Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I posted a link to the Supreme Court ruling that virtual porn passes Constitutional muster and you respond with the fact that the DOJ ignores Supreme Court rulings.
Good job.
You posted a link to the Supreme Court ruling that had no relevance to the case you linked to. There were actual childrens pictures in the pornography the guy had. Did you read your own link?
Supreme Court Strikes Down Virtual Child Pornography Law : Silha Center : University of Minnesota
The DoJ and the SCOTUS agree.
USDOJ: CRM: Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
2nd Circuit upholds conviction in virtual child-porn case | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition
What bothers you about this? I dont see where the DOJ ignored the SCOTUS. Can you point it out for me?While there was no evidence Hotaling distributed the images, the unanimous three-judge panel said the pictures showed the faces of six identifiable girls, who were at risk of damage to their reputations and psychological harm from knowing their images were exploited by a trusted adult.
There were no children in the photos, their were faces of teenagers. The logic behind the decision is ridiculous, nothing in the law protects people from harm to their reputation before it occurs, nor is it a criminal act to harm someone's reputation.
His computer was seized, and it showed the altered images with the faces of underage girls from pictures taken with his digital camera, according to the original criminal complaint.
Should those people who are sexually attracted to youth be discriminated against even if those particular individuals never harmed a child?
What do you mean by discriminated against?
Prosecuted for their thoughts.
some are saying, who didn't see this coming...
a video and pictures of the (academics) at the site with the rest of the lovely article
SNIP:
How some university academics make the case for paedophiles at summer conferences
Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males, said the presentation. At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children Normal males are aroused by children.
Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.
The statement that paedophilia is natural and normal was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.
Other presentations included Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis, and Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.
Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.
Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom OCarroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. Wonderful! he wrote on his blog afterwards. It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!
ALL of it here
'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males' - Telegraph
As Larry the Cable Guy would say: "There's your sign..."
I think we now know definitively where this deviant sex cult agenda is heading. As to children at least, that choir is signing the "pedophilia is a term which is both cumulative and evolving" tune.
There it is folks. In black and white. You saw it here first.
ie: look for the age of consent being lowered entering the appeals system the nanosecond gay marriage is passed...assuming it makes the 14th hurdle and sets a new precedent for minor behaviors objectionable to the majority having legal-dominance to dictate to the majority.
Whatever you say, Senator McCarthy.
But see, I understand human psychology. And I'm not convinced that you understand anything save painting those with whom you disagree with a broad, self-aggrandizing brush as some kind of deflection indigenous to what you like to portray yourself as.
I don't care what you think of me. I know what I am and contrary to your attempts to rekindle the "Red Scare," it isn't a pedophile.
Everyone needs a good attorney.
Did you know that people often imitate the behaviors of those of whom they are most afraid, Silhouette?
No one understands human psychology. there are a lot of idiots that like to pretend they do, and they all sell snake oil.
You posted a link to the Supreme Court ruling that had no relevance to the case you linked to. There were actual childrens pictures in the pornography the guy had. Did you read your own link?
Supreme Court Strikes Down Virtual Child Pornography Law : Silha Center : University of Minnesota
The DoJ and the SCOTUS agree.
USDOJ: CRM: Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
2nd Circuit upholds conviction in virtual child-porn case | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition
What bothers you about this? I dont see where the DOJ ignored the SCOTUS. Can you point it out for me?
There were no children in the photos, their were faces of teenagers. The logic behind the decision is ridiculous, nothing in the law protects people from harm to their reputation before it occurs, nor is it a criminal act to harm someone's reputation.
Give it a rest Quantum and admit you misread the link you posted. The article cleary states the girls were underage. Its against the law to possess child pornography. End of discussion.
2nd Circuit upholds conviction in virtual child-porn case | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition
His computer was seized, and it showed the altered images with the faces of underage girls from pictures taken with his digital camera, according to the original criminal complaint.
Whatever you say, Senator McCarthy.
But see, I understand human psychology. And I'm not convinced that you understand anything save painting those with whom you disagree with a broad, self-aggrandizing brush as some kind of deflection indigenous to what you like to portray yourself as.
I don't care what you think of me. I know what I am and contrary to your attempts to rekindle the "Red Scare," it isn't a pedophile.
Everyone needs a good attorney.
Did you know that people often imitate the behaviors of those of whom they are most afraid, Silhouette?
No one understands human psychology. there are a lot of idiots that like to pretend they do, and they all sell snake oil.
I understand it well enough to recognize the youngest child in a family who happens to be a female and a chest-beating Internet badass.
But oh well. Whatever you say.
