Pete Townshend admits downloading child porn

[Jules]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Not for the purposes of defining child pornography I believe.

I mean when websites advertise "hot and horny teens," don't they usually mean the girls are just 18 or 19? There'd be a legal notice saying the site complied with United States Code Title-something regarding the ages of the models and where records could be obtained to that effect.

Which I think is another affirmative defense to possession of child pornography. If the distributor represents its models as being of legal age, and they aren't in fact, the user is not guilty of possession.

[Shi Huangdi]

Chegitz: I don't think anyone would be convicted for spam that got put in their own e-mail adress. But this guy actually went to a site and paid for it.

[Alexander's Horse]

Gary Glitter (Paul Skad?) has just been deported from Cambodia - allegedly for paedophilia. He was jailed in Britain for downloading kiddy porn.

[Seeker]

Skipping all the morality and pedophile stuff,

He used his CREDIT CARD NUMBER? On a PORN SITE?

Quoth Bugs, 'whatta maroon'

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Jules
I mean when websites advertise "hot and horny teens," don't they usually mean the girls are just 18 or 19?

I though that meant that they were around 25-30 years old.

[alva]

Originally posted by Seeker
Skipping all the morality and pedophile stuff,

He used his CREDIT CARD NUMBER? On a PORN SITE?

Quoth Bugs, 'whatta maroon'

This does speak for him in a waeird way. I'm not saying he's innocent, but paying with your own CC is very stupid indeed.
So stupid, you can see it as he had nothing to hide while doing it.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


I though that meant that they were around 25-30 years old.

When you take a good look at them you come to the conclusion that they're usually that age or older.

[The Mad Viking]

Man, its not worth getting famous...

OK, here's my prediction.

Townsend did contact the authorities before they charged him. In fact, maybe they charged him BECAUSE he let them know he was going access porn.

Other facts:

Townsend is writing an autobiography. Townsend very likely was sexually abused as a small child.

Townsend has admitted to being bisexual, not that it's relevant but to set the record straight. He is also married and a father.

The $20 or so he paid to hardly will fund the child porn industry.

Opinion:
If viewing child porn is a crime, so is owning a handgun. If the first "supports" making child porn, the second "supports" the murder industry. Smoking marijauna supports the illegal drug industry who sell heroin to teenagers.

The police always seem more interested in a high profile bust of a user than in gettting the stuff of the street / web.

I have a picture of my two sons, when they were aged about 7 and 10, stark naked (full frontal) singing a song. Are the police coming to arrest me? What if I show it to my parents, does it become porn then? What if I show it to a friend of the family? Is it only porn if the person looking at it gets a boner? Should the police put electronic devices in all our pants?

If someone breaks into my house and steals my photo album and posts the picture on the web, do I go to jail?

If someone thinks about pedophilia, should they be arrested?

If they draw a picture of what they were thinking about, should they be arrested?

CRIME:
Making images which involves mistreatment of children,
Profiting from traficking in such images.

Leave Pete alone.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Man, its not worth getting famous...

OK, here's my prediction.

Townsend did contact the authorities before they charged him. In fact, maybe they charged him BECAUSE he let them know he was going access porn.

According to the Metropolitan Police, he came forward a few days before he was due to be arrested. My guess is that he heard of someone else being arrested for doing the same thing, as it's been on the news lately

Other facts:

Townsend is writing an autobiography.

Great defence. If he gets off, I bet it'll prove popular in all future trials.

Townsend very likely was sexually abused as a small child.

As were most paedophiles.

Townsend has admitted to being bisexual, not that it's relevant but to set the record straight. He is also married and a father.

Irrelevant on every count. Gary Glitter was married and a father too, incidentally.

The $20 or so he paid to hardly will fund the child porn industry.

Congratulations. You just made the "dumb statement of the year" shortlist. Are you suggesting everyone gets a quota of kiddyporn they can download without facing charges?

Opinion:
If viewing child porn is a crime, so is owning a handgun.

