before you order from amazon

[Guest guest]

Aw c,mon Peter, I dont think he was calling you an idiot, was he? dont take things so personally.

If only you two could have this conversation in a bar over a few beers, be a lot lighter...........hell, I`d even stick my hands in my pocket!..

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab Sent: Thursday, 11 December, 2008 10:00:38 AMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

Strikes me that as a defense attorney, you are obviously used to presenting a case and arguing, and you seem to enjoy it. As a research historian, I am also very used to presenting a case and arguing it. While you may have more knowledge of the laws, my professional training has me very used to dealing with analogy, and spotting when analogies are being made due to their appropriateness, or due to their inflamatory (and usually inaccurate) nature to try to provoke a response. As a result, you'll usually find I'll just point out the flaws in the logic rather than give you what you want.

 

Incidentally, please also remember that snopes is a website. In my profession we consider websites to be highly untrustworthy sources, as there is no peer review over them. Just because snopes says something is a myth, does not make it so. It is also pretty much impossible to prove the non-existence of something, since lack of evidence is by no means the same as evidence of a lack of. But I guess historians deal in a multitude of shades of grey, while defence attorneys deal with polar opposites (guilty or not-guilty).

 

However, as a defense attorney, you must know that there is a legal definition of child abuse, and that feeding a child McDonalds food does not come into that legal definition.

 

So, if you wish to treat this debate as a court room, then please do so with the professionalism you would treat a court room, and give up with the unsupportable statements that would have another defense attorney walking all over your case. Just because I am not a defense attorney, does not make me an idiot.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:17 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes. com/horrors/ madmen/snuff. aspAgain, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the "star" with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries. I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about

"making anything illegal" in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that "abuse" can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.

 

I believe in the UK, purchasing "snuff" films is considered to be "encitement to murder" or "being an accessory after the fact", which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type "child porn" into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's "completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children" is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is "caught on tape" type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being "injured" per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to

be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter

2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw

 

not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child porn should not be banned?

 

Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ?????

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers

[Guest guest]

I think they are more than just unpleasant!

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

heartwerk <jo.heartwork Sent: Thursday, 11 December, 2008 7:55:31 AM Re: before you order from amazon

 

As you say, Peter, there is no comparison.Snuff films and child pornography are sick. McDonalds is unpleasant.BBJo@gro ups.com, "Peter" <metalscarab@ ...> wrote:>> Hi Blake> > I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.> > I believe in the UK, purchasing "snuff" films is considered to be "encitement to murder" or "being an accessory after the fact", which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).> > BB> Peter> -----

Original Message ----- > Blake Wilson > @gro ups.com > Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM> Re: before you order from amazon> > > Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type "child porn" into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? > > I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. > > Your comment that it's "completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children" is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is "caught on tape" type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach.

Kids are being "injured" per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? > > I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. > > Interesting topics! > > Blake > >

> > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ ...> wrote:> > Hi Blake> > Actually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.> > Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child

pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.> > BB> Peter> > > > 2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw> > not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. > > there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. > > banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. > > blake > > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@

....> wrote:> > > Child porn should not be banned?> > Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ?????> > Jo> > - > Blake Wilson > @gro ups.com > Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM> Re: before you order from amazon> > > bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. > > i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and

it's a slippery slope from there. > > but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. > > off the soap box now...> > blake > > > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@ ...> wrote:> > you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!> > http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU /ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4> > a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books> (which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)> > ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this

season> > fraggle> > "We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers>

[Guest guest]

I agree, seems badly worded.

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

heartwerk <jo.heartwork Sent: Thursday, 11 December, 2008 7:51:55 AM Re: before you order from amazon

 

I don't like your comment about child rape at all.Jo@gro ups.com, "Blake Wilson" <mbw wrote:>> Hi Peter:> > Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:> > http://www.snopes. com/horrors/ madmen/snuff. asp> > Again, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US.> No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the> link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement> with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who> committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of

the film> and you're whacking the "star" with a club, the fact that you're filming it> is the least of your worries.> > I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds> raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found> the video.> > Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about "making anything> illegal" in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some> pretty wild situations due to the fact that "abuse" can be very broadly> defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a> child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are> raped on film for some creep's enjoyment.> > Blake> > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ ...>

wrote:> > > Hi Blake> >> > I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child> > suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a> > child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is> > forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.> >> > I believe in the UK, purchasing "snuff" films is considered to be> > "encitement to murder" or "being an accessory after the fact", which are> > criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).> >> > BB> > Peter> >> > -> > ** Blake Wilson <mbw> > *To:* @gro ups.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM> > *Subject:* Re: before you order from amazon> >> > Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to> > type "child porn" into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who> > knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right?> >> > I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there.> >> > Your comment that it's "completely appropriate to make illegal anything> > which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children" is pretty broad.> > And, its my understanding that lots of CP is "caught on tape" type stuff,> > i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being "injured" per> > se,

but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more> > kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own> > parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority> > injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more> > likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the> > Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like> > McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children?> >> > I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal;> > furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a> > criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff> > film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada,> >

etc.> >> > Interesting topics!> >> > Blake> >> >> > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ ...>wrote:> >> >> Hi Blake> >>> >> Actually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large> >> proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the> >> paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were> >> perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a> >> legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is> >> completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to> >> sick people to abuse children.> >>> >> Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor

analogy. Kennedy> >> was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so> >> that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are*> >> illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child> >> pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little> >> incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.> >>> >> BB> >> Peter> >>> >> 2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw> >>> >>> not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's> >>> whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos> >>> and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions.> >>>> >>>

there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing> >>> illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President> >>> Kennedy's head being blown off.> >>>> >>> banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it> >>> prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out.> >>>> >>> blake> >>>> >>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ ...>wrote:> >>>> >>>> Child porn should not be banned?> >>>>> >>>> Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and> >>>> raped??? Is that okay with you ?????> >>>>> >>>> Jo> >>>>> >>>>>

>>>> -> >>>> ** Blake Wilson <mbw> >>>> *To:* @gro ups.com> >>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM> >>>> *Subject:* Re: before you order from amazon> >>>>> >>>> bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that> >>>> disgusts me, like this.> >>>>> >>>> i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that> >>>> images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these> >>>> sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books> >>>> about

unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there.> >>>>> >>>> but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to> >>>> outlaw these practices.> >>>>> >>>> off the soap box now...> >>>>> >>>> blake> >>>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@ ...>wrote:> >>>>> >>>>> you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog> >>>>> fighting books and magazines!> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU /ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4>

>>>>>> >>>>> a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history"> >>>>> books> >>>>> (which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)> >>>>>> >>>>> ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from> >>>>> the mega-giant net store this season> >>>>>> >>>>> fraggle> >>>>>> >>>>> "We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house> >>>>> on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill> >>>>> Moyers> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> > >

>>

[Guest guest]



Hi Peter

 

You may be right. But this is one of those topics that does tend to get me heated up. I guess it's what comes from having known someone who was ritually abused as a child and seeing just how much it screwed up their life!

