PDA

View Full Version : Man faces ten years for Simpsons cartoon porn.




Anti Federalist
10-16-2010, 07:27 PM
File under "Let the government look at whatever it wants, I've got nothing to hide". :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



Former teacher pleads guilty to downloading 'Simpsons' porn

BOISE, Idaho - A former middle school teacher in Meridian has pleaded guilty to possession of visual representations of child sex abuse.

The U.S. Attorney's office said Steven Kutzner, 33, had downloaded more than 70 animated cartoon pornographic images on his computer. Many of them depicted child characters from The Simpsons.

Kutzner was a former middle school teacher at Lake Hazel Middle School in Meridian. He resigned immediately after the search warrant was served at his home.

Kutzner will be sentenced Jan. 5, 2011. He faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison and a fine up to $250,000.

http://www.katu.com/news/weird/104900009.html

Bruno
10-16-2010, 07:31 PM
who is the victim?

Anti Federalist
10-16-2010, 07:33 PM
who is the victim?

Matt Groening maybe?

:p :mad:

jmhudak17
10-16-2010, 07:52 PM
We have to think about how Lisa Simpson feels. She's being exploited. :p

Dr.3D
10-16-2010, 07:53 PM
who is the victim?

A former middle school teacher.

MRoCkEd
10-16-2010, 07:53 PM
Worst. Law. Ever.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:x2voSTQ8JT4_IM:http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff120/strykerdarksilence/20090125224011The_Simpsons-Jeff_Albertson.png&t=1

Philhelm
10-16-2010, 07:54 PM
His defense should be that all of the Simpsons characters are well over twenty years old, and that the children suffer from that Gary Coleman disorder, but are of legal age of consent.

Rael
10-16-2010, 08:01 PM
I thought the SCOTUS already ruled this kind of law unconstitutional.

Dr.3D
10-16-2010, 08:18 PM
I thought the SCOTUS already ruled this kind of law unconstitutional.


Congress responded to the Supreme Court’s Free Speech Coalition ruling by passing a new law called the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 — better known as the PROTECT Act.

The law says in part that anyone who "knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that (1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene; or (2) (A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; or attempts or conspires to do so" shall be subject to penalties provided by law.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/internet/topic.aspx?topic=virtual_childporn

Kregisen
10-16-2010, 08:23 PM
Fucking insane.

Reason
10-16-2010, 08:29 PM
how did they know he was downloading this material...?

Philhelm
10-16-2010, 08:33 PM
how did they know he was downloading this material...?

Probably because government agents were the ones who had hosted the site.

Bruno
10-16-2010, 08:39 PM
A former middle school teacher.

Exactly.

Anti Federalist
10-16-2010, 09:14 PM
Probably because government agents were the ones who had hosted the site.

That.

And they are busy.

Search: "Simpsons porn" for images and see what comes up.

Dr.3D
10-16-2010, 09:24 PM
That.

And they are busy.

Search: "Simpsons porn" for images and see what comes up.

Well, it seems anybody who clicks on one of those could end up in the slammer.

Anti Federalist
10-16-2010, 09:27 PM
Well, it seems anybody who clicks on one of those could end up in the slammer.

But you've got nothing to hide, have you, mundane?

Dr.3D
10-16-2010, 09:30 PM
But you've got nothing to hide, have you, mundane?

Well, even if I cleaned my hard drive afterwards, they might still take my computer for a week or something. It's getting dangerous to use the web anymore.

Anti Federalist
10-16-2010, 09:33 PM
Well, even if I cleaned my hard drive afterward, they might still take my computer for a week or something. It's getting dangerous to use the web anymore.

It's getting dangerous to live in the land of the slave, is what's getting dangerous to do.

Search: Three Felonies a Day.

tangent4ronpaul
10-16-2010, 09:34 PM
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/internet/topic.aspx?topic=virtual_childporn

Overturned, apparently...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/1st/052034.html

2006


At the hearing before the district court, the government explained that it was prepared to present evidence that three of the images, Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, were of "known child victims." This evidence was significant because "the government must prove that an image depicts actual children to sustain a . . . conviction" under the statute. United States v. Hilton, 386 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (citing Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 251-56 (2002)). Frabizio focused his challenge on those three images and one other.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0430p-06.pdf

2007


Child
pornography is different from other photographs of illegal conduct because the images more directly
relate to the illegal conduct; when an individual is taking photographs of child abuse, it is likely that
the taking of pictures is a motivator of the illegal conduct, and therefore the speech is more
“intrinsically related” to the conduct. Ferber, 458 U.S. at 759-60; cf. Free Speech Coal, 535 U.S.
at 250 (“Virtual child pornography is not ‘intrinsically related’ to the sexual abuse of children, as
were the materials in Ferber.”).

