You have to PURCHASE said photos. Either that, or have an active role in the taking and processing of said photos. You don’t go to childporndaily.net and down load free boy-on-boy desktops.
Try as you might, you are not going to be able to minimize the possession of child-pornography to “just collecting photographs”. It is not a victimless crime.
[/quote]
Yea really.
Jesus Christ, I can’t believe anyone is even trying to argue that it is.
Not to mention, once again the Internet bullshit rears its ugly head, because some fucking know-it-all retard just HAS to come in here and start some huge debate about fucking privacy issues when this kind of sick behavior is completely unconscionable under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Who gives a flying fuck about privacy issues in a case like this?
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
lixy wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
If a grown man gets of on kiddie porn, that’s a sexual offense.
The point some people are trying to make, is that it shouldn’t be.
If you want to deter child abuse, chop off the heads (the big one and/or the little one) of the abusers. Accessing or owning a file shouldn’t be a crime, no matter the content.
I’m glad you don’t live in the same country as I do. It would be a shame if you had any impact on our legal system. [/quote]
Instead of insulting everyone who you disagree with, how about you just think of the “crimes” you have committed and then maybe you can relate more to where we are coming from.
Nobody is saying that kiddy porn is OK, I think everyone here HATES it. If somebody called the cops on you for steroid use, you would be arrested by people who don’t know better and labeled a drug abuser.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
anonym wrote:
I’m just saying that you can’t really argue that this guy was supporting it by either a) paying for it, or b) participating in its creation. Nowadays, you can find pretty much anything over the Internet for free if you are willing to look hard enough.
That’s why possessing it is a crime, and reporting it when found is not a violation of the perv’s rights. Whether he paid for it or not is irrelevant (IMO) to the fact that he is a willing participant in the violation of the rights of a child. [/quote]
[quote]elano wrote:
You can find basically whatever you want on the internet. You can even buy illegal drugs on the net. I’m pretty sure most people who have seen kiddy porn on their computer didn’t pay for it or take part in the actual sexual offense.[/quote]
Speculation. Just like my position. You don’t know. Neither do I.
[quote]
I’m not saying the guy who owned the PC had his rights violated either. I’m just saying that I wouldn’t have called the cops if I “stumbled” on some nasty photos. [/quote]
I’m glad it was Tirib fixing his computer, then.
[quote]
I know that the underground internet has lots of “illegal” files to download. How many people who own pirated versions of WindowsXP or Adobe photoshop actually bootleged them themselves? Probably one in a million. Same thing applies here.[/quote]
“illegal” does not mean the same thing in all countries. I think child porn is pretty much universally illegal. The transmission of child pornography is more than just transmitting files.
[quote]
How many bootlegged mp3s do YOU yourself own on YOUR computer? How many hardcore porn videos or pictures do YOU have on your pc? Do you think if a technician saw those videos he would assume you had sex with all those women? Most likely you have not even seen one of them in person.[/quote]
None and none. I pay for my music. Every stinking megabyte of it.
I am not so addicted to titties snatch that I need it residing on my hard drive.
But to answer your question, even if I DID have it on my computer it is not a crime to possess pictures of consenting adults doing what they want to do. Child pron is not the same as porn porn.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
So he actually had folders of the material? Which makes it obvious that he was STORING the material…which is the deal breaker in violating federal law. And negates all this babbling argument(Lifty) of how he didn’t break any laws.[/quote]
I never said he didn’t break a law. I said I don’t care what the law is. There are many laws that I break every day that are not crimes in and of themselves.
Given the very specific definition of a crime neither you nor anyone else can prove that this person committed a crime.
As I have stated, crimes can only be committed against a person or his property. Prove otherwise.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
So he actually had folders of the material? Which makes it obvious that he was STORING the material…which is the deal breaker in violating federal law. And negates all this babbling argument(Lifty) of how he didn’t break any laws.
I never said he didn’t break a law. I said I don’t care what the law is. There are many laws that I break every day that are not crimes in and of themselves.
Given the very specific definition of a crime neither you nor anyone else can prove that this person committed a crime.
As I have stated, crimes can only be committed against a person or his property. Prove otherwise.[/quote]
The ownership of child porn is a crime against the child(ren) forced to be involved.
