[tintub]

Well we all know the story by now. Pete Townshend (of The Who) has been arrested and released for child porn. He claims he came across child porn by accident, and just looked at a few sites for 'research'.

Do YOU believe him? Do you think you can stumble across child porn by accident?

[dillerX]

no. no.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

i have been known to go to tfp

if somebody posted some pics of a hot chick amid aria and i said, wow...she's hot and saved it

and she was 16-17....then i am a pedophile?


until proven guilty, i'm willing to reserve judgement

[Mastrap]

Wasn't he working with some charity to protect victims of child pornography? I thought I've heard something like that.

[dillerX]

slightly off topic. did you see all the macs pulled from his house?

[tintub]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
i have been known to go to tfp

if somebody posted some pics of a hot chick amid aria and i said, wow...she's hot and saved it

and she was 16-17....then i am a pedophile?


until proven guilty, i'm willing to reserve judgement

what is tfp? I think we are talking about CHILDREN here - i.e. prepubescent. At least I guess we are. I wouldn't really count checking out 16-17 year old chicks as pedophilia. They're of legal age anyway, and they CAN look a lot older.

[Simon X]

Originally posted by dillerX:
slightly off topic. did you see all the macs pulled from his house?

Yep, just saw that too on the BBC lunchtime news, a pair of B&W G3s.

[Edit: not really important, but one was a G4.]

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by tintub:
what is tfp?

tfproject.org

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by tintub:
Do you think you can stumble across child porn by accident?

While you can stumble across child porn by accident, this rarely involves entering your credit card info...

[PB2K]

this excuse has a beard. all evidence points at him. though I like to wait for the official judgment before I cast mine. Pedophelia isn't something you make errors with.

If he IS. I hope they lock him in the wing with the biggest, meanest and horniest "daddies"..

[as2]

I think it's all a bit sus...

He finds out that the police have his CC on record, so comes clean to try and save his face.

According to the newspapaer article he 'stumbled' across it while surfing the net with his son, and looked at some pictures while he was present. His son was 10 at the time...

Then he went back to the site 'no more than 3 or 4 times' but still entered his CC details.

I know he's a rock ledgend, and they are supposed to get up to some f_cked up s_it, but this takes the buiscit if it's true.

Adam

[Krypton]

I'll admit things aren't looking too good for Pete evidence wise, but I'm sure the story was that he was 'researching' these sites to see what's there for a book he's writing about child porn/abuse.

He also claims to have been abused as a child, which is why he has become a prominant figurehead against child abuse - Geri Hall has backed him up as she supports his cause.

I'm not sure what to think anymore, I'd like to think his story is true

[Langdon]

Originally posted by tintub:
I wouldn't really count checking out 16-17 year old chicks as pedophilia. They're of legal age anyway, and they CAN look a lot older.

Not in this country pal. A minor is a minor if they are 7 or 17. The law does not see it as legal. You can tell it to a judge that she looked a lot older, see how that goes for you.

[simonjames]

It sounds very suss - the police wouldn't arrest him if he went to one pedophile site once - sounds like he has been doing more than a little research. It'll be interesting to see what they find on his hard drives.

How many jpegs before research becomes something else? 10? 20? I personally believe zero - if he is writing about his own alleged abuse as a child why does he need to download any photos?

Not looking good for Townshend at all.

[Langdon]

What about PeeWee Herman. I hear they are using a copy of the Rob Lowel video he had as evidence that he is a pedophile. That is far more of a questionable situation than has appeared with Townshed.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertain...30109_484.html

[MindFad]

snip

Edit: Never mind. I'll just get flamed for my views.

[Oneota]

Umm...I'd just like to argue semantics here for a moment.

Looking at child porn does not make you a pedophile.

Having sex with children makes you a pedophile.

Looking at child porn makes you a child-porn-looker-atter.

[simonjames]

I beg to differ :-

you can be a christian but not go to church

you can be gay but not have sex

you can be educated and still be stupid

you can be a vegetarian between steaks



Someone downloading child porn is a very sick person and should be treated as such.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Langdon:
Not in this country pal. A minor is a minor if they are 7 or 17. The law does not see it as legal. You can tell it to a judge that she looked a lot older, see how that goes for you.