The guy is innocent and the Feds are just jacking off to justify their high salaries... This is going to get thrown out, after destroying the guys life.

-t

Matt Collins
10-16-2010, 09:35 PM
Well, it seems anybody who clicks on one of those could end up in the slammer.
It's even worse than that....


A lot of browsers "prefetch" meaning that any links on a page your are viewing are automatically cached and downloaded so that if you click on them, much of it is available on your computer already.

Therefore by going to a page that LINKS to this sort of thing, your browser may have automatically downloaded the images on those links to your computer thus making you in violation of the law whether or not you have actually viewed any sort of "illegal" images or even sought them out.

There was a very big discussion about this on the best tech site out there, www.SlashDot.org that mentioned both the insanity of this sort of law and the technical issues surrounding it too.

Anti Federalist
10-16-2010, 09:36 PM
The guy is innocent and the Feds are just jacking off to justify their high salaries... This is going to get thrown out, after destroying the guys life.

-t

Guy already copped a guilty plea, probably on advice from some hack court appointed attorney.

Unless he appeals, he's going to jail.

Dr.3D
10-16-2010, 09:38 PM
It's even worse than that....


A lot of browsers "prefetch" meaning that any links on a page your are viewing are automatically cached and downloaded so that if you click on them, much of it is available on your computer already.

Therefore by going to a page that LINKS to this sort of thing, your browser may have automatically downloaded the images on those links to your computer thus making you in violation of the law whether or not you have actually viewed any sort of "illegal" images or even sought them out.

There was a very big discussion about this on the best tech site out there, www.SlashDot.org that mentioned both the insanity of this sort of law and the technical issues surrounding it too.

True!

A lot of times there are browsers that show content of the link in the search engine. Seems they can arrest anybody they feel like it if they just try a little bit.

Matt Collins
10-16-2010, 09:45 PM
A lot of times there are browsers that show content of the link in the search engine. Seems they can arrest anybody they feel like it if they just try a little bit.Well that's the idea of a totalitarian or authoritarian state; there are so many laws that it's impossible not to break them, everyone's guilty of something, and the laws are selectively enforced in order to manipulate behavior.

tangent4ronpaul
10-16-2010, 09:47 PM
Guy already copped a guilty plea, probably on advice from some hack court appointed attorney.

Unless he appeals, he's going to jail.

That's rather scary simply from the setting a precedent POV. Remember why we got stuck with corporations? Actually I wouldn't put it past the feds to set up some poor patsy to set this precedent. They truely are the scum of the earth!

-t

Dr.3D
10-16-2010, 10:08 PM
Well that's the idea of a totalitarian or authoritarian state; there are so many laws that it's impossible not to break them, everyone's guilty of something, and the laws are selectively enforced in order to manipulate behavior.

I've often wondered how many in congress and the senate have shares in the prison system. Seems any of them having shares in the prison system would have a conflict of interest when making up and passing such laws.

Of course, they may be acting on the requests of lobbyists who own shares in the prison system. In either case, it would still be a conflict of interest for them to pass such laws.

NYgs23
10-17-2010, 11:42 AM
The guy is innocent and the Feds are just jacking off to justify their high salaries... This is going to get thrown out, after destroying the guys life.

Actually, you're wrong. The so-called Protect Act prohibits even drawings of children if they're "obscene." Of course, obscenity is already illegal anway, including if it's adult pornography. The legal definition of obscenity is so vague it could be pretty much anything, including some of the most vanilla porn you can think of. They just rarely bother to enforce it. But there have been cases of adult pornographers being arrested for this and even convicted and imprisoned. This is just the same sort of thing.

awake
10-17-2010, 11:46 AM
In a free society, you would be asked if you want your protection insurance premiums to increase to fight cartoon porn. Most people would ignore the request. Those who wanted to fight it could pay for it out of pocket.

Anti Federalist
10-17-2010, 11:50 AM
Actually, you're wrong. The so-called Protect Act prohibits even drawings of children if they're "obscene." Of course, obscenity is already illegal anway, including if it's adult pornography. The legal definition of obscenity is so vague it could be pretty much anything, including some of the most vanilla porn you can think of. They just rarely bother to enforce it. But there have been cases of adult pornographers being arrested for this and even convicted and imprisoned. This is just the same sort of thing.

Just another example illustrating the fact that this is no longer a free nation but, in fact, a tyranny.