There were no children in the photos, their were faces of teenagers. The logic behind the decision is ridiculous, nothing in the law protects people from harm to their reputation before it occurs, nor is it a criminal act to harm someone's reputation.
Give it a rest Quantum and admit you misread the link you posted. The article cleary states the girls were underage. Its against the law to possess child pornography. End of discussion.
2nd Circuit upholds conviction in virtual child-porn case | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition
His computer was seized, and it showed the altered images with the faces of underage girls from pictures taken with his digital camera, according to the original criminal complaint.
He did not have child pornography, the court even agreed with that,, but upheld the conviction based a spurious idea that they could cause damage to people that have never seen the pictures.
A federal appeals court yesterday upheld the child-pornography conviction of a New York man who superimposed the faces of teenage girls onto sexually explicit photographs of nude adults in his computer.
Give it a rest Quantum and admit you misread the link you posted. The article cleary states the girls were underage. Its against the law to possess child pornography. End of discussion.
2nd Circuit upholds conviction in virtual child-porn case | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition
He did not have child pornography, the court even agreed with that,, but upheld the conviction based a spurious idea that they could cause damage to people that have never seen the pictures.
You keep trying to skate but I am not going to let you. How was he convicted of child pornography if he did not have it?
A federal appeals court yesterday upheld the child-pornography conviction of a New York man who superimposed the faces of teenage girls onto sexually explicit photographs of nude adults in his computer.
Having sex with a minor is illegal the same way sodomy used to be illegal. Until Lawrence v Texas, gay sex was just as illegal as sex with a minor.
Oh but one can't possibly lead/be connected to the other! [See my signature for details].
The socio-sexual icon of the LGBT cult is a man who was an unapologetic predator of minor teen homeless boys made vulnerable and incapable of consent by their mental condition, living situation, drug addiction and young age. His biography said specifically that he preferred them in that condition as sex partners. He sodomized them at the same time he assured them he was their "father figure/guardian". And that ushered in a whole other crime of psychological abuse.
The connections are already there. We just need money in the media to expose them plainly for what they are.
You are the only person out of every human being I have ever encountered who talks about this Harvey Milk guy. I never even heard of "Harvey Milk" until I read your posts about you obsessing over him.
He did not have child pornography, the court even agreed with that,, but upheld the conviction based a spurious idea that they could cause damage to people that have never seen the pictures.
You keep trying to skate but I am not going to let you. How was he convicted of child pornography if he did not have it?
A federal appeals court yesterday upheld the child-pornography conviction of a New York man who superimposed the faces of teenage girls onto sexually explicit photographs of nude adults in his computer.
Wow, you keep saying that they upheld the conviction, that is the entire point that I am making. Why do you think you are making a point here?
How do you expect a pedophile to control/manage his urges if you don't at least allow him to legally fantasize. And for men that takes a visual cue as in pictures. It's not like he's harming anyone if he keeps it in the privacy of his bedroom.You keep trying to skate but I am not going to let you. How was he convicted of child pornography if he did not have it?
Wow, you keep saying that they upheld the conviction, that is the entire point that I am making. Why do you think you are making a point here?
Because you said they didnt know the difference between a plan vs fantasy and were wrong for doing it after you clearly misread the link. He had child pornography. He was convicted. The appeals court upheld it. What point were you trying to make?
How do you expect a pedophile to control/manage his urges if you don't at least allow him to legally fantasize. And for men that takes a visual cue as in pictures. It's not like he's harming anyone if he keeps it in the privacy of his bedroom.Wow, you keep saying that they upheld the conviction, that is the entire point that I am making. Why do you think you are making a point here?
Because you said they didnt know the difference between a plan vs fantasy and were wrong for doing it after you clearly misread the link. He had child pornography. He was convicted. The appeals court upheld it. What point were you trying to make?
I have Brooke Shields making love to someone at the age of 14 in a movie called Endless love, another where she plays a 14 year old prostitute both rated R, released to the public in video format back in the 80's. I have 3 movies of Porky's which is about high school girls having sex also rated R. Shag, that one Phoebe Cates did, Ridgemont high, 4 shows of American pie, one with a high school boy having sex with a pie. And don't forget the girl with the flute in the X rated flick Girls in Blue, or Debbie does Dallas.
What is the difference between that and using the underwear page of the Sears Catalogue, or pasting faces on other peoples bodies.
Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.
Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant; any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.
How do you expect a pedophile to control/manage his urges if you don't at least allow him to legally fantasize. And for men that takes a visual cue as in pictures. It's not like he's harming anyone if he keeps it in the privacy of his bedroom.Because you said they didnt know the difference between a plan vs fantasy and were wrong for doing it after you clearly misread the link. He had child pornography. He was convicted. The appeals court upheld it. What point were you trying to make?
