International Child Porn Ring Found

[jay santos]

I don't really get this. My initial reaction is that maybe the depth and difficulty they went (to nail what about 12 guys? which they called a huge bust?) for this may be a sign that this crime is not that prevelant? I don't know. Glad they nailed them. If the crime requires this kind of sophisticated encrypting and all that, maybe it's a sign it's getting stamped out?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I don't really get this. My initial reaction is that maybe the depth and difficulty they went (to nail what about 12 guys? which they called a huge bust?) for this may be a sign that this crime is not that prevelant? I don't know. Glad they nailed them. If the crime requires this kind of sophisticated encrypting and all that, maybe it's a sign it's getting stamped out?

But the volume of pictures was astounding/utterly depressing. If the production is not getting stamped out, then neither is the trading and possessing.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I don't really get this. My initial reaction is that maybe the depth and difficulty they went (to nail what about 12 guys? which they called a huge bust?) for this may be a sign that this crime is not that prevelant? I don't know. Glad they nailed them. If the crime requires this kind of sophisticated encrypting and all that, maybe it's a sign it's getting stamped out?

Unfortunately jay it is rampant in modern society and spans the globe. This bust only represents the tip of the iceberg -those brazen enough to actively participate in and secure a community.

It's a big bust because the 12 caught are the ring leaders --the mafia bosses if you will-- who pedal this smut. It's like busting a head of a drug cartel and not merely a dealer!

You should also pay special attention to the numbers quoted in the article. 400,000 picture and video files were available to the group. Consider the many hundreds or thousands of children being abused in those pictures and videos.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Unfortunately jay it is rampant in modern society and spans the globe. This bust only represents the tip of the iceberg -those brazen enough to actively participate in and secure a community.

It's a big bust because the 12 caught are the ring leaders --the mafia bosses if you will-- who pedal this smut. It's like busting a head of a drug cartel and not merely a dealer!

You should also pay special attention to the numbers quoted in the article. 400,000 picture and video files were available to the group. Consider the many hundreds or thousands of children being abused in those pictures and videos.

It is tragic. I still feel sick to my stomach after reading about how the sex trade picked off orphans from the tsunami and sold them into slavery around the world. Vile. Disgusting. Evil.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

Let's hope the Justices on the Supreme Court read this news story; they have a pending case before them, post-oral argument; it's in the opinion writing stage. The issue is whether the federal statute that prohibits soliciting child pornography is impermissively vague and broad such that it contravenes the First Amendment.

I read the oral argument transacripts: the justices wanting to strike down the statute were just so out of touch with reality. They were asking questions like, "well what about Lolita or the pictures from refugee camps. What if I solicited them on the internet, would I contravene the statute?"

If they could only see that we're not talking about Lolita here, but millions of documentary records of the worst kind of child abuse . . . In this one area, Justices, please rely on prosecutorial discretion and realize that the FBI can't even catch a fraction of the worst that is out there. There's no way law enforcement would spend a fraction of a second thinking about wasting resources on nabbing those who trade pictures of children from refugee camps.

From the oral argument, it seems like the federal statute rests in the hands of Justice Kennedy. Suprise, surprise.

There was a guy in Dallas - Fort Worth who was arrested at a community festival for taking pictures of the crowd in a lascivious manner. I can't remember the exact wording. At the time, some photographers discussed this online, and were frankly very puzzled. In the end, no charges were brought.

So the idea that all law enforcement have discretion is pretty laughable if you know anything about history.

[Spaz]

My vote is to chain them to the ceiling by their testicles. The only way down is the dull knife in their non-masturbatory hand.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

There was a guy in Dallas - Fort Worth who was arrested at a community festival for taking pictures of the crowd in a lascivious manner. I can't remember the exact wording. At the time, some photographers discussed this online, and were frankly very puzzled. In the end, no charges were brought.

So the idea that all law enforcement have discretion is pretty laughable if you know anything about history.

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5221710/detail.html

Here's the article detailing it. How would you like to be minding your business taking artsy photographs and then suddenly be arrested and have your name and mug shot on TV announcing you as a sexual predator.

And then a "we're sorry we made a mistake" later.

Believing in liberties is old-fashioned and quaint, I know. But every time someone asks me to trust the FBI, the police with vague laws and no oversight, I get a little queasy. The history of the world is oppression and totalitarianism, not freedom.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Levin

Let's hope the Justices on the Supreme Court read this news story; they have a pending case before them, post-oral argument; it's in the opinion writing stage. The issue is whether the federal statute that prohibits soliciting child pornography is impermissively vague and broad such that it contravenes the First Amendment.

I read the oral argument transacripts: the justices wanting to strike down the statute were just so out of touch with reality. They were asking questions like, "well what about Lolita or the pictures from refugee camps. What if I solicited them on the internet, would I contravene the statute?"

If they could only see that we're not talking about Lolita here, but millions of documentary records of the worst kind of child abuse . . . In this one area, Justices, please rely on prosecutorial discretion and realize that the FBI can't even catch a fraction of the worst that is out there. There's no way law enforcement would spend a fraction of a second thinking about wasting resources on nabbing those who trade pictures of children from refugee camps.

From the oral argument, it seems like the federal statute rests in the hands of Justice Kennedy. Suprise, surprise.

The questions about Lolita and pictures from refugee camps are appropriate. Hell, there are people on Cougarboard who are convinced that many of the avatars on this site are pornographic. I'm sure the justices are just as appalled by the exploitation of children as anyone else, but their job is to determine if laws are constitutional. Saying that a statute prohibiting child pornography is unclear, is not the same as saying that child pornography is acceptable.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5221710/detail.html

Here's the article detailing it. How would you like to be minding your business taking artsy photographs and then suddenly be arrested and have your name and mug shot on TV announcing you as a sexual predator.

And then a "we're sorry we made a mistake" later.

Believing in liberties is old-fashioned and quaint, I know. But every time someone asks me to trust the FBI, the police with vague laws and no oversight, I get a little queasy. The history of the world is oppression and totalitarianism, not freedom.

I don't have time now, but I have a few responses; interesting topic.

[JohnnyLingo]

Mike prefers to live in a world where guys like this can do whatever they want.

Wow.