Arbitrary and capriciously enforced felony laws being one of the hallmarks of tyranny.

brandon
10-17-2010, 12:07 PM
How to you they prove that the pictures are of minors? Does a cartoon drawing have an age?

tangent4ronpaul
10-17-2010, 12:11 PM
Actually, you're wrong. The so-called Protect Act prohibits even drawings of children if they're "obscene." Of course, obscenity is already illegal anway, including if it's adult pornography. The legal definition of obscenity is so vague it could be pretty much anything, including some of the most vanilla porn you can think of. They just rarely bother to enforce it. But there have been cases of adult pornographers being arrested for this and even convicted and imprisoned. This is just the same sort of thing.

http://www.sexhysteria.com/

Another episode in the U.S. Justice Department’s anti-sex morality crusade
October 15th, 2010

A middle school teacher in Meridian, Idaho was caught with cartoon images of children engaged in sex acts on his computer and now faces up to ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine. According to the Idaho Statesman:

Boisean Steve Kutzner, 33, pleaded guilty in federal court Wednesday to possession of obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said in a press release.

Note the fact that he is being charged under obscenity laws rather than child porn which require that the material portray actual children. Child porn laws are designed to protect children whereas obscenity laws can target any material deemed to be sufficiently offensive.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office said investigators determined that his IP address had been used to share child pornography in a peer-to-peer file-sharing network in October 2008. After a forensic investigation of his computer in August last year, agents found 70 cartoon images of minors engaging in sexual explicit conduct. Many of the images depicted characters from the TV show “The Simpsons.”

Notice the ease with which they substitute the more inflammatory term, “child pornography” in the story. Anti-sex crusaders rarely let ethics stand in the way of their mission.

So, to summarize, the images do not satisfy the legal definition of child pornography and no children were victimized by anyone. This is pretty much a case of “we prosecuted him because we can”.

The obscenity exemption to First Amendment is a Supreme Court fabrication to justify censorship of unpopular expression and it has a long history of abuse. The supposition that the First Amendment is only meant to protect expression that isn’t too offensive is so illogical as to be ludicrous. The very fact that the public buys into such nonsense suggests an utter lack of appreciation for their rights.

Of course, one could make an argument that someone who looks at such material shouldn’t be permitted to teach, but we must keep in mind that he was not charged with any offense against a child nor is there any mention of any such concerns. Furthermore, if looking at cartoon images of children makes someone unfit to teach children, does looking at adult porn make someone unfit to teach adults? In any case, this isn’t about getting a questionable teacher out of the classroom. Simply firing him would have accomplished that. No, this goes way beyond that. This is about intentionally destroying a person’s life for simply looking at the wrong cartoons.

This story is nothing but another example of how laws originally sold as a means to protect children have become perverted into an opportunity to torture someone for not submitting to a cultural conformity defined by moral crusaders to whom rights are of no importance.

We can all breath a little easier tonight knowing that, Wendy Olson, the U.S. Attorney for Boise, Idaho has saved the United States from the terrible destructive scourge of cartoon sex. I’m sure Wendy is quite pleased with how this will look on her resumé.

Kludge
10-17-2010, 12:53 PM
How to you they prove that the pictures are of minors? Does a cartoon drawing have an age?

Wikipedia alleges that Lisa is 8, but there's no actual source listed.

Dr.3D
10-17-2010, 12:58 PM
Wikipedia alleges that Lisa is 8, but there's no actual source listed.

But since the series has been on longer than that, I would suspect she would be much older. If the series started out 11 years ago, she would theoretically be 18.

Anti Federalist
10-17-2010, 01:00 PM
But since the series has been on longer than that, I would suspect she would be much older. If the series started out 11 years ago, she would theoretically be 18.

11?

Piffle.

It's been running for over 20 years now.

Lisa is at least 28.

tangent4ronpaul
10-17-2010, 01:07 PM
Wikipedia alleges that Lisa is 8, but there's no actual source listed.

An interesting question. If she was first drawn 20 years ago, is she 20 or 8? Can a cartoon character even have an age?

There are supposidly some XXX drawings of Micky and Mini mouse, which would make them grandparents probably as they are what 50-70yo? They also appeared in diff toons as kids, and married adults and not in chronological order.

Likewise, haven't Bart and Lisa appeared as grown up / real old in some plots, I believe...

Consider advances in cryogenics. If a 10yo gets frozen due to space travel or an incurable disease and thawed 2,000 years later - are they 10yo or 2,010yo when they are thawed? That would be an interesting legal case or the plot of a SF novel for that matter. Kid might be due a ton of back payments from Social Security if they ruled 2,010 - so much that he and others making such claims could bankrupt a country...

