quote:

ORIGINAL: MsBearlee

quote:

ORIGINAL: okeytobow

Just another right wing lamo proving what a bafoon they are..Gee do you think it is
nice to go around imposing your morality on others...

Pardon me??!!  You're saying keeping and promoting such pornography, not to mention pedophilia, is okay; and to condone it is right-wing? 
 
Huh???
 
MsB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emperor1956

I am disturbed by the automatic condemnation of Bernie Ward as a child pornographer by the folks who posted above.  In fact, this case is one of many that shows up the significant problems the USA's "Child Decency Act" and related statutes have in the prosecution of "thought crimes".

Lets get this out of the way:  I despise child molesters, child pornographers, or anyone who coerces another sentient being unable to give full consent into sexual activity.  I have no confusion about mutual consensual adult kink "tolerating" nonconsensual behavior -- the two are completely different, and the latter is despicable.  But, the problem here is that there is scant evidence that the images transmitted (at least as reported by the press) were in fact child pornography.

The CDA criminalizes thought as expressed in writing, or visual images.  Therefore there have been prosecutions of people for (for example) writing their own fantasies in their private journals of themselves as children involved in sexual play, with no evidence of any dissemination or intent to disseminate, or any other activity relating to the illegal writing. 

So here, is the allegation that Bernie Ward sent pictures that he thought were of child porn?  What if Bernie Ward thought the pictures depicted children in possible sexual situations, even though the people portrayed actually are over the age of consent?  Is that still prosecutable?   We know the reverse is never the case:  believing the models in the photographs were of legal age is insufficient (generally) to defeat a charge of child pornography distribution if in fact the subjects were children.  

The issues raised in this case are far more complex than "oh, bad man, get him!"

E. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirren

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsBearlee

quote:

ORIGINAL: okeytobow

Just another right wing lamo proving what a bafoon they are..Gee do you think it is
nice to go around imposing your morality on others...

Pardon me??!!  You're saying keeping and promoting such pornography, not to mention pedophilia, is okay; and to condone it is right-wing? 
 
Huh???
 
MsB

I admit I too am shocked that some one would say its okay for kids to be used in such a manner...makes you wonder whats under his bed...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirren

I couldnt read the whole thing, I was so disgusted...how could any one confuse that with any thing short of abuse I will never know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsBearlee

quote:

ORIGINAL: okeytobow

Just another right wing lamo proving what a bafoon they are..Gee do you think it is
nice to go around imposing your morality on others...

Pardon me??!! You're saying keeping and promoting such pornography, not to mention pedophilia, is okay; and to condone it is right-wing?

Huh???

MsB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emperor1956

I am disturbed by the automatic condemnation of Bernie Ward as a child pornographer by the folks who posted above. In fact, this case is one of many that shows up the significant problems the USA's "Child Decency Act" and related statutes have in the prosecution of "thought crimes".

Lets get this out of the way: I despise child molesters, child pornographers, or anyone who coerces another sentient being unable to give full consent into sexual activity. I have no confusion about mutual consensual adult kink "tolerating" nonconsensual behavior -- the two are completely different, and the latter is despicable. But, the problem here is that there is scant evidence that the images transmitted (at least as reported by the press) were in fact child pornography.

The CDA criminalizes thought as expressed in writing, or visual images. Therefore there have been prosecutions of people for (for example) writing their own fantasies in their private journals of themselves as children involved in sexual play, with no evidence of any dissemination or intent to disseminate, or any other activity relating to the illegal writing.

So here, is the allegation that Bernie Ward sent pictures that he thought were of child porn? What if Bernie Ward thought the pictures depicted children in possible sexual situations, even though the people portrayed actually are over the age of consent? Is that still prosecutable? We know the reverse is never the case: believing the models in the photographs were of legal age is insufficient (generally) to defeat a charge of child pornography distribution if in fact the subjects were children.

The issues raised in this case are far more complex than "oh, bad man, get him!"

E.

How is it even possible to confuse a 4 year old for a model of adult age?

I have 2 kids, neither of them at 4 years old could have possibly been confused for adults.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

And where did you get this "4" from?

Not the article linked in the OP.

I think are assuming what ages are covered in child porn cases when in fact it is anyone under the age of consent, which varies slightly from state to state in the USA.