In Britain that's not an opinion. It's a fact. What's your point here?

If the first "supports" making child porn, the second "supports" the murder industry.

Am I supposed to disagree here? Well I'll play ball. I believe that the pro-gun lobby point out the lawful and laudable uses of guns. Please feel free to do so for pictures of children being raped.

Smoking marijauna supports the illegal drug industry who sell heroin to teenagers.

It probably does, which is why it's illegal in Britain. The phrase "so what?" springs to mind at this point.

I have a picture of my two sons, when they were aged about 7 and 10, stark naked (full frontal) singing a song. Are the police coming to arrest me? What if I show it to my parents, does it become porn then? What if I show it to a friend of the family? Is it only porn if the person looking at it gets a boner? Should the police put electronic devices in all our pants?

A picture of a naked child does not equate to child porn. If they were pictured in a sexually suggestive context then it can become so.
Mens Rea can be the determining factor. If you put that picture on-line and advertised it as "Sexy little naked boys", then you would almost certainly be in trouble.

If someone breaks into my house and steals my photo album and posts the picture on the web, do I go to jail?

Nope. Even if it's ruled that the photo constitutes actus reus, there's no mens rea.

If someone thinks about pedophilia, should they be arrested?

Thoughts are not illegal. There is no actus reus in a thought alone.

If they draw a picture of what they were thinking about, should they be arrested?

The law says "no" as no abuse of children is involved. The same goes for stories.

CRIME:
Making images which involves mistreatment of children,
Profiting from traficking in such images.

Leave Pete alone.

Wrong.

Crime= creating an obscene image (on a PC hard drive). In other words, it looks like "guilty as charged".

Just out of interest, would you take this tack if he was a librarian, or minor civil servant? A nobody?

[TCO]

Trappist,

There are plenty of people who think that freedom of speech is an absolute. Even up to and including watching "snuff flicks". They view the crime as creating the articles. ACtually not even creating the images...it is the murder or rape or abuse itself that is the crime...not recording it. But buying and viewing them is not.

Of course there are others who don't agree with this. (And the law is on the side of those who say it is wrong to view or pay for this stuff.)

But it is a common point of division.

I'm not sure what I think. But it is the fundamental issue that is more the point of division than wether he is a rocker. I could care less about that.

[chequita guevara]

No snuff flick has ever been proven to be true. They're an urban legend.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by GP
Trappist,

There are plenty of people who think that freedom of speech is an absolute. Even up to and including watching "snuff flicks". They view the crime as creating the articles. ACtually not even creating the images...it is the murder or rape or abuse itself that is the crime...not recording it. But buying and viewing them is not.

Of course there are others who don't agree with this. (And the law is on the side of those who say it is wrong to view or pay for this stuff.)

That's one for US lawyers to decide on. Do you have similar laws regarding downloading child porn in the States?

It Britain, of course, there's no constitutionally-enshrined right of free speech. Now I'm fully in favour of a British constitution (I've been a member of Charter 88 for years), but I'd baulk at it being used as a defence for buying kiddyporn.

[TCO]

In the US, kiddy porn is illegal as well. But you can understand the argument, I assume. Let me get Floyd in here to give it to you.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
I have a picture of my two sons, when they were aged about 7 and 10, stark naked (full frontal) singing a song. What if I show it to a friend of the family? Is it only porn if the person looking at it gets a boner? Should the police put electronic devices in all our pants?

If the "friend" is someone you met in an internet chatroom or down on the corner just a few days ago, then maybe yes.
If he gets a boner looking at your kids I'd strongly think about taking him off the "friends" list.
If he gets a boner looking at your kids maybe the police should put something in his pants.

[Jules]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Should the police put electronic devices in all our pants?

That would be...uhm...interesting, but likely ineffective, as all that buzzing and humming and vibrating from the device would likely create sexual arousal, and then we'd all be in big trouble now, wouldn't we?!