-t

fatjohn
10-17-2010, 01:13 PM
But the simpsons have 4 fingers, which make them non-humanoid.

furface
10-17-2010, 01:14 PM
who is the victim?

Come on guys. Think of all those poor federal employees who'd be out of work if the federal government couldn't invent or encourage terrorist threats, national crises, and victimless crimes out of thin air.

fatjohn
10-17-2010, 01:15 PM
What if you jerk of to avatar chicks but james cameron starts to claim that avatars only live 15 years therefore making them all minors... In short, this is insane.

Jeremy
10-17-2010, 01:30 PM
Wouldn't cartoon porn watchers decrease the amount of real porn watchers?

Anti Federalist
10-17-2010, 01:35 PM
What if you jerk of to avatar chicks but james cameron starts to claim that avatars only live 15 years therefore making them all minors... In short, this is insane.

That right there is funny.

+rep

furface
10-17-2010, 01:36 PM
Wouldn't cartoon porn watchers decrease the amount of real porn watchers?

The details of this case seem a bit sketchy. I believe that in the US purely animated images are not illegal, although this is not the case in places like Australia. If it's in the US, I'm pretty sure there had to be real, under age actors.

Dr.3D
10-17-2010, 01:54 PM
The details of this case seem a bit sketchy. I believe that in the US purely animated images are not illegal, although this is not the case in places like Australia. If it's in the US, I'm pretty sure there had to be real, under age actors.

Did you read this post (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2935890&postcount=9) and the link associated with the quotes in it?

tangent4ronpaul
10-17-2010, 02:01 PM
The details of this case seem a bit sketchy. I believe that in the US purely animated images are not illegal, although this is not the case in places like Australia. If it's in the US, I'm pretty sure there had to be real, under age actors.

See posts 19 and 30.

What is going to be really interesting is 3D art / CGI in the next 10 years. We've all seen characters in computer games get much more realistic as software gets better and computers get faster. I've seen some still 3D images that were really good! - so good that you had to question if it was a real person or a drawing. How long it will take to translate that into something that realistically moves is probably going to happen within 10 years. (Or maybe it's already happened - can you say OBL?). When having a drivers license on file becomes irrelevant and the constipated morally indignant assholes start screaming about underage images while the artist and producer claim they set out to and did draw a character in the 19-20yo age, then the whole thing becomes a farce. Oh wait - it already is a farce. :rolleyes:

-t

tangent4ronpaul
10-17-2010, 02:04 PM
Did you read this post (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2935890&postcount=9) and the link associated with the quotes in it?

overturned - see posts 19 and 30. It's also being tried on the bais of being "obscene", that completely subjective term with no baseline, and not on the basis of the characters being underage. (not that the press isn't pushing it as cartoon kidy porn to the max).

-t

furface
10-17-2010, 02:08 PM
Did you read this post (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2935890&postcount=9) and the link associated with the quotes in it?

Thanks for the link and it appears to confirm what I said which is that purely computer generated images are never illegal. How this case has been prosecuted is still a question.

Kludge
10-17-2010, 02:10 PM
There was a shitty flash-based (I think) game circulated around the Internet a couple years ago called Rapelay (rape-play, I think). In the game, you graphically rape women.

There was a shitty Unreal-based game circulated all over the world a few years ago called Oblivion. In the game, you frequently murder people for whatever reason you want.

Then there are online FPS game in which you kill avatars representing living human beings, often without any given reason.

There is even now a niche of online games where you have sex with other people as avatars - I'm guessing it came from Second Life.


If you're going to ban representations of illegal activities (real, realistic, or neither), ban it all.



Edit: Here's a fun example -- Person creates "game" where a picture of a real 8-year-old girl (who happened to be murdered on film) is converted into a 3-D image. In the game, you are to shoot the model of the girl. If you hit, the video of the film in which she died is played. The game is distributed widely on the Internet at no charge. Should it be criminal to own?

Dr.3D
10-17-2010, 02:14 PM
overturned - see posts 19 and 30. It's also being tried on the bais of being "obscene", that completely subjective term with no baseline, and not on the basis of the characters being underage. (not that the press isn't pushing it as cartoon kidy porn to the max).

-t


Thanks for the link and it appears to confirm what I said which is that purely computer generated images are never illegal. How this case has been prosecuted is still a question.

So the PROTECT Act of 2003 has been repealed?

tangent4ronpaul
10-17-2010, 02:31 PM
So the PROTECT Act of 2003 has been repealed?

Just the parts about things that aren't kids - sculptures, drawings, jello molds - whatever...