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Peter VV

Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:35 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

Aw c,mon Peter, I dont think he was calling you an idiot, was he? dont take things so personally.

If only you two could have this conversation in a bar over a few beers, be a lot lighter...........hell, I`d even stick my hands in my pocket!..

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab Sent: Thursday, 11 December, 2008 10:00:38 AMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

Strikes me that as a defense attorney, you are obviously used to presenting a case and arguing, and you seem to enjoy it. As a research historian, I am also very used to presenting a case and arguing it. While you may have more knowledge of the laws, my professional training has me very used to dealing with analogy, and spotting when analogies are being made due to their appropriateness, or due to their inflamatory (and usually inaccurate) nature to try to provoke a response. As a result, you'll usually find I'll just point out the flaws in the logic rather than give you what you want.

 

Incidentally, please also remember that snopes is a website. In my profession we consider websites to be highly untrustworthy sources, as there is no peer review over them. Just because snopes says something is a myth, does not make it so. It is also pretty much impossible to prove the non-existence of something, since lack of evidence is by no means the same as evidence of a lack of. But I guess historians deal in a multitude of shades of grey, while defence attorneys deal with polar opposites (guilty or not-guilty).

 

However, as a defense attorney, you must know that there is a legal definition of child abuse, and that feeding a child McDonalds food does not come into that legal definition.

 

So, if you wish to treat this debate as a court room, then please do so with the professionalism you would treat a court room, and give up with the unsupportable statements that would have another defense attorney walking all over your case. Just because I am not a defense attorney, does not make me an idiot.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:17 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes. com/horrors/ madmen/snuff. aspAgain, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the "star" with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries. I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about "making anything illegal" in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that "abuse" can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.

 

I believe in the UK, purchasing "snuff" films is considered to be "encitement to murder" or "being an accessory after the fact", which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type "child porn" into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's "completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children" is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is "caught on tape" type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being "injured" per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter

2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw

 

not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child porn should not be banned?

 

Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ?????

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers

[Guest guest]

hands in yer pocket?

wot are you, a hobbit?

my precious.....

Peter VV Dec 11, 2008 11:35 AM Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aw c,mon Peter, I dont think he was calling you an idiot, was he? dont take things so personally.

If only you two could have this conversation in a bar over a few beers, be a lot lighter...........hell, I`d even stick my hands in my pocket!..

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab > Sent: Thursday, 11 December, 2008 10:00:38 AMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

Strikes me that as a defense attorney, you are obviously used to presenting a case and arguing, and you seem to enjoy it. As a research historian, I am also very used to presenting a case and arguing it. While you may have more knowledge of the laws, my professional training has me very used to dealing with analogy, and spotting when analogies are being made due to their appropriateness, or due to their inflamatory (and usually inaccurate) nature to try to provoke a response. As a result, you'll usually find I'll just point out the flaws in the logic rather than give you what you want.

 

Incidentally, please also remember that snopes is a website. In my profession we consider websites to be highly untrustworthy sources, as there is no peer review over them. Just because snopes says something is a myth, does not make it so. It is also pretty much impossible to prove the non-existence of something, since lack of evidence is by no means the same as evidence of a lack of. But I guess historians deal in a multitude of shades of grey, while defence attorneys deal with polar opposites (guilty or not-guilty).

 

However, as a defense attorney, you must know that there is a legal definition of child abuse, and that feeding a child McDonalds food does not come into that legal definition.

 

So, if you wish to treat this debate as a court room, then please do so with the professionalism you would treat a court room, and give up with the unsupportable statements that would have another defense attorney walking all over your case. Just because I am not a defense attorney, does not make me an idiot.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:17 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes. com/horrors/ madmen/snuff. aspAgain, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the "star" with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries. I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about "making anything illegal" in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that "abuse" can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.

 

I believe in the UK, purchasing "snuff" films is considered to be "encitement to murder" or "being an accessory after the fact", which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type "child porn" into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's "completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children" is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is "caught on tape" type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being "injured" per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter

2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw

 

not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child porn should not be banned?

 

Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ?????

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For in a Republic, who is “the country� Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.

Mark Twain

[Guest guest]

I meant cough up the cash............ you ex colonials.............

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx Sent: Thursday, 11 December, 2008 10:12:56 PMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

hands in yer pocket?

wot are you, a hobbit?

my precious.... .

Peter VV Dec 11, 2008 11:35 AM @gro ups.com Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aw c,mon Peter, I dont think he was calling you an idiot, was he? dont take things so personally.

If only you two could have this conversation in a bar over a few beers, be a lot lighter..... ......hell, I`d even stick my hands in my pocket!..

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:00:38 AMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

Strikes me that as a defense attorney, you are obviously used to presenting a case and arguing, and you seem to enjoy it. As a research historian, I am also very used to presenting a case and arguing it. While you may have more knowledge of the laws, my professional training has me very used to dealing with analogy, and spotting when analogies are being made due to their appropriateness, or due to their inflamatory (and usually inaccurate) nature to try to provoke a response. As a result, you'll usually find I'll just point out the flaws in the logic rather than give you what you want.

 

Incidentally, please also remember that snopes is a website. In my profession we consider websites to be highly untrustworthy sources, as there is no peer review over them. Just because snopes says something is a myth, does not make it so. It is also pretty much impossible to prove the non-existence of something, since lack of evidence is by no means the same as evidence of a lack of. But I guess historians deal in a multitude of shades of grey, while defence attorneys deal with polar opposites (guilty or not-guilty).

 

However, as a defense attorney, you must know that there is a legal definition of child abuse, and that feeding a child McDonalds food does not come into that legal definition.

 

So, if you wish to treat this debate as a court room, then please do so with the professionalism you would treat a court room, and give up with the unsupportable statements that would have another defense attorney walking all over your case. Just because I am not a defense attorney, does not make me an idiot.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:17 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes. com/horrors/ madmen/snuff. aspAgain, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the "star" with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries. I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about

"making anything illegal" in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that "abuse" can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.

 

I believe in the UK, purchasing "snuff" films is considered to be "encitement to murder" or "being an accessory after the fact", which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type "child porn" into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's "completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children" is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is "caught on tape" type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being "injured" per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to

be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter

2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw

 

not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child porn should not be banned?

 

Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ?????

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers

 

 

For in a Republic, who is “the country� Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain

[Guest guest]

well, speak correctly dammit.

you folks and yer weird idioms....

Peter VV Dec 11, 2008 2:14 PM Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

I meant cough up the cash............ you ex colonials.............

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> Sent: Thursday, 11 December, 2008 10:12:56 PMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

hands in yer pocket?

wot are you, a hobbit?

my precious.... .

Peter VV Dec 11, 2008 11:35 AM @gro ups.com Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aw c,mon Peter, I dont think he was calling you an idiot, was he? dont take things so personally.

If only you two could have this conversation in a bar over a few beers, be a lot lighter..... ......hell, I`d even stick my hands in my pocket!..

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:00:38 AMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

Strikes me that as a defense attorney, you are obviously used to presenting a case and arguing, and you seem to enjoy it. As a research historian, I am also very used to presenting a case and arguing it. While you may have more knowledge of the laws, my professional training has me very used to dealing with analogy, and spotting when analogies are being made due to their appropriateness, or due to their inflamatory (and usually inaccurate) nature to try to provoke a response. As a result, you'll usually find I'll just point out the flaws in the logic rather than give you what you want.

 

Incidentally, please also remember that snopes is a website. In my profession we consider websites to be highly untrustworthy sources, as there is no peer review over them. Just because snopes says something is a myth, does not make it so. It is also pretty much impossible to prove the non-existence of something, since lack of evidence is by no means the same as evidence of a lack of. But I guess historians deal in a multitude of shades of grey, while defence attorneys deal with polar opposites (guilty or not-guilty).

 

However, as a defense attorney, you must know that there is a legal definition of child abuse, and that feeding a child McDonalds food does not come into that legal definition.

 

So, if you wish to treat this debate as a court room, then please do so with the professionalism you would treat a court room, and give up with the unsupportable statements that would have another defense attorney walking all over your case. Just because I am not a defense attorney, does not make me an idiot.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:17 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes. com/horrors/ madmen/snuff. aspAgain, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the "star" with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries. I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about "making anything illegal" in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that "abuse" can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.

 

I believe in the UK, purchasing "snuff" films is considered to be "encitement to murder" or "being an accessory after the fact", which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type "child porn" into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's "completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children" is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is "caught on tape" type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being "injured" per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter

2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw

 

not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child porn should not be banned?

 

Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ?????

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers

 

 

For in a Republic, who is “the country� Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain

 

 

 

 

 

 

For in a Republic, who is “the country� Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.

Mark Twain

[Guest guest]

Who you callin an idiom pardner?

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx Sent: Thursday, 11 December, 2008 10:16:30 PMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

well, speak correctly dammit.

you folks and yer weird idioms....

Peter VV Dec 11, 2008 2:14 PM @gro ups.com Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

I meant cough up the cash........ .... you ex colonials... ......... .

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net>@gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:12:56 PMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

hands in yer pocket?

wot are you, a hobbit?

my precious.... .

Peter VV Dec 11, 2008 11:35 AM @gro ups.com Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aw c,mon Peter, I dont think he was calling you an idiot, was he? dont take things so personally.

If only you two could have this conversation in a bar over a few beers, be a lot lighter..... ......hell, I`d even stick my hands in my pocket!..

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:00:38 AMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

Strikes me that as a defense attorney, you are obviously used to presenting a case and arguing, and you seem to enjoy it. As a research historian, I am also very used to presenting a case and arguing it. While you may have more knowledge of the laws, my professional training has me very used to dealing with analogy, and spotting when analogies are being made due to their appropriateness, or due to their inflamatory (and usually inaccurate) nature to try to provoke a response. As a result, you'll usually find I'll just point out the flaws in the logic rather than give you what you want.

 

Incidentally, please also remember that snopes is a website. In my profession we consider websites to be highly untrustworthy sources, as there is no peer review over them. Just because snopes says something is a myth, does not make it so. It is also pretty much impossible to prove the non-existence of something, since lack of evidence is by no means the same as evidence of a lack of. But I guess historians deal in a multitude of shades of grey, while defence attorneys deal with polar opposites (guilty or not-guilty).

 

However, as a defense attorney, you must know that there is a legal definition of child abuse, and that feeding a child McDonalds food does not come into that legal definition.

 

So, if you wish to treat this debate as a court room, then please do so with the professionalism you would treat a court room, and give up with the unsupportable statements that would have another defense attorney walking all over your case. Just because I am not a defense attorney, does not make me an idiot.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:17 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes. com/horrors/ madmen/snuff. aspAgain, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the "star" with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries. I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about

"making anything illegal" in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that "abuse" can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.

 

I believe in the UK, purchasing "snuff" films is considered to be "encitement to murder" or "being an accessory after the fact", which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type "child porn" into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's "completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children" is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is "caught on tape" type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being "injured" per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to

be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter

2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw

 

not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child porn should not be banned?

 

Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ?????

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers

 

For in a Republic, who is “the country� Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain

 

For in a Republic, who is “the country� Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain

[Guest guest]

I did not call anyone an idiot, and I don't think anyone here approaches idiothood. I speak partly from personal and professional experience, and the rest is straight " chat " , i.e. opinion, anecdote, attempts at humor, tempetuousness, etc.

Peter, you cited UK law pertaining to snuff films and opined that there were similar US laws. I said three things:1). snuff films are a myth2). there are no laws in the US on the topic3). I have no idea about UK laws, but I doubt they exist.

4). snuff films, child abuse, and McDonalds are the same thing. If I'm wrong about any of these, you are welcome to address them, particularly #3. Obviously, #4 is a joke and admittedly a poor analogy. I was simply trying to point out that far more children are harmed by poor diet, worldwide starvation, video games, and their own parents than by people making child porn.

Regards, Blake On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Who you callin an idiom pardner?

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx

Thursday, 11 December, 2008 10:16:30 PMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

well, speak correctly dammit.

you folks and yer weird idioms....

Peter VV Dec 11, 2008 2:14 PM @gro ups.com

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

I meant cough up the cash........ .... you ex colonials... ......... .

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net>@gro ups.com

Thursday, 11 December, 2008 10:12:56 PMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

hands in yer pocket?

wot are you, a hobbit?

my precious.... .

Peter VV Dec 11, 2008 11:35 AM @gro ups.com

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aw c,mon Peter, I dont think he was calling you an idiot, was he? dont take things so personally.

If only you two could have this conversation in a bar over a few beers, be a lot lighter..... ......hell, I`d even stick my hands in my pocket!..

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com>@gro ups.com

Thursday, 11 December, 2008 10:00:38 AMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

Strikes me that as a defense attorney, you are obviously used to presenting a case and arguing, and you seem to enjoy it. As a research historian, I am also very used to presenting a case and arguing it. While you may have more knowledge of the laws, my professional training has me very used to dealing with analogy, and spotting when analogies are being made due to their appropriateness, or due to their inflamatory (and usually inaccurate) nature to try to provoke a response. As a result, you'll usually find I'll just point out the flaws in the logic rather than give you what you want.

 

Incidentally, please also remember that snopes is a website. In my profession we consider websites to be highly untrustworthy sources, as there is no peer review over them. Just because snopes says something is a myth, does not make it so. It is also pretty much impossible to prove the non-existence of something, since lack of evidence is by no means the same as evidence of a lack of. But I guess historians deal in a multitude of shades of grey, while defence attorneys deal with polar opposites (guilty or not-guilty).

 

However, as a defense attorney, you must know that there is a legal definition of child abuse, and that feeding a child McDonalds food does not come into that legal definition.

 

So, if you wish to treat this debate as a court room, then please do so with the professionalism you would treat a court room, and give up with the unsupportable statements that would have another defense attorney walking all over your case. Just because I am not a defense attorney, does not make me an idiot.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:17 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes. com/horrors/ madmen/snuff. asp

Again, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the " star " with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries.

I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about

" making anything illegal " in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that " abuse " can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment.

Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.

 

I believe in the UK, purchasing " snuff " films is considered to be " encitement to murder " or " being an accessory after the fact " , which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

 

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type " child porn " into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right?

I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's " completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children " is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is " caught on tape " type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being " injured " per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to

be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc.

Interesting topics! Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.

Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. " Snuff " films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.

BBPeter

2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw

 

not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions.

there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out.

blake

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child porn should not be banned?

 

Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ?????

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

 

Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be " illegal " . laws against these sorts of books are " stepping stones " to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there.

but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4

a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and " history " books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this season

fraggle " We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out. " - Bill Moyers

 

 

 

 

For in a Republic, who is "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.

Mark Twain

For in a Republic, who is "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.

Mark Twain

[Guest guest]



Hi Peter / Peter

 

Same here. A friend was abused from 7 years old - recently found out her grand-daughter was being abused too. This time they got the b*****d and he's in prison. In fact I know several people it has happened to, and it is not at all to be taken lightly.

 

BBJo

 

-

Peter

Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:39 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 Hi Peter

 

You may be right. But this is one of those topics that does tend to get me heated up. I guess it's what comes from having known someone who was ritually abused as a child and seeing just how much it screwed up their life!

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Peter VV

Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:35 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

Aw c,mon Peter, I dont think he was calling you an idiot, was he? dont take things so personally.

If only you two could have this conversation in a bar over a few beers, be a lot lighter...........hell, I`d even stick my hands in my pocket!..

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab > Sent: Thursday, 11 December, 2008 10:00:38 AMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

Strikes me that as a defense attorney, you are obviously used to presenting a case and arguing, and you seem to enjoy it. As a research historian, I am also very used to presenting a case and arguing it. While you may have more knowledge of the laws, my professional training has me very used to dealing with analogy, and spotting when analogies are being made due to their appropriateness, or due to their inflamatory (and usually inaccurate) nature to try to provoke a response. As a result, you'll usually find I'll just point out the flaws in the logic rather than give you what you want.

 

Incidentally, please also remember that snopes is a website. In my profession we consider websites to be highly untrustworthy sources, as there is no peer review over them. Just because snopes says something is a myth, does not make it so. It is also pretty much impossible to prove the non-existence of something, since lack of evidence is by no means the same as evidence of a lack of. But I guess historians deal in a multitude of shades of grey, while defence attorneys deal with polar opposites (guilty or not-guilty).

 

However, as a defense attorney, you must know that there is a legal definition of child abuse, and that feeding a child McDonalds food does not come into that legal definition.

 

So, if you wish to treat this debate as a court room, then please do so with the professionalism you would treat a court room, and give up with the unsupportable statements that would have another defense attorney walking all over your case. Just because I am not a defense attorney, does not make me an idiot.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:17 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes. com/horrors/ madmen/snuff. aspAgain, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the "star" with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries. I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about "making anything illegal" in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that "abuse" can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.

 

I believe in the UK, purchasing "snuff" films is considered to be "encitement to murder" or "being an accessory after the fact", which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type "child porn" into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's "completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children" is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is "caught on tape" type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being "injured" per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter

2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw

 

not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child porn should not be banned?

 

Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ?????

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers

[Guest guest]

Hi Blake

 

In the UK, if you pay someone to commit murder, you are committing the criminal offence of "incitement to murder". We also have laws regarding the provision of funds to criminals which supports those criminal activities. Not sure of the exact laws, but basically anyone who knowingly provides financial aid in relation to a criminal act is guilty of a criminal offence.

 

In terms of whether snuff films are a myth - what is your evidence? And please don't quote a website, give us some actual evidence, not an opinion. Incidentally, reading through the snopes article - there is not a single reference in the article itself, merely unsubstantiated generalisation. The bibliography does not contain one single authoritative source, but rather a bunch of articles from the popular media. I have no idea whether snuff films do exist or not, but it seems, with the vast number of sick people in the world, that someone must have thought of making one.

 

Oh, and the fact that "none have been found" doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist. Less than 1% of murders are solved, doesn't mean the individuals in 99% of cases haven't been killed!

 

BB

Peter

 

-

Blake Wilson

Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:06 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

I did not call anyone an idiot, and I don't think anyone here approaches idiothood. I speak partly from personal and professional experience, and the rest is straight "chat", i.e. opinion, anecdote, attempts at humor, tempetuousness, etc. Peter, you cited UK law pertaining to snuff films and opined that there were similar US laws. I said three things:1). snuff films are a myth2). there are no laws in the US on the topic3). I have no idea about UK laws, but I doubt they exist. 4). snuff films, child abuse, and McDonalds are the same thing. If I'm wrong about any of these, you are welcome to address them, particularly #3. Obviously, #4 is a joke and admittedly a poor analogy. I was simply trying to point out that far more children are harmed by poor diet, worldwide starvation, video games, and their own parents than by people making child porn. Regards, Blake

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who you callin an idiom pardner?

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx

Sent: Thursday, 11 December, 2008 10:16:30 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

well, speak correctly dammit.

you folks and yer weird idioms....

 

Peter VV

Dec 11, 2008 2:14 PM

@gro ups.com

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I meant cough up the cash........ .... you ex colonials... ......... .

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net>

@gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:12:56 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

hands in yer pocket?

wot are you, a hobbit?

my precious.... .

 

Peter VV

Dec 11, 2008 11:35 AM

@gro ups.com

 

 

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aw c,mon Peter, I dont think he was calling you an idiot, was he? dont take things so personally.

If only you two could have this conversation in a bar over a few beers, be a lot lighter..... ......hell, I`d even stick my hands in my pocket!..

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:00:38 AMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

Strikes me that as a defense attorney, you are obviously used to presenting a case and arguing, and you seem to enjoy it. As a research historian, I am also very used to presenting a case and arguing it. While you may have more knowledge of the laws, my professional training has me very used to dealing with analogy, and spotting when analogies are being made due to their appropriateness, or due to their inflamatory (and usually inaccurate) nature to try to provoke a response. As a result, you'll usually find I'll just point out the flaws in the logic rather than give you what you want.

 

Incidentally, please also remember that snopes is a website. In my profession we consider websites to be highly untrustworthy sources, as there is no peer review over them. Just because snopes says something is a myth, does not make it so. It is also pretty much impossible to prove the non-existence of something, since lack of evidence is by no means the same as evidence of a lack of. But I guess historians deal in a multitude of shades of grey, while defence attorneys deal with polar opposites (guilty or not-guilty).

 

However, as a defense attorney, you must know that there is a legal definition of child abuse, and that feeding a child McDonalds food does not come into that legal definition.

 

So, if you wish to treat this debate as a court room, then please do so with the professionalism you would treat a court room, and give up with the unsupportable statements that would have another defense attorney walking all over your case. Just because I am not a defense attorney, does not make me an idiot.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:17 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes. com/horrors/ madmen/snuff. aspAgain, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the "star" with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries. I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about "making anything illegal" in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that "abuse" can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.

 

I believe in the UK, purchasing "snuff" films is considered to be "encitement to murder" or "being an accessory after the fact", which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type "child porn" into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's "completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children" is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is "caught on tape" type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being "injured" per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter

2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw

 

not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child porn should not be banned?

 

Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ?????

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers

 

 

For in a Republic, who is "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain

 

For in a Republic, who is "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain

[Guest guest]

Of course solicitation is a crime. But simple possession of a filmed death has nothing to do with solicitation of murder. You had opined earlier that possessing a snuff film can lead to prosecution for the depicted murder. I say that's not correct.

And where do you get your " 1% of murders solved " number? Did it just sound like a nice number? According to the FBI, " 64% of murders were solved -- the highest clearance rate of all serious

crimes. " http://www.fbi.gov/page2/oct03/ucr102703.htmThe Independent reports that " 90 per cent of adult murders are solved and result in convictions " .

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/new-law-to-trap-parents-who-murder-598562.html

Blake On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:30 AM, Peter <metalscarab wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

In the UK, if you pay someone to commit murder, you are committing the criminal offence of " incitement to murder " . We also have laws regarding the provision of funds to criminals which supports those criminal activities. Not sure of the exact laws, but basically anyone who knowingly provides financial aid in relation to a criminal act is guilty of a criminal offence.

 

In terms of whether snuff films are a myth - what is your evidence? And please don't quote a website, give us some actual evidence, not an opinion. Incidentally, reading through the snopes article - there is not a single reference in the article itself, merely unsubstantiated generalisation. The bibliography does not contain one single authoritative source, but rather a bunch of articles from the popular media. I have no idea whether snuff films do exist or not, but it seems, with the vast number of sick people in the world, that someone must have thought of making one.

 

Oh, and the fact that " none have been found " doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist. Less than 1% of murders are solved, doesn't mean the individuals in 99% of cases haven't been killed!

 

BB

Peter

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

 

Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:06 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

I did not call anyone an idiot, and I don't think anyone here approaches idiothood. I speak partly from personal and professional experience, and the rest is straight " chat " , i.e. opinion, anecdote, attempts at humor, tempetuousness, etc. Peter, you cited UK law pertaining to snuff films and opined that there were similar US laws. I said three things:1). snuff films are a myth2). there are no laws in the US on the topic3). I have no idea about UK laws, but I doubt they exist. 4). snuff films, child abuse, and McDonalds are the same thing. If I'm wrong about any of these, you are welcome to address them, particularly #3. Obviously, #4 is a joke and admittedly a poor analogy. I was simply trying to point out that far more children are harmed by poor diet, worldwide starvation, video games, and their own parents than by people making child porn. Regards, Blake

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who you callin an idiom pardner?

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx

Sent: Thursday, 11 December, 2008 10:16:30 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

well, speak correctly dammit.

you folks and yer weird idioms....

 

Peter VV

Dec 11, 2008 2:14 PM

@gro ups.com

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I meant cough up the cash........ .... you ex colonials... ......... .

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net>

@gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:12:56 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

hands in yer pocket?

wot are you, a hobbit?

my precious.... .

 

Peter VV

Dec 11, 2008 11:35 AM

@gro ups.com

 

 

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aw c,mon Peter, I dont think he was calling you an idiot, was he? dont take things so personally.

If only you two could have this conversation in a bar over a few beers, be a lot lighter..... ......hell, I`d even stick my hands in my pocket!..

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:00:38 AMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

Strikes me that as a defense attorney, you are obviously used to presenting a case and arguing, and you seem to enjoy it. As a research historian, I am also very used to presenting a case and arguing it. While you may have more knowledge of the laws, my professional training has me very used to dealing with analogy, and spotting when analogies are being made due to their appropriateness, or due to their inflamatory (and usually inaccurate) nature to try to provoke a response. As a result, you'll usually find I'll just point out the flaws in the logic rather than give you what you want.

 

Incidentally, please also remember that snopes is a website. In my profession we consider websites to be highly untrustworthy sources, as there is no peer review over them. Just because snopes says something is a myth, does not make it so. It is also pretty much impossible to prove the non-existence of something, since lack of evidence is by no means the same as evidence of a lack of. But I guess historians deal in a multitude of shades of grey, while defence attorneys deal with polar opposites (guilty or not-guilty).

 

However, as a defense attorney, you must know that there is a legal definition of child abuse, and that feeding a child McDonalds food does not come into that legal definition.

 

So, if you wish to treat this debate as a court room, then please do so with the professionalism you would treat a court room, and give up with the unsupportable statements that would have another defense attorney walking all over your case. Just because I am not a defense attorney, does not make me an idiot.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:17 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes. com/horrors/ madmen/snuff. aspAgain, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the " star " with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries. I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about " making anything illegal " in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that " abuse " can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.

 

I believe in the UK, purchasing " snuff " films is considered to be " encitement to murder " or " being an accessory after the fact " , which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type " child porn " into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's " completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children " is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is " caught on tape " type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being " injured " per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. " Snuff " films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter

2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw

 

not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child porn should not be banned?

 

Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ?????

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be " illegal " . laws against these sorts of books are " stepping stones " to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and " history " books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle " We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out. " - Bill Moyers

 

 

 

 

For in a Republic, who is " the country " ? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.

Mark Twain

 

For in a Republic, who is " the country " ? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.

Mark Twain

[Guest guest]

Hi Blake

 

I got my figures from Bristol Police. Although you might want to check out those figures you gave.

 

The FBI one is 6 years out of date, and refers only to the year 2002 (and is conveniently vague when it comes to giving actual figures). Although it doesn't state how that figure is derived, my suspicion is that this is the percentage of cases which the FBI considers solved - that is by no means the same thing as convicting the perpertrator. The one from the independent refers to adults, which is a small percentage of murders. According to the very next sentence, 66% of thos arrested for child murder don't get to court, and of the ones that do less than 27% of those arrests result in a conviction. So, it's actually quite some way off the 90% you imply. As with the FBI figure, this is still some 6 years out of date. I don't know how these things work with lawyers, but if I'd had a history essay to mark which used statistics so loosely, and with so liitle investigation into what they mean, it would have been lucky to get a pass mark.

 

Anyway, this is all really getting rather silly now. It seems that you have successfully taken this topic well away the original discussion concerning whether child pornography was acceptable in a civilised society, so I don't see much point in continuing with it.

 

BB

Peter

 

-

Blake Wilson

Friday, December 12, 2008 3:39 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Of course solicitation is a crime. But simple possession of a filmed death has nothing to do with solicitation of murder. You had opined earlier that possessing a snuff film can lead to prosecution for the depicted murder. I say that's not correct. And where do you get your "1% of murders solved" number? Did it just sound like a nice number? According to the FBI, "64% of murders were solved -- the highest clearance rate of all serious crimes."http://www.fbi.gov/page2/oct03/ucr102703.htmThe Independent reports that "90 per cent of adult murders are solved and result in convictions".http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/new-law-to-trap-parents-who-murder-598562.htmlBlake

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:30 AM, Peter <metalscarab wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

In the UK, if you pay someone to commit murder, you are committing the criminal offence of "incitement to murder". We also have laws regarding the provision of funds to criminals which supports those criminal activities. Not sure of the exact laws, but basically anyone who knowingly provides financial aid in relation to a criminal act is guilty of a criminal offence.

 

In terms of whether snuff films are a myth - what is your evidence? And please don't quote a website, give us some actual evidence, not an opinion. Incidentally, reading through the snopes article - there is not a single reference in the article itself, merely unsubstantiated generalisation. The bibliography does not contain one single authoritative source, but rather a bunch of articles from the popular media. I have no idea whether snuff films do exist or not, but it seems, with the vast number of sick people in the world, that someone must have thought of making one.

 

Oh, and the fact that "none have been found" doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist. Less than 1% of murders are solved, doesn't mean the individuals in 99% of cases haven't been killed!

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

 

 

 

 

Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:06 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

I did not call anyone an idiot, and I don't think anyone here approaches idiothood. I speak partly from personal and professional experience, and the rest is straight "chat", i.e. opinion, anecdote, attempts at humor, tempetuousness, etc. Peter, you cited UK law pertaining to snuff films and opined that there were similar US laws. I said three things:1). snuff films are a myth2). there are no laws in the US on the topic3). I have no idea about UK laws, but I doubt they exist. 4). snuff films, child abuse, and McDonalds are the same thing. If I'm wrong about any of these, you are welcome to address them, particularly #3. Obviously, #4 is a joke and admittedly a poor analogy. I was simply trying to point out that far more children are harmed by poor diet, worldwide starvation, video games, and their own parents than by people making child porn. Regards, Blake

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who you callin an idiom pardner?

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx

Sent: Thursday, 11 December, 2008 10:16:30 PM Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

well, speak correctly dammit.

you folks and yer weird idioms....

 

Peter VV

Dec 11, 2008 2:14 PM

@gro ups.com

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I meant cough up the cash........ .... you ex colonials... ......... .

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> @gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:12:56 PM Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

hands in yer pocket?

wot are you, a hobbit?

my precious.... .

 

Peter VV

Dec 11, 2008 11:35 AM

@gro ups.com

 

 

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aw c,mon Peter, I dont think he was calling you an idiot, was he? dont take things so personally.

If only you two could have this conversation in a bar over a few beers, be a lot lighter..... ......hell, I`d even stick my hands in my pocket!..

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:00:38 AMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

Strikes me that as a defense attorney, you are obviously used to presenting a case and arguing, and you seem to enjoy it. As a research historian, I am also very used to presenting a case and arguing it. While you may have more knowledge of the laws, my professional training has me very used to dealing with analogy, and spotting when analogies are being made due to their appropriateness, or due to their inflamatory (and usually inaccurate) nature to try to provoke a response. As a result, you'll usually find I'll just point out the flaws in the logic rather than give you what you want.

 

Incidentally, please also remember that snopes is a website. In my profession we consider websites to be highly untrustworthy sources, as there is no peer review over them. Just because snopes says something is a myth, does not make it so. It is also pretty much impossible to prove the non-existence of something, since lack of evidence is by no means the same as evidence of a lack of. But I guess historians deal in a multitude of shades of grey, while defence attorneys deal with polar opposites (guilty or not-guilty).

 

However, as a defense attorney, you must know that there is a legal definition of child abuse, and that feeding a child McDonalds food does not come into that legal definition.

 

So, if you wish to treat this debate as a court room, then please do so with the professionalism you would treat a court room, and give up with the unsupportable statements that would have another defense attorney walking all over your case. Just because I am not a defense attorney, does not make me an idiot.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:17 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes. com/horrors/ madmen/snuff. aspAgain, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the "star" with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries. I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about "making anything illegal" in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that "abuse" can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.

 

I believe in the UK, purchasing "snuff" films is considered to be "encitement to murder" or "being an accessory after the fact", which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type "child porn" into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's "completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children" is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is "caught on tape" type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being "injured" per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter

2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw

 

not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child porn should not be banned?

 

Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ?????

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers

 

 

For in a Republic, who is "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain

 

For in a Republic, who is "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain

[Guest guest]

All I did was some quick research on your statement about solved murders, which seemed preposterous, and it turns out it was. And I'm not " implying " the numbers I cited...I'm simply repeating them for your viewing pleasure. And instead of saying " yes, my figure of 1% is obviously way off " , you claim I'm misusing the stats I found? Remarkable...but I agree, this conversation is over.