I don’t care what your definition of a crime is. It has no bearing in this discussion. Prove otherwise.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
So he actually had folders of the material? Which makes it obvious that he was STORING the material…which is the deal breaker in violating federal law. And negates all this babbling argument(Lifty) of how he didn’t break any laws.
I never said he didn’t break a law. I said I don’t care what the law is. There are many laws that I break every day that are not crimes in and of themselves.
Given the very specific definition of a crime neither you nor anyone else can prove that this person committed a crime.
As I have stated, crimes can only be committed against a person or his property. Prove otherwise.
The ownership of child porn is a crime against the child(ren) forced to be involved.
I don’t care what your definition of a crime is. It has no bearing in this discussion. Prove otherwise. [/quote]
The person watching the kid porn is not connected to the child abused. It is a one way thing. If I watch a video of a woman being gang raped, I have not committed a crime against anybody.
The person(s) who participated in the act is a criminal and the person who video taped it is an accomplice. The viewer is not a criminal. Otherwise Tribulus is committing a crime for watching it for 45 seconds.
All I know is that if someone had a collection of media like I saw that included one of my kids I’d beat em to death with my bare hands whether he actually produced them or not.
I am not a law enforcement official and abused no state authority in turning him in. He sought me out and He brought the machine to me. Computers being as they are it is practically impossible to securely move somebody’s data around without seeing the file names at least. I tell them all this before doing the job. No customer has ever even once had a problem with this before.
Receiving stolen property is a crime if it’s done with the knowledge that it’s stolen even if you didn’t steal it. Collecting criminally produced movies and pictures that are by definition of criminal activities is similarly criminal.
Again, what if I just did the job and I find out later that some of the many missing children in this area are his doing? What then? I have to live the rest of my life with the knowledge that I had the means to prevent that, but didn’t.
What if it was someone dear to you? Would you be comforted by the fact that I told you I steadfastly protected his privacy when I learned that he was into little boys.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
So he actually had folders of the material? Which makes it obvious that he was STORING the material…which is the deal breaker in violating federal law. And negates all this babbling argument(Lifty) of how he didn’t break any laws.
I never said he didn’t break a law. I said I don’t care what the law is. There are many laws that I break every day that are not crimes in and of themselves.
Given the very specific definition of a crime neither you nor anyone else can prove that this person committed a crime.
As I have stated, crimes can only be committed against a person or his property. Prove otherwise.[/quote]
You’re funny…and delusional. As it applies to this thread,the owner of the computer KNOWINGLY had,in HIS POSSESSION(stored on his HD),child pornography. This violates a federal law…right or wrong? By violating a federal law,he has committed a crime. YOU prove otherwise.
All of these pseudo-semantics you’re babbling about are meaningless. You’re better off just saying that he’s innocent until the courts say otherwise and just leaving it at that.
When I was around twelve and discovered internet porn, I would download a lot of pics off of limewire. One time, while downloading pics of Carmen Electra, there was actually a kiddie porn pic mislabeled as Carmen Electra. I’d say the girl was about 8. I deleted it, it shook me up a lot, didn’t dl porn for a while after that.
The point is, I understand this guy does not have that excuse, but I wanted to say that the pics are out there with maybe more accessibility than people think.
[quote]elano wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
lixy wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
If a grown man gets of on kiddie porn, that’s a sexual offense.
The point some people are trying to make, is that it shouldn’t be.
If you want to deter child abuse, chop off the heads (the big one and/or the little one) of the abusers. Accessing or owning a file shouldn’t be a crime, no matter the content.
I’m glad you don’t live in the same country as I do. It would be a shame if you had any impact on our legal system.
Instead of insulting everyone who you disagree with, how about you just think of the “crimes” you have committed and then maybe you can relate more to where we are coming from.
Nobody is saying that kiddy porn is OK, I think everyone here HATES it. If somebody called the cops on you for steroid use, you would be arrested by people who don’t know better and labeled a drug abuser.[/quote]
So you are equating child molestation to stealing music and injecting perscription drugs for personal use?
Go make a post in the steroid forum claiming that steroid users are just as bad as child molestors, or the people supporting child molestation, and see what kind of reaction you receive.
[quote]elano wrote:
The person watching the kid porn is not connected to the child abused. It is a one way thing. If I watch a video of a woman being gang raped, I have not committed a crime against anybody.