-t

furface
10-17-2010, 02:32 PM
So the PROTECT Act of 2003 has been repealed?

OK, you're right. The Protect Act has not been repealed. There has been only one previous case involving the Protect Act and virtual images. It's complex because it also involved real images, so the guy was only appealing sentencing issues.

http://www.mahalo.com/dwight-whorley


The charges stem from an incident on March 30, 2004, when Whorley used a public computer at the Virginia Employment Office to download 70 images of child pornography. Twenty of those were Japanese cartoons—anime—that illustrated young girls being forced to have sex with men. The other images were digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexual conduct; Whorley also sent and received emails which described parents sexually molesting their children.MSNBC: Child-porn cartoon conviction upheld (December 19, 2008)1

In the appeal, Whorley's attorneys argued that cartoons are protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution because they do not depict real children; and further, that text-only emails are not obscene.MSNBC: Child-porn cartoon conviction upheld (December 19, 2008)1

Two members of a three-person judicial panel from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected those arguments; the third agreed with the appeal but affirmed Whorley's sentence on the basis of the real photographs that Whorley downloaded.MSNBC: Child-porn cartoon conviction upheld (December 19, 2008)1

tangent4ronpaul
10-17-2010, 02:38 PM
Weird - it's not like they don't sell anime w/ sex in video stores and on the Internet.

-t

Mach
10-17-2010, 02:43 PM
Well that's the idea of a totalitarian or authoritarian state; there are so many laws that it's impossible not to break them, everyone's guilty of something, and the laws are selectively enforced in order to manipulate behavior.


I've often wondered how many in congress and the senate have shares in the prison system. Seems any of them having shares in the prison system would have a conflict of interest when making up and passing such laws.

Of course, they may be acting on the requests of lobbyists who own shares in the prison system. In either case, it would still be a conflict of interest for them to pass such laws.

^^^ That was some good stuff guys. ^^^

By the way, I've watched Homer choke Bart hundreds of times, it was very funny!


It's even worse than that....


A lot of browsers "prefetch" meaning that any links on a page your are viewing are automatically cached and downloaded so that if you click on them, much of it is available on your computer already.

If you use Firefox you can turn your Prefetch OFF. (http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/internet/firefox/quick-tip-turn-off-prefetching-in-firefox/)

denison
10-17-2010, 03:01 PM
Fucking insane.

i think it's fucking insane that people would support child sex abuse and incest under the guise of a "cartoon". it's beyond disgusting and speak to the kinda society we live. :mad:

denison
10-17-2010, 03:06 PM
so how many people would be happy if they found out this guy was a teacher to your own 12 yr old kid?

Anti Federalist
10-17-2010, 03:10 PM
i think it's fucking insane that people would support child sex abuse and incest under the guise of a "cartoon". it's beyond disgusting and speak to the kinda society we live. :mad:

Who's supporting child sex abuse and incest?

I don't know about anybody else, but I'm opposing sending someone to prison for drawings.

:confused:

jclay2
10-17-2010, 03:11 PM
so how many people would be happy if they found out this guy was a teacher to your own 12 yr old kid?

Whats your point? Are you saying the ends justify the means?

Dr.3D
10-17-2010, 03:12 PM
i think it's fucking insane that people would support child sex abuse and incest under the guise of a "cartoon". it's beyond disgusting and speak to the kinda society we live. :mad:
It isn't that we support it. It's that somehow government has decided to dictate morality to everyone else and obstruct the 1st amendment in the process.

Exactly who is the victim of this "crime"? No one was hurt in the least.

tangent4ronpaul
10-17-2010, 03:28 PM
i think it's fucking insane that people would support child sex abuse and incest under the guise of a "cartoon". it's beyond disgusting and speak to the kinda society we live. :mad:

Where did incest come from? - oh, cartoon "incest". Yes, I'm afraid they share a common pencil as a parent.

Support abuse? - no. But consider that there are kids rotting in prison for willingly taking a picture of themselves in their underwear and sending it to their SO. Had they been paid by a corporation for wearing the identical underwear in the identical pose and it was reproduced and the image sent to millions of people to sell underwear - hay, no problem! But it wasn't, so their lives got destroyed. If they had been wearing a string bikini in the pic that showed much more flesh - again, no problem - but OMG! - UNDERWEAR! - lock that kid up for 20 years and destroy their life! - HOW DARE THEY DEFY SOME TWISTED MORALISTIC NAZI FUCK's F'd UP CONCEPT OF MORALITY!

And that's just the tip of the iceburg of what's wrong with sex laws in this country...

-t

speciallyblend
10-17-2010, 03:49 PM
His defense should be that all of the Simpsons characters are well over twenty years old, and that the children suffer from that Gary Coleman disorder, but are of legal age of consent.

thread winner^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ or have the prosecution explain how the characters never age ,actually the show started in 1987 with tracely ullman shorts so that makes the youngest character over 21 easily in the real world vs the fake simpsons world! I would love to hear them explain how someone can be 8-16 from 1987 to 2010 and relate it from a fake world to a real world scenario!!! craziness


note to myself do not download simpson sex avatars!!

tangent4ronpaul
10-17-2010, 04:32 PM
thread
note to myself do not download simpson sex avatars!!

It's a bit worse than that, which really shows what bullshit this case is. I didn't google image results for "simpson porn", but rather just for "simpson -jessica -OJ" (minus sign means not) and came up with 13,700,000 matches. On the first page, near the very top we have Bart mooning, and bart in a pool having just lost his swim trunks - though he's facing you so no genital shot. Also on the first page are numerous pics of homer in his undies and a mock up Marge on the cover of Playboy as well as her posing sexy and showing a side slice of breast (nipple covered by dress).

I have no doubt that clicking through the next few pages of simpson pics would come up with at least one that was cartoon porn. Not that anyone would be that interested in simpson pics - there are only slightly less than 14 MILLION of them indexed by Google... Hell, this guy might have just googled "simpson" looking for some tame pics to put on a assignment sheet and gotten screwed by that browser pre-fetch thing.

At the very least it's a pretty save bet that a forth of the population in the country has simpson porn in their browser cache.

-t

RideTheDirt
10-17-2010, 06:57 PM
Fail

libertarian4321
10-17-2010, 09:30 PM
You just had to know Bart was headed for trouble- he'd to end up either in prison or doing porn. At least he chose the more righteous path.

foofighter20x
10-18-2010, 12:37 AM
I'm wondering what most people's reaction here would be to this bit of information that wasn't reflected in the OP's posted article:

1. The defendant allegedly had wiped actual child porn from his computer.
2. The feds had a confession from the defendant to that effect.
3. The defendant likely pleaded guilty under the obscenity statutes to avoid both harsher sentencing on child pornography penalties and having to register as a sex offender once his sentence is completed. (Although, this last point is entirely speculation on my part.)

Live_Free_Or_Die
10-18-2010, 01:34 AM
I'm wondering what most people's reaction here would be to this bit of information that wasn't reflected in the OP's posted article:

1. The defendant allegedly had wiped actual child porn from his computer.
2. The feds had a confession from the defendant to that effect.
3. The defendant likely pleaded guilty under the obscenity statutes to avoid both harsher sentencing on child pornography penalties and having to register as a sex offender once his sentence is completed. (Although, this last point is entirely speculation on my part.)

A fair question. Now that you mention it, I am wondering too. Was there any actual child porn evidence other than alleged wiped actual child porn?

Danke
10-18-2010, 01:42 AM
Search: "Simpsons porn" for images and see what comes up.

Reported.

Kregisen
10-18-2010, 01:58 AM
I'm wondering what most people's reaction here would be to this bit of information that wasn't reflected in the OP's posted article:

1. The defendant allegedly had wiped actual child porn from his computer.
2. The feds had a confession from the defendant to that effect.
3. The defendant likely pleaded guilty under the obscenity statutes to avoid both harsher sentencing on child pornography penalties and having to register as a sex offender once his sentence is completed. (Although, this last point is entirely speculation on my part.)

Then get him on the actual child porn, not the cartoons....

I know there are many here who think real child porn should be legal, and it's a very gray area since it's just pixels, but currently I still think real child porn should be illegal.

fisharmor
10-18-2010, 06:11 AM
Just another problem that wouldn't be that big an issue if we could simply
End compulsory state schooling!!!!


I'm wondering what most people's reaction here would be to this bit of information that wasn't reflected in the OP's posted article:

1. The defendant allegedly had wiped actual child porn from his computer.
2. The feds had a confession from the defendant to that effect.
3. The defendant likely pleaded guilty under the obscenity statutes to avoid both harsher sentencing on child pornography penalties and having to register as a sex offender once his sentence is completed. (Although, this last point is entirely speculation on my part.)

You don't have to wonder - this is my exact reaction.

So let me get this straight - the right to privacy extends all the way to protecting an individual's decision to terminate a human life in utero,
but it does not protect what a person views on his computer screen in his own home.

This puts a very fine point on why I lean more toward anarchy every day. This is fucking clown-shoe craziness. I'd gladly give up the meager protections BB gives us (the existence of which is debatable from the start) if it meant we could get rid of obvious and irreconcilable contradictions like this.

legion
10-18-2010, 06:13 AM
I'm wondering what most people's reaction here would be to this bit of information that wasn't reflected in the OP's posted article:

1. The defendant allegedly had wiped actual child porn from his computer.
2. The feds had a confession from the defendant to that effect.
3. The defendant likely pleaded guilty under the obscenity statutes to avoid both harsher sentencing on child pornography penalties and having to register as a sex offender once his sentence is completed. (Although, this last point is entirely speculation on my part.)

The feds cut the guy a break. It's not this forum's motivation to portray this or any event in that light.

However, why are the feds involved in child porn investigations?

pcosmar
10-18-2010, 09:43 AM
However, why are the feds involved in child porn investigations?

MK Ultra. (recruiting)
Lawrence King (Franklin Sex Scandal)
Government run Prostitution (blackmail)

Just off the top of my head.
:mad:

Anti Federalist
10-18-2010, 10:26 AM
Reported.

Just drawings.

http://www.largeincharge.com/images/jay/AugustJayPaulBicycleGirl.jpg

acptulsa
10-18-2010, 10:44 AM
So, no one was hurt, and the excuse for the law and the ruling is that he was thinking about something that could really, really hurt someone if it were not merely thought about, but actually done.

The Thought Police have arrived.

dannno
10-18-2010, 10:46 AM
so how many people would be happy if they found out this guy was a teacher to your own 12 yr old kid?

Probably wouldn't care unless I already didn't like them.. these type of photos are mostly for entertainment value because they can be funny, I don't know that very many people actually look at them to get off.

dannno
10-18-2010, 10:51 AM
I'm wondering what most people's reaction here would be to this bit of information that wasn't reflected in the OP's posted article:

1. The defendant allegedly had wiped actual child porn from his computer.
2. The feds had a confession from the defendant to that effect.


Depends, define "child porn"

HOLLYWOOD
10-18-2010, 11:11 AM
Overturned, apparently...
[/URL]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/1st/052034.html (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/1st/052034.html)

2006
[URL]http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0430p-06.pdf (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0430p-06.pdf)

2007
The guy is innocent and the Feds are just jacking off to justify their high salaries... This is going to get thrown out, after destroying the guys life. -t

I know so many government attorneys and a majority of government's actions are premeditated to justify high salaries/budgets and more importantly, to grow and future increases their organization(s)/funding.

Government is Every Bit as Special Interest as any other entity that conspires to steal more money from the taxpayers.

This is one of things that really needs to be exposed by the Tea Party, et al.


Simpson Porn About 776,000 results (0.16 seconds)

tangent4ronpaul
10-18-2010, 12:57 PM
However, why are the feds involved in child porn investigations?

YouTube - Pink Floyd- Money Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_anbEJsr6s)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp111rZaDq&r_n=sr229.111&dbname=cp111&&sel=TOC_192414&

The FBI's fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $52,971,000 for the Innocent Images program, which is essentially funded at the enacted level. Last year, Congress provided an increase of $14,000,000 for Innocent Images. The Committee trusts that the budget request is sufficient to cover the current Innocent Images caseload; however, should the threat of child predators on the Internet continue to grow, the Committee expects that future budget requests for the FBI will include adequate resources dedicated to investigate child predators who prey on children online.

The Committee applauds these efforts and fully funds the request for $26,100,000, which includes an increase of $6,946,000 to hire an additional 10 agents for the Innocence Lost Initiative.

And we aren't even talking about the hundreds of grants that fund contractors and NGO's that make their living off this “industry” yet...

By having a “war” against it, they are driving it's spread and popularity – just like every other “war” on a social problem the government has enguaged in and in so doing justifying it's own existence, growing it's power and the budget it commands – something that increases every year …



Government run Prostitution (blackmail)

We are talking about the same people that couldn't run a brothel profitably... (Mustang Ranch)

-t

furface
10-18-2010, 06:40 PM
The definitions are a bit vague, but it appears that he pled guilty to obscenity charges, not child pornography charges. The language is a bit fuzzy, but the difference is very important in whether or not the representations are real. In this case it appears that he was also suspected of having real pictures.

There has been at least one case of someone being prosecuted for textual stories under obscenity charges.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/149547/woman_sentenced_for_web_site_with_obscene_stories. html


http://www.justice.gov/usao/id/public_info/pr10/oct/kutzner10132010.html

[quote]
FORMER TEACHER PLEADS GUILTY TO POSSESSION OF OBSCENE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

Steven Kutzner, 33, of Boise, Idaho, pled guilty today to Possession of Obscene Visual Representations of the Sexual Abuse of Children, the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced.

