PirateNews and Child Porn
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Thursday, December 7, 2006 16:42
VIEWED: 36438
PAGE 11 of 17
You know, I hate to be PirateNews-ish but I am wondering about the GOP now.
Rush Limbaugh, caught with a bunch of non-prescription Viagra after a trip to (noted child prostitution destination) Dominican Republic. Abramoff and DeLay protecting (noted child prostitution destination) Mariana Islands.
Does the GOP have a thing for child prostitutes, or are they just general bottom-feeders, congregating wherever misery is at its worst?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
To kind of sum up, I'm happy that Hero actually cited something accurately. This is a step in the right direction, in my opinion. It's a far cry from using Drudge or the latest GOP talking points as a source. So, kudos Hero. Remember, the truth will set you free. I'm sad that the FBI got dragged into all this. They have better ways to spend their time.
In lawschool they teach student to use the IRAC argument (ISSUE, RULE, ANALYSIS, CONCLUSION). The issue in this case was whether or not PirateNews posted child porn. I then stated the rule (law), my analysis of that rule, and the conclusion, which is what I did about it.
I appreciate that many folk in these parts would not have reported the pictures to anyone. Unlike most, if not all of you I have a legal obligation to report instances of suspected child porn to the proper authorities. That's what I did, I'd do it again.
I feel that it is better for law enforcement to overeact in certain situations then others. Child porn and terrorism are among them. In my view it is better to go to far too quickly and then correct the error, then to take too long or not go far enough and be unable to make up the lost ground. Such is my philosophy of law enforcement. I may joke around a bit about prosecuting liberals for speeding violations... but the truth is there is nothing I take more seriously then my job and nothing I enjoy more then sending the bad guy to jail, political affiliations not withstanding.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I appreciate that many folk in these parts would not have reported the pictures to anyone."
I would not have reported PN or Firefly. I would have reported the original site. 
It being more relevant to child porn than here.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The proof is here:
Originally posted by Zero:
The law classifies it as child porn. Pictures of children bound and gagged and in distress meet the legal definition provided by the US Code. Prove me wrong...I dare you.
The definition requires that to be child porn it must be "graphic or lascivious". (Either one will suffice.) I didn't see a deifnition for "lascivious" but "graphic" means "that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area".
(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B “sexually explicit conduct” means —
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero- If I thought I saw "child porn" I would have reported it.
Soup- I'm surprised at you. "Better safe than sorry?" Sorry about what? Does this mean that we can't post disturbing (but non graphic) pix of real-life child abuse because somebody like Hero "might" think it's child porn?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, I'm also of the 'better safe than sorry' mindset. When the neighbor wife was very loud one evening I wasn't sure if they were horsing around or if there were problems. So I called the cops. (Having the cops ring your doorbell - what a mood killer. 
) Better safe than sorry. But even after it was pointed out to me, nothing about the picture said 'child porn.' I didn't see the sex in it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So... I take it your neighbors were being extra-frisky??? heh heh heh
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah ... one might say that ....
I think the cops calling on them inhibited them somewhat 
, I haven't heard anything like that since.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Rue,
I missed your posting of the law. That does put a different light on things. Oh well. I can still dream that Hero is making progress .
Hey Hero,
I completely understand that you're operating under different circumstances because you're an officer of the court. And that you have to cast a wider net on what is, or is not, child pornography to be on the safe side. I get that. Just out of curiosity, would you mind speculating about whether you would've done the same things if you weren't a lawyer?
Hey Signym,
I think you conflated mine and Hero's posts. Although I've definitely been going back and forth on this one.
On one hand, I really hate the idea of calling the police (or, in this case, the FBI) about anything. It's just something you didn't do where I grew up. If there was a car accident, sure. But otherwise, no way. So, even though I understand cognitively that it is sometimes necessary to bring in law enforcement, I have this strong gut urge not to.
On the other hand, there are certain areas where I could see taking more of a better safe than sorry approach. Domestic violence. Child abuse. Rape. White supremacists building pipe bombs. People producing child pornography. Stuff like that.
I didn't see the need to bring in the FBI for this case. To me, that wasn't pornography.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
but "graphic" means "that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area".
Gee, there's a Federal Judge out in Utah that is this very moment saying that it is well settled law that nudity is not required. Its nice to know that the Judge took the time to visit this site and consider my argument before rendering her judgement...or perhaps she just consulted case law...naw, never happen.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME