It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TNMockingbird
a reply to: Guenter
I'm trying to understand, and I do, to a degree BUT...
If we "allow" this type of behavior who is going to protect the children's freedom?
This is an honest question!
Their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is being infringed upon by nature of supply and demand.
Crimes ARE being committed. You can't deny that honestly.
I understand "they are pictures" BUT understand that he has committed a crime of a sexual nature in the past and I believe by his consumption of child porn, today, that it is walking a dangerous tightrope to re-offending.
I believe,
No, I can't prove it.
AND, YES, it IS for the children.
originally posted by: angus1745
Wether this creep poses a threat or not is beside the point.
It's people like him that fuel the child pornography industry. This idiot of a judge seems to think that's harmless. These people need to be given harsh punishments as a deterrent to others like him that fuel this evil industry that prays on innocent children for the sick gratification of arseholes like this behind closed doors.
This moron of a judge is enabling these vampires and sending a very bad message out. He is the one everyone should be annoyed at, not the sick # from Brooklyn.
originally posted by: angus1745
Wether this creep poses a threat or not is beside the point.
It's people like him that fuel the child pornography industry.
originally posted by: Guenter
originally posted by: TNMockingbird
a reply to: Guenter
I'm trying to understand, and I do, to a degree BUT...
If we "allow" this type of behavior who is going to protect the children's freedom?
This is an honest question!
Their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is being infringed upon by nature of supply and demand.
Crimes ARE being committed. You can't deny that honestly.
If some Pedo looked at your children you'd be OK with that? Are you trying to benefit from this new PC way of being? are you without a conscience??
I understand "they are pictures" BUT understand that he has committed a crime of a sexual nature in the past and I believe by his consumption of child porn, today, that it is walking a dangerous tightrope to re-offending.
I believe,
No, I can't prove it.
AND, YES, it IS for the children.
If he has committed an actual sexual assault on a child before or not, I do not know or can tell. The fact is that it is about PICTURES and nothing else! As long as he did not PRODUCE the images himself, - in which case the "porn" issue would not be an issue but the "sexual assault" would be a much graver concern for the courts.
WHO produces these pictures and where is not my concern. My concern is the incarceration of people for LOOKING.
It comes down pretty similar with the marijuana laws; locking people up for a few joints.
A picture can be seen as evidence to a crime. So then identify the persons committing the act on that picture, not the person LOOKING at the same.
Why do people DL the images from Saudi Arabia's executions for example is an enigma for me. But people do so. Does this mean they are now going to copy cat SA in their back yards? I have over 200 books on Nazi's and many old original "manuals" of that period. Does this make me a Nazi?
The PRODUCTION of Child Porn is a crime. But what this case is about is the "crime of LOOKING". And if people cannot see the difference between the very same than I am worried not about the guys LOOKING but about the mases condemning him. Because such a "Mob" is a bit more dangerous than a guy "LOOKING" at some CP.
originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: TNMockingbird
Do you ever feel like were living in the book of Revelations? Nothing is normal anymore, everything is pure crap now. What the hell happened ??
However it is exactly there where we need to hold back, sit back and reflect.
originally posted by: TNMockingbird
a reply to: Guenter
However it is exactly there where we need to hold back, sit back and reflect.
Okay, I did.
IMO, comparing smoking a joint with child porn is just ridiculous and furthermore I feel that the marijuana laws are ridiculous.
I, respectfully, say that you are comparing apples and oranges.
Not all lusts must be fulfilled. Not all desires must be socially acceptable. That is depravity.
I understand what you are saying about it being "just pictures". Then why can't the sick individuals just draw something?!
Then burn it!
NO, they can't because they (the sickos) want human souls, living, breathing, children being tortured and suffering to fuel their twisted fantasies.
If there were no demand, the supply would stop.
There COULD be money exchanging hands, who knows?
SOMEONE is getting, kidnapping, borrowing these children for this purpose...
I went back and looked into the OP article again and this "person" may have been in "treatment" for the original offense so I do not know, also, if he had committed prior.
It is stated that he engaged in online conversations with youth and that is what alerted the authorities to look into his computer.
