EA Forums

If you want to read about it click here and read away...

Child Pornography arrest (http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/search.jsp)

You search for Pete Townshend

In "Wire" box put ALL

From Last 2 weeks

Click on stories

then click GO

I wonder if Johnny Cochran ever practiced law in England...

A-1

There is only one thing you can do with kiddie porn and that is say NO and never go after or accept any of the stuff. It's all a trap on the internet, in the mail, or anywhere else you find it.

Dave

YUP!

A-1

According to my latest news Peter Townshend has not actually been arrested yet, but according to most otherwise reasonable UK population is not only already convicted and cast off into hellfire or whatever. My only hope is that this high profile case will start to inject some common sense into our ridiculous Child Protection Laws, but I am not holding my breath. I just cannot understand the offence of downloading an image of some kid - or eunuch from BME for that matter- and keeping it to look at and for your own consumption, not giving it to anybody else yet alone showing it to others. Yet the mere possession of such material somehow turns me into a raging paedophile and as such a danger to children and the rest of Society put together! Yet I will never meet the kid, know their names, or even which Country they live in or whatever it was when the photograph was taken - and that could have easily been thirty or forty years ago! Frankly I could not stand being in the same room as a kid- smelly little buggers as somebody once famously remarked. It should go without saying that I would shoot myself before even thinking of sexually or any other abusing or harming anybody, young or old. So what is wrong with just looking at a copy of a picture-? These laws have got out of hand in the UK but nobody is prepared to take the system on for fear of being branded a Child Molester or whatever. Witness the Ban on Nativity Video recently and the famous case of Parents photographs sent to Police by the Photo Processors because they had naked children in them. Sheer Madness! I daresay by even suggesting some sort of defence of the subject I would be damned by a lot of people- if ever the Court of Human Rights has a role to play in Britain's obscenity laws, it is now- probably too late!

Quillman

"

Quillman (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2003 4:57 pm My only hope is that this high profile case will start to inject some common sense into our ridiculous Child Protection Laws, but I am not holding my breath. I just cannot understand the offence of downloading an image of some kid - or eunuch from BME for that matter- and keeping it to look at and for your own consumption, not giving it to anybody else yet alone showing it to others.

"

The point of prosecuting people who look at child pornography is to destroy the market for it. This seems more then reasonable to me, even though I believe in liberty. This is because the liberty of the child was taken away and then to make money out of it is against humanity. Even if they not making money out the photographs and simply posting them, by looking at them you are fuelling the rapist's desire for others to take pleasure in their paraphilia. Do you want to aid a child abuser in realising their desires?

I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for looking at a picture of a eunuch of BME. If you have, please post the relevent information.

Sincerely,

Leon

I don't think there is a chance for what you call

"common sense"

Here is the start of an article on CNN's web site that you should read - - and read all of it. . .

Child porn: Even surfing can mean jail

By Peter Wilkinson

CNN -http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/0 ... index.html

Tuesday, January 14, 2003 Posted: 9:30 AM EST (1430 GMT)

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Even so much as clicking on a Web site featuring child pornography could result in a jail sentence of up to five years in the United Kingdom.

And if you host a Web site or forward an e-mail containing images of children -- who are or seem to be under the age of 16 -- being abused, you could face imprisonment of up to 10 years.

Quote from

Dave (imported) wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2003 8:02 am Child porn: Even surfing can mean jail

A-1 (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2003 7:30 am (http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/s

tory.jsp?floc=FF-PLS-PLS&id=011412125001000018&dt=20030114121200&w=CNN&coview=) (CNN)

"Even if you delete it, it's not easily detectable but it still remains on your hard drive and police can find it if they make a raid. If you get a spam and delete it, you're not going to chased. But if you have more than one image that's less defense."

That's because they are using Microsoft Internet Explorer.

To REALLY protect yourself, please see Microsoft's Really Hidden Files (http://sillydog.org/mshidden.html)...

Microsoft records every websites you've ever visited and all your e-mails, even if you cleared the history/temp files and e-mail box.

Best of all, use Netscape. And remember Microsoft is not our friend.

If I really hate a computer I do this to it...

I usually like to go into MS Dos and use dos level commands to screw up the hard drive.

Just go to the C>/ prompt and then two commands will screw up the hard drive almost as good as a reformat, but not quite.

They are del . [return]

del .. [return]

There has to be a space between the del and the . or the ..

You have to do into the command prompt. Do a cd\ [return] (no space on that one)

This will take you to C:\>

Then do del . [return] del .. [return]

The periods are the markers on the hard drive. If the hard drive loses its markers then after you crash windows by killing the power it will never come up again because it loses the reference addresses of all of its files... takes about 3 seconds if you are fast enough. You have to be at the "C" prompt in DOS for it to work, though.