In December 2008, the German Federal Police began investigating the distribution of a known child pornography file on peer-to-peer file sharing networks. They asked for the assistance of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) to determine the identity of users in the United States who had offered to share the file.

According to the plea agreement, Kutzner’s IP address was identified as offering the file for download on October 4 and 5, 2008. In August 2009, Kutzner agreed to let HSI agents conduct a forensic search of his computer. Agents discovered 70 animated (cartoon) pornographic images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Many of the images depicted the child characters from “The Simpsons” television series. Kutzner admitted he had downloaded the images. He also admitted installing two different cleaning programs on his computer and using them to erase child pornography files that he had downloaded. Kutzner was a teacher at Lake Hazel Middle School in Meridian, Idaho. He resigned immediately after the search warrant was served at his home.

“We aggressively use our investigative authorities to protect our communities from those who seek to sexually exploit children for their own perverse gratification,” said Leigh Winchell, special agent in charge of ICE Homeland Security Investigations. “HSI continues to dedicate resources to identify those individuals who engage in this type of criminal behavior and ensure they are brought to justice.”

Sentencing is set for January 5, 2011, before U.S. District Judge Edward J. Lodge in Boise.

Kutzner faces a maximum sentence of ten years in federal prison, a fine of up to $250,000, and supervised release of up to three years.

The case was investigated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).
[quote]

furface
10-18-2010, 06:41 PM
The definitions are a bit vague, but it appears that he pled guilty to obscenity charges, not child pornography charges. The language is a bit fuzzy, but the difference is very important in whether or not the representations are real. In this case it appears that he was also suspected of possessing and distributing real pictures.

There has been at least one case of someone being prosecuted for textual stories under obscenity charges.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/149547/woman_sentenced_for_web_site_with_obscene_stories. html


http://www.justice.gov/usao/id/public_info/pr10/oct/kutzner10132010.html




FORMER TEACHER PLEADS GUILTY TO POSSESSION OF OBSCENE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

Steven Kutzner, 33, of Boise, Idaho, pled guilty today to Possession of Obscene Visual Representations of the Sexual Abuse of Children, the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced.

In December 2008, the German Federal Police began investigating the distribution of a known child pornography file on peer-to-peer file sharing networks. They asked for the assistance of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) to determine the identity of users in the United States who had offered to share the file.

According to the plea agreement, Kutzner’s IP address was identified as offering the file for download on October 4 and 5, 2008. In August 2009, Kutzner agreed to let HSI agents conduct a forensic search of his computer. Agents discovered 70 animated (cartoon) pornographic images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Many of the images depicted the child characters from “The Simpsons” television series. Kutzner admitted he had downloaded the images. He also admitted installing two different cleaning programs on his computer and using them to erase child pornography files that he had downloaded. Kutzner was a teacher at Lake Hazel Middle School in Meridian, Idaho. He resigned immediately after the search warrant was served at his home.

“We aggressively use our investigative authorities to protect our communities from those who seek to sexually exploit children for their own perverse gratification,” said Leigh Winchell, special agent in charge of ICE Homeland Security Investigations. “HSI continues to dedicate resources to identify those individuals who engage in this type of criminal behavior and ensure they are brought to justice.”

Sentencing is set for January 5, 2011, before U.S. District Judge Edward J. Lodge in Boise.

Kutzner faces a maximum sentence of ten years in federal prison, a fine of up to $250,000, and supervised release of up to three years.

The case was investigated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).

heavenlyboy34
10-18-2010, 06:46 PM
just another example illustrating the fact that this is no longer a free nation but, in fact, a tyranny.

Arbitrary and capriciously enforced felony laws being one of the hallmarks of tyranny.

qft!!!

foofighter20x
10-18-2010, 10:53 PM
Then get him on the actual child porn, not the cartoons....

That's not how plea bargaining works. It could have been that the defendant's confession was ambiguous or equivocal...

Anyway, there's 1) charge bargaining, 2) count bargaining, and 3) sentence bargaining.

The first two necesarily implicate the third, but not the other way around... That is, charge bargaining and count bargaining will ultimately also affect the sentence, but sentence bargaining of itself doesn't mean that the former two types have occured.

This looks like straight forward charge bargaining. By not filing child porn charges, they got the guy to plead guilty to the obscenity charge. The defendant's gain in this was likely less jail time and escaping a sex offender registry. The government in this case was spared the expense of trial.