He had, possibly, not offended....yet....
What if I liked kicking puppies and so I don't want to get caught kicking them so I pay the kid down the street to do it for me...or maybe just encourage him...don't I become complicit? If I allow it?
WE teach people, at my work, that although you have the freedom to do just about whatever you want to, you certainly have the right to make choices but, there are consequences for those choices.
What money is exchanged on lower levels is debatable pretty similar if I get a few gallons of your private moonshine from your barn.
if people are really serious about ending the abuse of children, then stop bombing the crap out of people in foreign countries
originally posted by: TNMockingbird
a reply to: Guenter
What money is exchanged on lower levels is debatable pretty similar if I get a few gallons of your private moonshine from your barn.
Hey!!!!
Do I know you?!
originally posted by: Guenter
originally posted by: ReadLeader
This article makes me cringe. We have a 53 yr old man with 5 children. He is engaged in sending and receiving child porn. This is not normal behavior. I am shocked the judge wrote a 98 page doc. On WHY he decided NOT to lock this pedafile up....
What say you ATS? Are you ok with this? Is this ok, or am just old fashioned? I think he deserves a good 15yrs or so in the pen
I'm not good w/this. He was already engaged in this discusting activity in the past.
The judge noted that the man was undergoing sex offender treatment and was deemed unlikely to relapse and that a psychiatrist testified he was not a danger to his own or other children.
A Brooklyn man who faced 10 years for downloading child pornography was sentenced to five days by a federal judge who sharply criticized punishment guidelines for failing to distinguish between dangerous offenders and those who pose little threat.
U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein wrote a 98-page decision explaining why he bypassed the guidelines and chose not to put the man in prison for possessing two dozen photos and videos — some showing men sexually assaulting girls as young as 3 years old, according to court papers.
"Removing R.V. from his family will not further the interests of justice," Weinstein wrote, using the defendant's initials.
L I N K
He was looking at PICTURES! When are you people finally realize that it was the very so called "Child-Porn" scare that had all run and cry for help for better "Online Policing"! And yet the same people who complain against Government snooping still want to see a guy in jail for PICTURES! This is the disgusting part of you! Either you want FREEDOM or you want none, but you can't just "chose" what pictures are OK to look at and what are not and need "policing".
originally posted by: Balans
a reply to: Guenter
I see where you're coming from, but this is not one of those cases where you should be standing up for the freedom to look. He had the freedom to look at them, but we as a society also have the freedom to lock this man up for looking at child porn.
I can't believe you're denying an entire # up industry. I live in Belgium, we've had our fair share of pedophile disasters over here, hell I even protested along with a couple hundreds of thousands of us back in the day when the Dutroux trial was going awry. Denying that it exists does more harm to the cause then anything else. It truly boggles the mind that you're denying the existence of these networks.
Like a poster before me has stated, it is only because there are people out there that look at these things that there is a supply. Take away the viewers as much as possible as to reduce demand would be one of the basic things to do to combat this despicable, hideous behaviour.
No mercy for the pedos, ever !
originally posted by: Guenter
originally posted by: Balans
a reply to: Guenter
I see where you're coming from, but this is not one of those cases where you should be standing up for the freedom to look. He had the freedom to look at them, but we as a society also have the freedom to lock this man up for looking at child porn.
I can't believe you're denying an entire # up industry. I live in Belgium, we've had our fair share of pedophile disasters over here, hell I even protested along with a couple hundreds of thousands of us back in the day when the Dutroux trial was going awry. Denying that it exists does more harm to the cause then anything else. It truly boggles the mind that you're denying the existence of these networks.
Like a poster before me has stated, it is only because there are people out there that look at these things that there is a supply. Take away the viewers as much as possible as to reduce demand would be one of the basic things to do to combat this despicable, hideous behaviour.
No mercy for the pedos, ever !
So with your logic we then should lock up all the drug USERS to stop the drug industry?
And NO the CP Industry does NOT exist! IF it did exist it would be a PR dream for all the LEA and other moralists to parade us the riches and wealth of these "producers" before the cameras.