If you do manage to get the thing up to DOS level using a boot disk in the A drive you can usually do a "recover" but all the files are named then by number and unless you know what you are looking for ,,, well, it is just one hell of a mess. It will just destroy windows.

All that in about 3 seconds.

I would suppose that you could do it from a remote location with the proper software.

A-1

(the computer terrorist)

However, I really don't want to see material that involves the abuse of children. I accept that problems of definition can and do come into play here, but some of the material about which I have read clearly involves hurting children.

Clearly, on the other hand, some police would be willing to prosecute people who change a child's diapers with sexual abuse, but abuse happens and it has profound negative consequences.

In my work, I encounter the victims of such abuse. Many deal with it and get on with life. On the other hand, I have also taken part in therapy that seemed designed simply to create memories of abuse that simply may never have happened.

All of us also know that prosecutors in the United States have sometimes created false cases of abuse out of bad psychology.

We all need to nurture our best sensibilities regarding this matter.

"Abuse" also happens sometimes without anyone intending to abuse a child. How a child frames an experience or how an adult later interprets a memory comes into play.

I don't really care if anyone traces my web browsing. Long ago, I gave up the notion that anything like privacy actually exists. If I were to stumble onto a site that had pornography involving children, I would simple back out. If that stumbling got me into trouble, I would, of course, fight any prosecution.

Yet, we do have reason to fear because of the prosecutions of childcare workers for behavior that could not have happened. Witch hunts happen.

BTW,

I hate child molesters...

There are some 16s who look like 18s, however, so in certain cases I temper it.

Still, you'd think that grown adults would know better, wouldn't you? I mean what is wrong with asking somebody their age before you have sex with them? Seems like the logical thing to do.

Very, very rarely you run into an 18 who looks 12, though...

12 year olds are too young as are any who are not 18.

But these assholes who molest 5 year olds, well, castration is not enough punishment.

A-1

A-1,

Was it not you who posted that picture of my 8th grade girlfriend? Even though she did not have any grass on the infield, nice lawn mower got to her, she did have woman's breasts. Think you are safe old buddy. Just how did you get a picture of my 8th grade gal pal??

Now, for a more intersting debate on this site, you all know by now that there are some really good stories posted on here that involve teenage boys at bording schools. There is one very good one on the recent postings, plus I even wrote one a while back that got some people up in arms. There was a bill proposal in the US congress not too long ago that would have outlawed any type of "child cyber virtual reality" abuse or porn. The law was voted down on the grounds that you can't ban pretend actions. Would that have applied to my stories about teens?

It is a touchy topic and on par here since we do discuss eunuchs, many of whom were castrated in history during pre-pubesence. I'd hate to be come entangled with the thought police. I'm sure they'd have a real fun time with A-1's computer. Intresting that the author of the new boarding school has not caused a fuss, perhaps because the author is a female?

It's late and I'm rambling, Sorry all, but do think about it.

Got2 (Keep C: Del . in the ready)

I had thought that my views were quite clear and that I will not stand any form of child abuse anywhere period. However the CNN article hits the nail on the head because in the UK anyone who looks at a photograph or image of a child is at risk! No not the child but the viewer! It is as serious as that and an absolute scandal brought about by ill thought out legislation such as the Children's Act. Thanks for the Microsoft information by the way I think Nescape might be a better idea

Quillman UK

Quillman is on target. The absurd prosecutions in the United States of owner and operators of childcare facilities is case in point.

"Pornography is the theory, rape is the practice." There is a lot of evidence that this is simply wrong, but who really knows whether child pornography encourages the abuse of children in the minds of those who look at it.

What does seems to be the case in all but virtual porn is that a child or children does or do suffer abuse. However, I've seen religious paintings in Vienna that might qualify in our current social environment as pornographic. We all know about the absurd attacks on Sally Mann and Jock Sturges, two photographers. Sally Mann now photographs bodies rotting in a body field. Imagine what critics could say about her current work.

Boy, you are soooo full of shit...you little squirt...

...but since I like you, I ain't going to tell you that I picked her up in a chat room...

Got2's girlfriend...she's a nice kid, too (http://free.publicsluts.com/a136iio/zbulldog.html)

From Rod Stewart's new CD...(paraphrased for Got2)

...I'll see you in the morning sun...

...and when the night is new...

...I'll be looking at the moon,

...and beating off to these pics of yoooouu...

A-1

Let me start by saying that I think anyone who sexually exploits children is deserving of any punishment he or she may receive. Such people are simply despicable, the lowest form of pond scum.

