian" as you called it, to not allow people to go through other people's homes taking pictures of our childrens' underwear? Come on dude, you're grasping at straws now.


No it's Orwellian to Utilize Pre-Crime (I.e. he looks a pictures of young girls and he looks at pictures of girls underwear... So he is also guilty of Child Pornography)

You see it's unconstitutional to charge and try someone for a crime they have yet to commit. Now if there was some way to prove that this guy had sexually explicit photos of ACTUAL children then there is no reason to NOT throw the book at the guy.

Here's another example. My Grandmother has Adult Onset Diabetes. I have to go to Walgreen's once a month to get her a new supply of needles. Say I get pulled over for not turning with a turn signal; and the officer searches my car and finds a box of needles. Well I don't have diabetes, so obviously to this officer I'm a drug user or a supplier for drug users... So I should be charged as a drug user.
While you think this man is guilty open your friggin eyes and realize the only crime committed was B&E a 6 month sentence.

The last point on that topic is this... Has anyone seen the pantie picture? How do you know theres not a laundry basket on the bed? How do you know that it was set up by the landlord to photograph it?

What if the landlord was planning on evicting the parents and utilizing there assets to cover the lost rent (legal in the state of TN...) if so he may have wanted evidence the parents had more than sufficient assets for a lean to be taken out on them.

I'll give you one other option. You and your wife/GF/significant other are on vacation on a beach. you snap a few pictures on the beach one day of your significant other. you get the photos developed and find a police officer on your door to question you about the young (6-8 years old) girl in the background in awkward poses (legs spread, on hands and knees... etc) whom you never even noticed on your vacation, as you were photographing your significant other... Should you be charged?

The jist of this commentary (which I've only made one so the whole grasping for straws remark is a bit unnecessary matt) is that none of us know for sure what this guys intentions were... Nor do any of us know whether the police have a truly valid case against him.

Being a citizen of Tennessee and having had a few run in's with the PD in Chattanooga, Knoxville, and Nashville I can assure you of one thing... If these guys don't like you, they find/make a way to hang you.
so before you jump on the protect our children bandwagon... realize thats the response the PTB want out of you.


I hope that in that situation, those of you who are still sticking up for this guy would just have a good laugh, tell him he needs help, and send him on his way. Otherwise, you're hypocrites.
[edit on 28-6-2009 by mattifikation]


No if I caught someone in my home playing with my kids underwear I'm shooting them in the face... same as I would someone in my house playing with my Plasma or my PS2. It's not about what your goal is... it's the fact you're trespassing. But... I've never had a landlord either.

Anywho, you keep on protecting your Hypothetical Children... I'll do my job of not OVERprotecting my living breathing real life kids...

Coven


reply posted on 29-6-2009 @ 10:09 AM by Zealott
reply to post by mattifikation


You simply do not get it.
Let me explain. Laws are in place to stop people from infringing on other people's freedom.
Child porn laws are in place to stop adults from infringing on a child's freedom and well being in the process of making that porn.
Not because it's nasty, or gross or wrong. It's a law to protect children. (And the only reason those who posses child pron get in trouble is because their consumption of the product fuels the problem.)
When a man goes at it suddenly to the sight of children while in his van. Well, no crime was committed, if he didn't stalk them.

Were these children violated? Probably not from the information available to us. Since he photo shopped them himself, and especially not if the pictures weren't posted on the internet.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Zealott]



reply posted on 29-6-2009 @ 02:31 PM by _Phoenix_
Originally posted by Zealott

Now you and I think that the guy is sick. Yes but that's not enough to put the dude in jail because society doesn't agree with him.



This is something I've been thinking about "what" defines a man who is attracted to young girls as "sick"?

In a way their attraction seems natural.

If we take out any sexual thoughts, and think about this logically. A man is naturally attracted to beauty, and so are women, but men are more visual.

Humans are naturally attracted to the beauty of cute little girls, they will comment on how cute they are, and will enjoy the company of a cute girl to brighten up their day, obviously in a non sexual way.

The sick part starts not from the attraction, because I think the attraction is a natural reaction with humans. But the sick part starts when it becomes sexual. But then again, logically, the question is, is it "really" sick?

Men are attracted to many feminine features, and most of all beauty, beautiful eyes, hair, etc etc.

