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.