And lastly, my original point wasn't whether CP is " acceptable " , it's whether possession of images and the paper they are printed upon, regardless of their content, should subject the owner to a prison sentence. I say no. I do not believe that possession of books, films, songs and pictures should be criminalized, with very few exceptions. To make it clear, and this is my last post on the subject, I am not talking about the persons who make it or injure the child directly. I support laws against that (and realize some folks here thought otherwise; I'm sorry if I did not make that clear). Analogy: personal use of drugs, versus manufacture and distribution.

Then again, I believe that all drugs, including heroin, crack, meth, LSD, should be legalized and sold openly to consenting adults. Blake On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Peter <metalscarab wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I got my figures from Bristol Police. Although you might want to check out those figures you gave.

 

The FBI one is 6 years out of date, and refers only to the year 2002 (and is conveniently vague when it comes to giving actual figures). Although it doesn't state how that figure is derived, my suspicion is that this is the percentage of cases which the FBI considers solved - that is by no means the same thing as convicting the perpertrator. The one from the independent refers to adults, which is a small percentage of murders. According to the very next sentence, 66% of thos arrested for child murder don't get to court, and of the ones that do less than 27% of those arrests result in a conviction. So, it's actually quite some way off the 90% you imply. As with the FBI figure, this is still some 6 years out of date. I don't know how these things work with lawyers, but if I'd had a history essay to mark which used statistics so loosely, and with so liitle investigation into what they mean, it would have been lucky to get a pass mark.

 

Anyway, this is all really getting rather silly now. It seems that you have successfully taken this topic well away the original discussion concerning whether child pornography was acceptable in a civilised society, so I don't see much point in continuing with it.

 

BB

Peter

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

 

Friday, December 12, 2008 3:39 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Of course solicitation is a crime. But simple possession of a filmed death has nothing to do with solicitation of murder. You had opined earlier that possessing a snuff film can lead to prosecution for the depicted murder. I say that's not correct. And where do you get your " 1% of murders solved " number? Did it just sound like a nice number? According to the FBI, " 64% of murders were solved -- the highest clearance rate of all serious crimes. " http://www.fbi.gov/page2/oct03/ucr102703.htmThe Independent reports that " 90 per cent of adult murders are solved and result in convictions " .http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/new-law-to-trap-parents-who-murder-598562.html

Blake

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:30 AM, Peter <metalscarab wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

In the UK, if you pay someone to commit murder, you are committing the criminal offence of " incitement to murder " . We also have laws regarding the provision of funds to criminals which supports those criminal activities. Not sure of the exact laws, but basically anyone who knowingly provides financial aid in relation to a criminal act is guilty of a criminal offence.

 

In terms of whether snuff films are a myth - what is your evidence? And please don't quote a website, give us some actual evidence, not an opinion. Incidentally, reading through the snopes article - there is not a single reference in the article itself, merely unsubstantiated generalisation. The bibliography does not contain one single authoritative source, but rather a bunch of articles from the popular media. I have no idea whether snuff films do exist or not, but it seems, with the vast number of sick people in the world, that someone must have thought of making one.

 

Oh, and the fact that " none have been found " doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist. Less than 1% of murders are solved, doesn't mean the individuals in 99% of cases haven't been killed!

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

 

 

 

 

Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:06 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

I did not call anyone an idiot, and I don't think anyone here approaches idiothood. I speak partly from personal and professional experience, and the rest is straight " chat " , i.e. opinion, anecdote, attempts at humor, tempetuousness, etc. Peter, you cited UK law pertaining to snuff films and opined that there were similar US laws. I said three things:1). snuff films are a myth2). there are no laws in the US on the topic3). I have no idea about UK laws, but I doubt they exist. 4). snuff films, child abuse, and McDonalds are the same thing. If I'm wrong about any of these, you are welcome to address them, particularly #3. Obviously, #4 is a joke and admittedly a poor analogy. I was simply trying to point out that far more children are harmed by poor diet, worldwide starvation, video games, and their own parents than by people making child porn. Regards, Blake

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who you callin an idiom pardner?

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx

Sent: Thursday, 11 December, 2008 10:16:30 PM Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

well, speak correctly dammit.

you folks and yer weird idioms....

 

Peter VV

Dec 11, 2008 2:14 PM

@gro ups.com

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I meant cough up the cash........ .... you ex colonials... ......... .

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> @gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:12:56 PM Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

hands in yer pocket?

wot are you, a hobbit?

my precious.... .

 

Peter VV

Dec 11, 2008 11:35 AM

@gro ups.com

 

 

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aw c,mon Peter, I dont think he was calling you an idiot, was he? dont take things so personally.

If only you two could have this conversation in a bar over a few beers, be a lot lighter..... ......hell, I`d even stick my hands in my pocket!..

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com>@gro ups.com

Thursday, 11 December, 2008 10:00:38 AMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

Strikes me that as a defense attorney, you are obviously used to presenting a case and arguing, and you seem to enjoy it. As a research historian, I am also very used to presenting a case and arguing it. While you may have more knowledge of the laws, my professional training has me very used to dealing with analogy, and spotting when analogies are being made due to their appropriateness, or due to their inflamatory (and usually inaccurate) nature to try to provoke a response. As a result, you'll usually find I'll just point out the flaws in the logic rather than give you what you want.

 

Incidentally, please also remember that snopes is a website. In my profession we consider websites to be highly untrustworthy sources, as there is no peer review over them. Just because snopes says something is a myth, does not make it so. It is also pretty much impossible to prove the non-existence of something, since lack of evidence is by no means the same as evidence of a lack of. But I guess historians deal in a multitude of shades of grey, while defence attorneys deal with polar opposites (guilty or not-guilty).

 

However, as a defense attorney, you must know that there is a legal definition of child abuse, and that feeding a child McDonalds food does not come into that legal definition.

 

So, if you wish to treat this debate as a court room, then please do so with the professionalism you would treat a court room, and give up with the unsupportable statements that would have another defense attorney walking all over your case. Just because I am not a defense attorney, does not make me an idiot.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:17 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes. com/horrors/ madmen/snuff. aspAgain, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the " star " with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries. I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about " making anything illegal " in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that " abuse " can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.

 

I believe in the UK, purchasing " snuff " films is considered to be " encitement to murder " or " being an accessory after the fact " , which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type " child porn " into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's " completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children " is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is " caught on tape " type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being " injured " per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. " Snuff " films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter

2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw

 

not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child porn should not be banned?

 

Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ?????

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be " illegal " . laws against these sorts of books are " stepping stones " to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and " history " books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle " We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out. " - Bill Moyers

 

 

 

 

For in a Republic, who is " the country " ? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.

Mark Twain

 

For in a Republic, who is " the country " ? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.