But for some reason we humans have a "emotional" barrier that makes us react negatively to the attraction of a younger girl who would be under a certain "socially acceptable age"

So "logically" is it REALLY sick? or is it actually more natural than we realise? And do more men than we realise find pretty women/girls of all ages, shapes and sizes attractive in a way, but wont admit it? people you hang with on a daily basis, but you don't know.

Wether or not if it is logically sick, I think the true "sick" part should be given to those who actually think they can "molest" or "rape" young girls. That is actually the REAL sickness on this topic. Which really when you think logically, is a totally different mindset to simply being attracted. But a lot of us don't want to admit that, and we like to look at things in a "simple" minded way, because it's easier.

It's easier to put them all in the same group. Sick people we should kill, or along that way of thinking lol.

I would bet that the percentage of men out there who are attracted to young and older girls alike and would not hurt a fly compared to the percentage of men who would even attempt to molest a girl are so different that the percentage that do molest barley gets on the radar.

Now I'm not part of this group of people with this attraction, but this is just me trying to look at this subject from a open minded point of view.


So is it really THAT "sick" to be "attracted" by the beauty of younger girls? Or is it our natural overprotective nature to protect kids that makes us think this way?



[edit on 29-6-2009 by _Phoenix_]


reply posted on 29-6-2009 @ 03:34 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
reply to post by _Phoenix_


You are exactly right. More people find beauty in "minors" than we as a society would like to believe. I think deep down, at some level, we all know that is true, so to deal with that fact, we label anyone who reveals their attraction as "sick" or a "pedophile".

The issue of attraction to minors by adults is not a black and white issue. In fact, it has many factors and levels that deserve consideration, rather than just broadly painting everyone with the same brush.

If we as a society could find the courage to discuss the issue in a mature manner without our emotions - whether they are fake or not - getting in the way, I think it would go a long way to not only preventing the imprisonment of innocent people, but also cleansing many of us of our manufactured paranoia about the dangers to our children.

Although there are many levels to this, I believe there are two main ones. One involves a private admiration for the beauty of a child, and the other involves an open association with the child.

The first issue is, as _Phoenix_ pointed out: Where do we draw the line between natural attraction and a perverted obsession?

It's a difficult issue, and I don't have an answer to the question. But I think (or at least hope) we can all agree that a natural and innocent attraction is not "wrong" and certainly not grounds for imprisonment. However, acting out that attraction on the child is wrong and must be prosecuted if there is no consent and/or the child is too young. Which brings us to the next issue:

What age should be considered the line between a "child" (i.e. "too young") and an "adult"?

Again, this is a difficult issue. However, I believe there is nothing about 18 that makes someone any more physically or emotionally capable of consenting to a relationship, sexual or not, with an adult than someone who is, say, 16.

So where do we draw the line? What is the solution? Should we broadly paint all adult-minor relationships as statutory rape for legal system convenience and consistency? Or should we take the time to understand the situation, understand the personalities of the people involved, and make a judgment on whether or not something truly 'illegal' is taking place?

I find it ridiculous that, technically, a 50 year old person having a sexual relationship with a 13 year old, and an 18 year old person having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old can be charged with the same crime.

No matter what the laws say, most people do not make the transition in to what we define as an "adult" emotionally until at least 19 or 20, and emotions are what fuel relationships. So should we really be so reckless with our assumptions and generalizations about what is going on simply because one is an adult and the other is not?

I realize there is a limit; you cannot have people collecting Social Security having relationships with people just going in to middle school. But I think if we are going to use the time and taxpayer dollars to prosecute someone, we can at least take the time to find out if something truly "illegal" (i.e. someone is a "victim" of something) occurred.


reply posted on 29-6-2009 @ 04:20 PM by The dragon is taking over
reply to post by jd140

You're a loony, get over it. Like others were saying he wasn't hurting physical children, thoughts are thoughts.

You've never looked at weird porn before, just because you're curious? =/


reply posted on 29-6-2009 @ 04:33 PM by jd140
reply to post by The dragon is taking over



Never have looked at or watched porn. I don't see the point in it.

If me wanting this guy to catch a beating for the rest of his natural life makes me a looney.

Then I am certifiably crazy.

But I don't think I am though, when I was locked up on a psych ward for three days (thank you ex wife), they found me completely and totally sane.

Oh and good job contributing to the thread. "Get over it", that is truly worthy of some type of literary prize.
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 5 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 6 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 17 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 5 days ago with 49 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 14 hours ago, 68 replies