Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

tintub · Jan 14, 2003, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by MindFad:
No one is being killed.

People pay to view the porn -- where are these pay to to commit crime sites? Pete paid to look at pictures. You're blaming the crime committed to get the content on the purchaser of the content? I just completely disagree.

The only thing I see plain and simple about this is people paying to view disgusting content (images) that were created through illegal ... means. I don't think these people should be put away for it.

OK, I've had enough talk about the kiddy pr0n.

MindFad · Jan 15, 2003, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by tintub:

Right back at ya.

Oneota · Jan 15, 2003, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by simonjames:

As to the people here who said that looking at kiddies pix wasn't a bad crime.

If you're referring to me, I'd like to note that I never said it wasn't a crime. I just don't think the term pedophile applies to whatever it is.

mikithecrackhead · Jan 15, 2003, 12:47 AM

I hear he was planning on singing a duet with Michael Jackson: "Don't let your son, go down on me"
(phil collins did a remake of the same song, but it was sun not son-- I hope)

OldManMac · Jan 15, 2003, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by MindFad:
These people aren't commiting crimes -- they're looking at pictures, and the majority of the public thinks it's pretty ****in' sick. But to put people away for it? That's wrong in my opinion.

People looking at pictures (be it of interest or curiosity, what-have-you): not criminals.

People taking advantage of children and posting the pictures: criminals.

There's a "market" for everything bad. I think in this case the people taking the pictures should be put away. IMHO

Only looking at pictures of underage children is a pathetic and weak excuse, and should not be excused in any way shape or form! Is anyone remembering that this isn't merely an act that two "adults" engage in (the provider and the viewer)? How about the emotional well being of the children, who may be forced to engage in acts that they have absolutely no control over, and which can cause irreperable emotional damage that can last a lifetime? This isn't about two adults providing a service for a fee; it's about taking unfair advantage of participants who have no idea what they're in for, and who are often emotionally damaged for life!! If that isn't a crime in many areas, it certainly should be! Let's think about more than economics and "adult" rights for a change!

MindFad · Jan 15, 2003, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by KarlG:
Only looking at pictures of underage children is a pathetic and weak excuse, and should not be excused in any way shape or form!

I think it's pathetic, too. But I don't think people should be put away for viewing it willingly (fee or no fee), no matter their reasons.

macvillage.net · Jan 15, 2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by mikithecrackhead:
I hear he was planning on singing a duet with Michael Jackson: "Don't let your son, go down on me"
(phil collins did a remake of the same song, but it was sun not son-- I hope)

I just teared up laughing so hard.

Thanks. Haven't laughed that good in a while.

Langdon · May 7, 2003, 02:13 PM

I guess the court bought his story.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertain...30507_877.html

MindFad · May 7, 2003, 02:22 PM

Good for Pete.

Swiss Bob · May 7, 2003, 02:43 PM

Hmmm...

Why would anyone who has been a victim of child abuse need to "research" child abuse by looking at pictures? That'd be like my going to the Apple site to look at pictures of a 17" iMac when I have one right in front of me.

The guy is a musician. Musicians are supposed to have imaginations (in fact, it's pretty much a prerequisite for the job). With my meagre imagination I can imagine what kiddie fiddlers get up to without needing to see it... ...why can't Townsend?

Plod hasn't found any evidence of kiddie porn downloads though. But then Plod is probably baffled by anything that isn't FAT 32 based.

It's all a bit fishy if you ask me.

daimoni · 03:15 PM

.

Swiss Bob · May 7, 2003, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by daimoni:
Yes, Townshend has imagination, but they didn't have online child porn around when he was a kid.

Sometimes you need to actually see things (even shockingly horrible things) in order to describe it accurately.

Townsend has supposedly himself been a victim of kiddie abuse. Why would he need to do reseach on something he has first hand experience of?

tintub · May 7, 2003, 08:19 PM

he accessed them in 1999, and didn't save them. and he didn't go back.

I'm inclined to believe him. I think that, if he was cleared, they should not have put him on the register of sex offenders. Either you find him guilty or not.

Although, I suppose a line has to be drawn. In these days of broadband, there is no need to store porn on your own computer, since you can view it whenever you want anyway. Still, putting him on the register of sex offenders is pretty damning. IIRC, you have to tell police whenever you move etc. etc.

wdlove · May 7, 2003, 08:25 PM

So if he was cleared of possessing child pornography was is he being put into a sex registery?

He certainly looks to be more than his 57 years of age! Has he had a rough life or what?

Swiss Bob · May 8, 2003, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by wdlove:
He certainly looks to be more than his 57 years of age! Has he had a rough life or what?

How fast d'ya think you'd age if your job involved listening to The Who?