I have Brooke Shields making love to someone at the age of 14 in a movie called Endless love, another where she plays a 14 year old prostitute both rated R, released to the public in video format back in the 80's. I have 3 movies of Porky's which is about high school girls having sex also rated R. Shag, that one Phoebe Cates did, Ridgemont high, 4 shows of American pie, one with a high school boy having sex with a pie. And don't forget the girl with the flute in the X rated flick Girls in Blue, or Debbie does Dallas.
What is the difference between that and using the underwear page of the Sears Catalogue, or pasting faces on other peoples bodies.
A pedophile can control their urges by making a choice not to do anything in pursuit of those urges. I'm pretty sure you know if you are attracted to underage kids or not. I am not familiar with any of those movies listed so I cant comment on them. However, if they do exhibit child pornography then everyone associated with them should be locked up.
The difference in the Sears Catalogue and pasting children on nude adult bodies is that the latter is child pornography. The Sears catalogue is not trying to pass this off for pedos to use for sexual gratification. IOW it is not sexually suggestive. The intent as well as the content here matters if you read the DoJ website.
USDOJ: CRM: Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.
Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant; any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.
How old are you 19?
How do you expect a pedophile to control/manage his urges if you don't at least allow him to legally fantasize. And for men that takes a visual cue as in pictures. It's not like he's harming anyone if he keeps it in the privacy of his bedroom.
I have Brooke Shields making love to someone at the age of 14 in a movie called Endless love, another where she plays a 14 year old prostitute both rated R, released to the public in video format back in the 80's. I have 3 movies of Porky's which is about high school girls having sex also rated R. Shag, that one Phoebe Cates did, Ridgemont high, 4 shows of American pie, one with a high school boy having sex with a pie. And don't forget the girl with the flute in the X rated flick Girls in Blue, or Debbie does Dallas.
What is the difference between that and using the underwear page of the Sears Catalogue, or pasting faces on other peoples bodies.
A pedophile can control their urges by making a choice not to do anything in pursuit of those urges. I'm pretty sure you know if you are attracted to underage kids or not. I am not familiar with any of those movies listed so I cant comment on them. However, if they do exhibit child pornography then everyone associated with them should be locked up.
The difference in the Sears Catalogue and pasting children on nude adult bodies is that the latter is child pornography. The Sears catalogue is not trying to pass this off for pedos to use for sexual gratification. IOW it is not sexually suggestive. The intent as well as the content here matters if you read the DoJ website.
USDOJ: CRM: Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.
Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant; any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.
You've never heard of Porky's
I grew up watching this stuff.
You keep trying to skate but I am not going to let you. How was he convicted of child pornography if he did not have it?
Wow, you keep saying that they upheld the conviction, that is the entire point that I am making. Why do you think you are making a point here?
Because you said they didnt know the difference between a plan vs fantasy and were wrong for doing it after you clearly misread the link. He had child pornography. He was convicted. The appeals court upheld it. What point were you trying to make?
Wow, you keep saying that they upheld the conviction, that is the entire point that I am making. Why do you think you are making a point here?
Because you said they didnt know the difference between a plan vs fantasy and were wrong for doing it after you clearly misread the link. He had child pornography. He was convicted. The appeals court upheld it. What point were you trying to make?
They fucking don't, there was no plan to kill and eat women. even you fucking admitted that.
some are saying, who didn't see this coming...
a video and pictures of the (academics) at the site with the rest of the lovely article
SNIP:
How some university academics make the case for paedophiles at summer conferences
Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males, said the presentation. At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children Normal males are aroused by children.
Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.
The statement that paedophilia is natural and normal was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.
Other presentations included Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis, and Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.
Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.
Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom OCarroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. Wonderful! he wrote on his blog afterwards. It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!
ALL of it here
'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males' - Telegraph
Because you said they didnt know the difference between a plan vs fantasy and were wrong for doing it after you clearly misread the link. He had child pornography. He was convicted. The appeals court upheld it. What point were you trying to make?
They fucking don't, there was no plan to kill and eat women. even you fucking admitted that.
Cursing doesnt confuse me. Of course I admitted it. That was my entire point. The two cases had nothing to do with each other. Everyone can see what you posted Quantum so stop trying to save face. Its not that serious. You tried to compare a fantasy case that got dropped with a child pornography case that got upheld. In both cases the justice was served according to the law. You were just flat out wrong and trying to hide that. Admit your mistake and stop trying to confuse the issue. What was your point again?