The person(s) who participated in the act is a criminal and the person who video taped it is an accomplice. The viewer is not a criminal. Otherwise Tribulus is committing a crime for watching it for 45 seconds.[/quote]
Pay attention. I am not sure where the disconnect is for you but you are severely missing the point.
Look at what I said. I was very precise in how I said it. It is the OWNERSHIP of the files. The owner of the files is a willing participant in child pornography.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
So he actually had folders of the material? Which makes it obvious that he was STORING the material…which is the deal breaker in violating federal law. And negates all this babbling argument(Lifty) of how he didn’t break any laws.
I never said he didn’t break a law. I said I don’t care what the law is. There are many laws that I break every day that are not crimes in and of themselves.
Given the very specific definition of a crime neither you nor anyone else can prove that this person committed a crime.
As I have stated, crimes can only be committed against a person or his property. Prove otherwise.
You’re funny…and delusional. As it applies to this thread,the owner of the computer KNOWINGLY had,in HIS POSSESSION(stored on his HD),child pornography. This violates a federal law…right or wrong? By violating a federal law,he has committed a crime. YOU prove otherwise.
All of these pseudo-semantics you’re babbling about are meaningless. You’re better off just saying that he’s innocent until the courts say otherwise and just leaving it at that.[/quote]
It is not pseudo-semantics. The state cannot change the definition of the word crime to fit its agenda. They can make whatever laws they want it does not change universal truth.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
So he actually had folders of the material? Which makes it obvious that he was STORING the material…which is the deal breaker in violating federal law. And negates all this babbling argument(Lifty) of how he didn’t break any laws.
I never said he didn’t break a law. I said I don’t care what the law is. There are many laws that I break every day that are not crimes in and of themselves.
Given the very specific definition of a crime neither you nor anyone else can prove that this person committed a crime.
As I have stated, crimes can only be committed against a person or his property. Prove otherwise.
You’re funny…and delusional. As it applies to this thread,the owner of the computer KNOWINGLY had,in HIS POSSESSION(stored on his HD),child pornography. This violates a federal law…right or wrong? By violating a federal law,he has committed a crime. YOU prove otherwise.
All of these pseudo-semantics you’re babbling about are meaningless. You’re better off just saying that he’s innocent until the courts say otherwise and just leaving it at that.
It is not pseudo-semantics. The state cannot change the definition of the word crime to fit its agenda. They can make whatever laws they want it does not change universal truth.[/quote]
Whose definition of the word “crime”? You are back to inventing them again, aren’t you?
This guy got one of my fliers on his door and called Tuesday for me to fix his machine which sounded like it was infested with various malware as many are nowadays.
[/quote]
You know, Tirib, I applaud your civic-mindedness, but I think everyone may be overlooking one possibility.
If you were a malicious hacker who truly wanted to destroy people’s lives, could you think of a better way than to design a malware that infected a computer by creating folders full of kiddie porn on the hard drive, then irreparably shutting down the system?
If this guy is actually a pedophile, then he’ll likely get what he deserves. I’m just suggesting that, although the chances are slim, he may be about to get what he doesn’t deserve.
This thread is full of hotheaded idiots who refuse to listen to anyones point on an issue they are emotionally attached to, thus why the internet in general fails.
Whilst I think there is some merit in some of the arguments against the criminality of the posession of child porn, Trib did totally the right thing.
The guy who owned the computer will have a chance to argue his case in a court, he is also free to set up a lobbying group to get the law changed (can’t see that he would have much support on that one.)
Hopefully this sick individual will be able to get treatment for his sickness and if his testimony is able to help get to the actual perpetrators then even better.
If the guy didn’t want to open himself up to being arrested, he had the option of not taking a computer laden with kiddie porn to an IT tech.
If someone was stupid enough to need “professional” help with a malware-infected computer, its natural selection to let him suffer I guess. There’s a relatively simple straightforward way to get rid of it yourself with “OTC” software (malwarebytes and vundofix if anyone wants to know).
Maybe some of you arguing for this dirtbag should also stop jerking off to 8 year old boys before you get caught…assholes.
What about the children in the pics, they can be identified and removed from these hazardous environments, it not just about the pervert with it on his computer. By doing nothing you are just one tiny step better than the people proliferating this.
I’d be sleeping pretty well in your shoes OP, you did this world a favor, not like some of the mindless “it’s not my problem” sheep.