The Legal Gray Area of Child Porn

Zardon · Jan 15, 2003, 11:06 PM

Music fans were shocked by headlines yesterday announcing that guitar hero and rock star Pete Townshend was arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children.

Although he hasn't been charged with any crime, it's clear Townshend's reputation is on the line. Images on television showed police confiscating computers and other belongings from Townshend's home. Meanwhile, Townshend is out on bail and on the defensive.

Tonight on "Tech Live" we look at how Townshend's case may fall into a legal gray area, and whether you should be afraid of getting busted should you ever accidentally or purposely stray onto an illegal website.

The co-founder of The Who told a British newspaper he had looked at child porn sites a few times to research his autobiography, which deals with sexual abuse. He said he used his credit card to enter a site, but never downloaded an image.

Read the full article here

AT_curiousB · Jan 16, 2003, 12:35 AM

Interesting concept, grey area, AFAIK in British Criminal Law there is no grey area, only guilty or not guilty.

As far as Pete Townshends' defence goes, it is a bit flaky, he has given two conflicting stories, one that he was doing research for a book about his life, and one that he was interested in what was available in line with his push against the sexual exploitation of children on the internet, although no-one else appears to know about it.

By his own admission he is guilty, because it is against the law to view pornographic pictures of children in this country.

As to what his motives were only time will tell, if it is truly as he says then he will be treated accordingly in court, if not then he will go to prison. The bulk of the evidence will come from the credit card records seized in the US which provided his name to the investigating task force in the first place, by this what I believe is meant is did he visit the site once or was he a regular visitor.

By the way, one can only be found guilty if the viewing of pictures is deliberate, having pictures sent unsolicited would be a reasonable defence, keeping the said pictures would result in a conviction.

Some people might think, "so what,", he was only looking at pictures, but what he and all the others who view such pictures, was actually doing was supporting the sick practice of explioting children for sexual gratification. It must be remembered that when this ring of peadophilia was busted a number of children around the world were taken into care, because thay were being forced to take part by relatives who would then upload the pictures for other "members" to view.

digitalwanderer · Jan 16, 2003, 12:47 AM

..what Pete did was well across that line. He knowingly went out of his way to view child porn, which I count as wrong. Heck, I've viewed childporn probably cruising the free sites...but never on purpose and I'd split if I ever thought I was, THAT'S the kind of "grey area" I'm talking about...an accidental viewing or something.

EDITED BITS: BTW-Child pornography/explotation/molestation/abuse is about the worst crime there is in my book and I think there should be no mercy or compassion shown of any type for any found guilty of it...no matter who it is.

(I'm a big Who fan, saw 'em live about 7 times...but if Townsend is a child abuser/molester I want the sick bastard to spend the rest of his days in confinement made a hellish torment by his captors & fellow prisoners.

)

Zardon · Jan 16, 2003, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
EDITED BITS: BTW-Child pornography/explotation/molestation/abuse is about the worst crime there is in my book

yes I agree completely. there is nothing worse. taking the innocence of a child and ruining a life. its beyond sick.

xweston · Jan 16, 2003, 02:05 AM

There shouldn't be a "legal gray area" for stuff like child porn. Spammed child porn if you get it in your email should = jailtime!

Vampyromaniac · Jan 16, 2003, 06:43 AM

I'd think there would be other ways to research child abuse than to actually PAY someone for access to child porn!

The fact that someone actually PROFITTED from this pisses me off the most

Jan 15, 2003, 11:06 PM	#1
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 177	The Legal Gray Area of Child Porn Music fans were shocked by headlines yesterday announcing that guitar hero and rock star Pete Townshend was arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children. Although he hasn't been charged with any crime, it's clear Townshend's reputation is on the line. Images on television showed police confiscating computers and other belongings from Townshend's home. Meanwhile, Townshend is out on bail and on the defensive. Tonight on "Tech Live" we look at how Townshend's case may fall into a legal gray area, and whether you should be afraid of getting busted should you ever accidentally or purposely stray onto an illegal website. The co-founder of The Who told a British newspaper he had looked at child porn sites a few times to research his autobiography, which deals with sexual abuse. He said he used his credit card to enter a site, but never downloaded an image. Read the full article here

Jan 16, 2003, 12:35 AM	#2
AT_curiousB DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: May 2002 Location: England Posts: 128 Rep Power: 0	Pete Townshend Interesting concept, grey area, AFAIK in British Criminal Law there is no grey area, only guilty or not guilty. As far as Pete Townshends' defence goes, it is a bit flaky, he has given two conflicting stories, one that he was doing research for a book about his life, and one that he was interested in what was available in line with his push against the sexual exploitation of children on the internet, although no-one else appears to know about it. By his own admission he is guilty, because it is against the law to view pornographic pictures of children in this country. As to what his motives were only time will tell, if it is truly as he says then he will be treated accordingly in court, if not then he will go to prison. The bulk of the evidence will come from the credit card records seized in the US which provided his name to the investigating task force in the first place, by this what I believe is meant is did he visit the site once or was he a regular visitor. By the way, one can only be found guilty if the viewing of pictures is deliberate, having pictures sent unsolicited would be a reasonable defence, keeping the said pictures would result in a conviction. Some people might think, "so what,", he was only looking at pictures, but what he and all the others who view such pictures, was actually doing was supporting the sick practice of explioting children for sexual gratification. It must be remembered that when this ring of peadophilia was busted a number of children around the world were taken into care, because thay were being forced to take part by relatives who would then upload the pictures for other "members" to view. __________________ Bill

Jan 16, 2003, 12:47 AM	#3
digitalwanderer Colour Commentator Join Date: May 2002 Location: Highland, IN USA Posts: 5,620 Rep Power: 0	There might be a little grey room, but.. ..what Pete did was well across that line. He knowingly went out of his way to view child porn, which I count as wrong. Heck, I've viewed childporn probably cruising the free sites...but never on purpose and I'd split if I ever thought I was, THAT'S the kind of "grey area" I'm talking about...an accidental viewing or something. EDITED BITS: BTW-Child pornography/explotation/molestation/abuse is about the worst crime there is in my book and I think there should be no mercy or compassion shown of any type for any found guilty of it...no matter who it is. (I'm a big Who fan, saw 'em live about 7 times...but if Townsend is a child abuser/molester I want the sick bastard to spend the rest of his days in confinement made a hellish torment by his captors & fellow prisoners. ) __________________ WTF is up with the sigs?

Jan 16, 2003, 06:43 AM	#6
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 74 System Specs	Bah I'd think there would be other ways to research child abuse than to actually PAY someone for access to child porn! The fact that someone actually PROFITTED from this pisses me off the most __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250

Jan 16, 2003, 02:05 AM	#5
xweston DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 12 Rep Power: 0	There shouldn't be a "legal gray area" for stuff like child porn. Spammed child porn if you get it in your email should = jailtime!