That said, in Townshend's case, I smell the faint odor of rat. If Townshend is to be believed at all, he had contacted Scotland Yard before ever visiting the site, and had told them of his intent to research the site in question, and why. Now whether his claim of doing research for a book and for his website anti child porn declarations is true or not, there's the possibility that Scotland Yard may have misled him as to the legality of the act and/or their willingness to prosecute for same under the circumstances. If so, then it's entrapment. Something just doesn't add up.

Beyond it all, as reasonable to some and as noble a goal as attempting to destroy the market for child pornography may be, it is, in my humble opinion, a violation of fundamental human rights to prosecute someone merely for viewing a pornographic photo of a child -- not because we have a right to exploit children, but because it is just so easy to entrap someone who otherwise has no interest in such material, and because the key factor -- intent -- is almost entirely discounted.

For instance, I've already clicked on Usenet messages with vague titles like "Young and Hot!", figuring I was going to see an image of a 19 or 20 year old vixen, only to have a photo of a naked 10 year old appear on my screen. When this happens, I close the message immediately, but the record nevertheless remains on my disk. All it would take for some overly zealous cybercop to make a major bust is to post a few dozen messages like that using different titles and different senders, and record who looks at them. Then just bust anyone unlucky enough to have unwittingly opened more than one. If mere viewing is sufficient for conviction and intent is not to be considered when determining guilt, then we're all vulnerable. And don't for a second think it couldn't happen.

Our civil liberties are rapidly dying, people. Orwell was more prescient than he ever knew.

radar, I believe you have a point. I retract my first statement. Do I believe people should be arrested for viewing child pornography? In theory yes, but I think you have shown the difficulty in doing so. I am in two minds.

All the best,

Leon

Yo A-1

Reread the quote you old senile pervert! I was using your gal pal posting as an illustration of how wild the internet can be. Who is to know the age of some of those pictured on the World Wide Wank?

You can bet that this forum is watched by the thought police, not that there has been any illegal, child hurting, or otherwise activity here. I agree 100% about the poorly written and ill thought legislation. Did you know that a Greek law outlawed any comuter video games? Some tourists were actually hassled for playing solitatre at an internet cafe! The law has not adapted to the internet yet.

Got2 (give A-1 his pills!)

...If you think that's bad I dare you to take a skate board down the sidewalk. Lots of municipalities will arrest you.

Of course, if you were a 20 year old 115# girl in a bikini and on roller blades all that you might get is just frisked down for weapons under the guise of being a terrorist...

Just consider all of the old men with bad hearts that you could kill with just a smile....

A-1

It's reasons like this that I cannot say forcefully enough to get yourself a FIREWALL program and learn how to use it.

File swapping programs are nice, having online friends is nice, but if it goes bad, you can find yourself in a world of shit almost immediately. Be very careful as to whom you accept an image file from. File names are totally worthless. That JPG image could be anything at all.

This is exactly the problem with those 'in command' having too many odd and obscure morals and ethics to foist off on the rest of us. It gives me the shivers to think that someone in law enfarcement can sit at a desk, send a link to someone unsuspecting, and then raid his house and PC and bust him. Entrapment seems to hold NO meaning at all there.

Do some cops have CD's full of kiddie-porn in their desks? Yes. Do they use them? Yes. It's entrapment, and it works. I've seen it done. 30k worth of jpg file, out it goes ... zap ... now we wait for someone to open it up!

Sick.

It's to the point now that when someone in the studio wants to use the background projection machine of a beach slide for a 'fake' summer photo of their kid at the ocean, I turn off the video capture proofing device and make them sign a release that's 3 pages long and frighteningly legal. In fact, just a shirtless shot of a little boy with the sunset slide is enough to make me nervous now.

Yet the big places like Sears and Wal-Mart don't seem a bit worried, such as the "Towels/Bucket" pose that implies nudity.

What's worse is that the whole 'porn image' thing is highly subjective to the beholder. What I consider porn, and what others would, are no doubt TWO completely different things.

Abuse of children is wrong, plain and simple. The actual manufacture of kiddie porn, involving real or simulated sexual positioning or acts, is abusive and wrong. HOWEVER, a still image obviously shot professionally of a child who is NOT involved in such an act, or even NAKED to begin with - is not.

Still, there are those out there who would have the entire imaging industry shut down over this. To read the legal stuff and copyright laws, et al, one would have to throw away his camera and burn all of his pictures to be totally safe.

Hell, my BABY pictures are enough to land me in jail, by the letter of the law, and it's ME in them!

Banning video games...for God's sake, these people have too much free time on their hands!

I think it's time for the peasants to revolt, actually.

I am not sure that messing up the hard drive will keep one from getting information if one is persistant and knows enough about these things.

Here, read this and see what you think....

Hard drives (http://www.simson.net/clips/2002.IEEE.D ... ensics.pdf)

A-1