Sec. 11.41.440. SEXUAL ABUSE OF A MINOR IN THE FOURTH DEGREE.
(a) An offender commits the crime of sexual abuse of a minor in the fourth degree if

(1) being under 16 years of age, the offender engages in sexual penetration or sexual contact with a person who is under 13 years of age and at least three years younger than the offender; or
(2) being 18 years of age or older, the offender engages in sexual contact with a person who is 16 or 17 years of age and at least three years younger than the offender, and the offender occupies a position of authority in relation to the victim.

I guess Alaska isn't a part of your Country?

[Oneota]

Originally posted by simonjames:
I beg to differ :-

you can be a christian but not go to church

you can be gay but not have sex

you can be educated and still be stupid

you can be a vegetarian between steaks



Someone downloading child porn is a very sick person and should be treated as such.

Slight differences there; being Christian or gay or educated or vegetarian are mental/spiritual states, or how one would define one's self. On the other hand, pedophile means "Lover of children" (in a sexual sense).

One who has not had sex with children is not a "lover of children". I agree that someone who looks at child porn is sick. But they're not necessarily a pedophile.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by simonjames:
I beg to differ :-

you can be a christian but not go to church

you can be gay but not have sex

you can be educated and still be stupid

you can be a vegetarian between steaks



Someone downloading child porn is a very sick person and should be treated as such.

Good points.

[tintub]

Originally posted by Langdon:
Not in this country pal. A minor is a minor if they are 7 or 17. The law does not see it as legal. You can tell it to a judge that she looked a lot older, see how that goes for you.

yeah well you have to be older for everything in the US. Come to England and you can shag all th 16 year olds you want. As long as their Dad's don't catch you

I believe some EU countries have the age of consent even lower... 14?

[Disclaimer: I do NOT want to shag a 16 year old - I generally go for OLDER women (not old women haha)]

[MindFad]

Originally posted by simonjames:
Someone downloading child porn is a very sick person and should be treated as such.

In your opinion, yes. As if it's your or anyone else's business what pictures people look at to begin with. My concerns would lie with the people actually taking advantage of the kids and putting it on the Internet. Not with the people who look at it -- because, well, that is their business.

[rampant]

Shit, I better delete those cookies fast.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by rampant:
Shit, I better delete those cookies fast.

[rampant]

[tintub]

Originally posted by MindFad:
In your opinion, yes. As if it's your or anyone else's business what pictures people look at to begin with. My concerns would lie with the people actually taking advantage of the kids and putting it on the Internet. Not with the people who look at it -- because, well, that is their business.

if you are paying to look at child porn, you are providing a market for it. Simple economics. The more people who look at and pay for child porn, the more child porn will be produced and put online, and therefore the more children will be abused. So by looking at child porn, you are basically encouraging people to abuse children, and thus it is definitely our business and definitely a serious crime.

Child abuse by proxy.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by tintub:
if you are paying to look at child porn, you are providing a market for it. Simple economics. The more people who look at and pay for child porn, the more child porn will be produced and put online, and therefore the more children will be abused. So by looking at child porn, you are basically encouraging people to abuse children, and thus it is definitely our business and definitely a serious crime.

Child abuse by proxy.

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

[macvillage.net]

Aren't most child abusers ones who were abused as a child themselves? Or is that just what profilers say?

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertain...30109_484.html

the article reads:

"Friends" co-star Courteney Cox and her actor husband David Arquette recently told the syndicated show "Extra," they had seen Reubens' erotica collection and deemed it both "harmless" and "kitschy."

Why won't a Friends co-star come to my house and check out my porn collection?

Why do I have to look at porn alone at home while he gets to look at it with a girl (in this case her husband too)




--> Damn, why must I look at porn alone.

[tintub]

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

These people are paying other people to commit child abuse. Obviously the actual abusers should be put away, but the people financing the whole deal aren't innocent either.

[PB2K]

What I hate is that ppl see porn with kids (0-20<-note this) as some sort of higher erotica. ..It's damn disgracing! So stop it!

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

So if I pay somebody to kill someone, I shouldn't be put away? Only the guy who does the killing?

People who pay for porn are paying people to make porn for them. Plain and simple. Pete should have realized that. He knew he was breaking the law - if he was researching the book, he should have asked for police or court permission. Get it out in the open in the first place and it wouldn't be an issue today.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by tintub:
These people are paying other people to commit child abuse. Obviously the actual abusers should be put away, but the people financing the whole deal aren't innocent either.

Yes, they are involved in an illegal activity by buying it. But the punishment for looking at pictures shouldn't be the same as the punishment for taking the pictures, IMO.

I'm honest enough to admit that i've stumbled across kiddie porn. It happens. Especially if you're browsing through usenet or other freely distributed porn. Just like files named "hotblondteen.jpg" are often not hot, blonde or under the age of 45, I've been subjected to images of kiddie sex labelled as something else. Same with animal sex images. You can view it without meaning to.

Actively patronizing kiddie porn, on the other hand, is pretty sick. Since it's illegal there needs to be consequences. But he's not a pedophile (by definition) and I don't see how jail helps anyone. The guy needs a psychiatrists and a healthy hobby. Since he's rich, fine the bejesus out of him.

And as a celebrity I'm sure his livelihood will suffer significantly from his actions.

[clod]

Originally posted by tintub:
I believe some EU countries have the age of consent even lower... 14?

I think the age of consent is 14 in Canada too. Imagine a 70-year-old with a 14-year-old.

[tintub]

my girlfriend just made a good point about the pete townshend thing.

you would have to be really stupid to enter your credit card on a child porn site. If you were doing it genuinely for research, then you would think about it and realise that it was a bad idea, at least without consulting a lawyer/police etc. If on the other hand, you were overcome with lust, and your prick was ruling your mind...

I think she's right. Anyone doing this for legitimate reasons wouldn't be in such a hurry that they couldn't find out more about the legalities of it first.

[mydog8mymac]

Originally posted by Oneota:
Umm...I'd just like to argue semantics here for a moment.

Looking at child porn does not make you a pedophile.

Having sex with children makes you a pedophile.

Looking at child porn makes you a child-porn-looker-atter.

SYLLABICATION:
ped�o�phile
PRONUNCIATION:
pd??-fl', p?d?-
NOUN:
An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by tintub:
my girlfriend just made a good point about the pete townshend thing.

you would have to be really stupid to enter your credit card on a child porn site. If you were doing it genuinely for research, then you would think about it and realise that it was a bad idea, at least without consulting a lawyer/police etc. If on the other hand, you were overcome with lust, and your prick was ruling your mind...

I think she's right. Anyone doing this for legitimate reasons wouldn't be in such a hurry that they couldn't find out more about the legalities of it first.

That's been my question. I wonder why nobody has made a public point of this.

If he was doing research. surely someone of his status could arange interviews with detectives/organizations that are involved with child protection and get the information/resources he needs. Ive read that there researchers who have studied child pornography to profile a child abuser (the best way to prevent is to know how their mind works).. for example. A picture tells a story, there is a lot there, to the trained eye.

Someone of his status couldn't get the "research" he needed with police etc. notified and aware of his needs/purpose?

[Oneota]

Originally posted by mydog8mymac:
SYLLABICATION:
ped�o�phile
PRONUNCIATION:
pd??-fl', p?d?-
NOUN:
An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.

That's a strict definition of the word, and if you choost to go by it, then fine; I'll concede the point.

But I think most people, when choosing to apply the -phile suffix in this context, use it to mean someone who actively engages in the sexual act (a necrophiliac is someone who actively engages in sex with the dead, etc). Obviously, there are cases where that's not appropriate (audiophiles don't go around screwing CDs, for example), but I think that's how most people interpret it. I could be wrong, though.

[tintub]

Originally posted by Oneota:
That's a strict definition of the word, and if you choost to go by it, then fine; I'll concede the point.

But I think most people, when choosing to apply the -phile suffix in this context, use it to mean someone who actively engages in the sexual act (a necrophiliac is someone who actively engages in sex with the dead, etc). Obviously, there are cases where that's not appropriate (audiophiles don't go around screwing CDs, for example), but I think that's how most people interpret it. I could be wrong, though.

i would not say that you have to be actively having sex with children to be a pedophile.

[daimoni]

.

[tintub]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Media circus and semantics aside....

As of yet, Townsend hasn't been charged with anything.

Innocent until proven guilty. Isn't that the rule of law in the UK?

Or are we going to vote YES or NO here at MacNN before we have all the facts and evidence?

we are going to vote YES or NO here at MacNN before we have all the facts and evidence.

If we KNEW whether or not he was a pedo, there would be no point in the poll. You must have an opinion on the subject, based on what little you DO know. So click the button, have a little fun at Pete's expense

[Oneota]

Originally posted by tintub:
i would not say that you have to be actively having sex with children to be a pedophile.

I agree; I was unclear with my post. I think you have to have had sex with children to be a pedophile. Once you've engaged in the act, the label applies forever. Again, this is all IMO.

[dillerX]

From St. Paul Pioneer Press

Posted on Tue, Jan. 14, 2003

Child porn investigation that led to Pete Townshend's arrest started in St. Paul

BY LESLIE BROOKS SUZUKAMO

Pioneer Press

Monday's arrest of legendary Who rock guitarist Pete Townshend on suspicion of possessing child pornography was the result of an investigation that began almost four years ago in St. Paul, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service said Tuesday.

That investigation, named "Operation Avalanche," was initiated in April 1999 when then St. Paul Postal Inspector Ron Miller got a tip that lead federal and local law enforcement to Landslide Productions in Fort Worth, Texa. The enterprise, operated by Thomas and Janice Reedy, allowed customers to subscribe to child pornography Web sites through the mail or on the Internet.

Townshend reportedly acknowledged using a Web site advertising child pornography but told police he was not a pedophile and instead was doing research for an autobiography dealing with his own suspected childhood sexual abuse.

"His credit card was used to subscribe to one of the sites operated by the Reedys," said Dan Mihalko, postal inspector in charge of the service's Washington, D.C., branch.

British police arrested Townshend, 57, under the Protection of Children Act after executing two searches at a business and home in Richmond, Surrey, the town outside London where he lives. Police confiscated Townshend's home computers for examination. He was not charged with a crime.

Thomas and Janice Reedy are serving federal sentences of life in prison and 14 years in prison, respectively.

Meanwhile, Miller left the Postal Inspection Service in November to work in the private sector, St. Paul Postal Inspector Susan Matt said Tuesday. She did not have the name of his new company.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Krypton:
I'll admit things aren't looking too good for Pete evidence wise, but I'm sure the story was that he was 'researching' these sites to see what's there for a book he's writing about child porn/abuse.

He also claims to have been abused as a child, which is why he has become a prominant figurehead against child abuse...

I only viewed bukkake sites in an effort to overcome an horrific custard pie incident I witnessed as a seven year old.

[tintub]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
I only viewed bukkake sites in an effort to overcome an horrific custard pie incident I witnessed as a seven year old.

haha

bukkake is so disgusting. (/me looks for vomiting smiley)

[theJoy]

one would assume that if a person were doing research on child porn, they'd come across at least a few web-sites that outlined how it is illegal to download and/or possess child porn.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by hayesk:
So if I pay somebody to kill someone, I shouldn't be put away? Only the guy who does the killing?

People who pay for porn are paying people to make porn for them. Plain and simple. Pete should have realized that. He knew he was breaking the law - if he was researching the book, he should have asked for police or court permission. Get it out in the open in the first place and it wouldn't be an issue today.

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.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
I only viewed bukkake sites in an effort to overcome an horrific custard pie incident I witnessed as a seven year old.

Not every day I see the word bukkake. I was curious if it was even a worldwide slang word (or just a regional thing).

Ends up it is:
http://labs.google.com/glossary?q=bu...lossary+Search



Damn that's funny on the inside.

[simonjames]

I agree - we should with hold opinions until the facts come out. It all depends on how many times he visited the site(s) and how much he downloaded. Sort of like going to a wine tasting.

As to the people here who said that looking at kiddies pix wasn't a bad crime. I don't know how old you are or if you have your own kids but try to imagine you as a parent who has just discovered a relative with 10s of photos of your kids naked. Just try to imagine how you'd feel and now tell me it's right. And no, I wasn't abused - I don't even like children but I know this is very wrong.

[tintub]

Originally posted by simonjames:
....I don't even like children but I know this is very wrong...

hahahaha

how good of you to acknowledge that!