Mark Twain

[Guest guest]

Does that mean its over?

Is it safe to come out from behind the sofa now?

now kiss and make out you two.......

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab Sent: Friday, 12 December, 2008 4:13:21 PMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I got my figures from Bristol Police. Although you might want to check out those figures you gave.

 

The FBI one is 6 years out of date, and refers only to the year 2002 (and is conveniently vague when it comes to giving actual figures). Although it doesn't state how that figure is derived, my suspicion is that this is the percentage of cases which the FBI considers solved - that is by no means the same thing as convicting the perpertrator. The one from the independent refers to adults, which is a small percentage of murders. According to the very next sentence, 66% of thos arrested for child murder don't get to court, and of the ones that do less than 27% of those arrests result in a conviction. So, it's actually quite some way off the 90% you imply. As with the FBI figure, this is still some 6 years out of date. I don't know how these things work with lawyers, but if I'd had a history essay to mark which used statistics so loosely, and with so liitle investigation into what they

mean, it would have been lucky to get a pass mark.

 

Anyway, this is all really getting rather silly now. It seems that you have successfully taken this topic well away the original discussion concerning whether child pornography was acceptable in a civilised society, so I don't see much point in continuing with it.

 

BB

Peter

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Friday, December 12, 2008 3:39 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Of course solicitation is a crime. But simple possession of a filmed death has nothing to do with solicitation of murder. You had opined earlier that possessing a snuff film can lead to prosecution for the depicted murder. I say that's not correct. And where do you get your "1% of murders solved" number? Did it just sound like a nice number? According to the FBI, "64% of murders were solved -- the highest clearance rate of all serious crimes."http://www.fbi. gov/page2/ oct03/ucr102703. htmThe Independent reports that "90 per cent of adult murders are solved and result in convictions" .http://www.independ ent.co.uk/ news/uk/crime/ new-law-to- trap-parents- who-murder- 598562.htmlBlake

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:30 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

In the UK, if you pay someone to commit murder, you are committing the criminal offence of "incitement to murder". We also have laws regarding the provision of funds to criminals which supports those criminal activities. Not sure of the exact laws, but basically anyone who knowingly provides financial aid in relation to a criminal act is guilty of a criminal offence.

 

In terms of whether snuff films are a myth - what is your evidence? And please don't quote a website, give us some actual evidence, not an opinion. Incidentally, reading through the snopes article - there is not a single reference in the article itself, merely unsubstantiated generalisation. The bibliography does not contain one single authoritative source, but rather a bunch of articles from the popular media. I have no idea whether snuff films do exist or not, but it seems, with the vast number of sick people in the world, that someone must have thought of making one.

 

Oh, and the fact that "none have been found" doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist. Less than 1% of murders are solved, doesn't mean the individuals in 99% of cases haven't been killed!

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

 

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:06 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

I did not call anyone an idiot, and I don't think anyone here approaches idiothood. I speak partly from personal and professional experience, and the rest is straight "chat", i.e. opinion, anecdote, attempts at humor, tempetuousness, etc. Peter, you cited UK law pertaining to snuff films and opined that there were similar US laws. I said three things:1). snuff films are a myth2). there are no laws in the US on the topic3). I have no idea about UK laws, but I doubt they exist. 4). snuff films, child abuse, and McDonalds are the same thing. If I'm wrong about any of these, you are welcome to address them, particularly #3. Obviously, #4 is a joke and admittedly a poor analogy. I was simply trying to point out that far more children are harmed by poor diet, worldwide starvation, video games, and their own parents than by people making child porn. Regards, Blake

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Peter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who you callin an idiom pardner?

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net>

@gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:16:30 PM Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

well, speak correctly dammit.

you folks and yer weird idioms....

 

Peter VV

Dec 11, 2008 2:14 PM

@gro ups.com

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I meant cough up the cash........ .... you ex colonials... ......... .

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> @gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:12:56 PM Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

hands in yer pocket?

wot are you, a hobbit?

my precious.... .

 

Peter VV

Dec 11, 2008 11:35 AM

@gro ups.com

 

 

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aw c,mon Peter, I dont think he was calling you an idiot, was he? dont take things so personally.

If only you two could have this conversation in a bar over a few beers, be a lot lighter..... ......hell, I`d even stick my hands in my pocket!..

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:00:38 AMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

Strikes me that as a defense attorney, you are obviously used to presenting a case and arguing, and you seem to enjoy it. As a research historian, I am also very used to presenting a case and arguing it. While you may have more knowledge of the laws, my professional training has me very used to dealing with analogy, and spotting when analogies are being made due to their appropriateness, or due to their inflamatory (and usually inaccurate) nature to try to provoke a response. As a result, you'll usually find I'll just point out the flaws in the logic rather than give you what you want.

 

Incidentally, please also remember that snopes is a website. In my profession we consider websites to be highly untrustworthy sources, as there is no peer review over them. Just because snopes says something is a myth, does not make it so. It is also pretty much impossible to prove the non-existence of something, since lack of evidence is by no means the same as evidence of a lack of. But I guess historians deal in a multitude of shades of grey, while defence attorneys deal with polar opposites (guilty or not-guilty).

 

However, as a defense attorney, you must know that there is a legal definition of child abuse, and that feeding a child McDonalds food does not come into that legal definition.

 

So, if you wish to treat this debate as a court room, then please do so with the professionalism you would treat a court room, and give up with the unsupportable statements that would have another defense attorney walking all over your case. Just because I am not a defense attorney, does not make me an idiot.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:17 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes. com/horrors/ madmen/snuff. aspAgain, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the "star" with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries. I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about

"making anything illegal" in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that "abuse" can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.

 

I believe in the UK, purchasing "snuff" films is considered to be "encitement to murder" or "being an accessory after the fact", which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type "child porn" into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's "completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children" is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is "caught on tape" type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being "injured" per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to

be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter

2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw

 

not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child porn should not be banned?

 

Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ?????

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers

 

 

For in a Republic, who is "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain

 

For in a Republic, who is "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain

[Guest guest]

i'll bring the vegan cookies.............

Peter VV Dec 12, 2008 10:14 AM Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does that mean its over?

Is it safe to come out from behind the sofa now?

now kiss and make out you two.......

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab > Sent: Friday, 12 December, 2008 4:13:21 PMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I got my figures from Bristol Police. Although you might want to check out those figures you gave.

 

The FBI one is 6 years out of date, and refers only to the year 2002 (and is conveniently vague when it comes to giving actual figures). Although it doesn't state how that figure is derived, my suspicion is that this is the percentage of cases which the FBI considers solved - that is by no means the same thing as convicting the perpertrator. The one from the independent refers to adults, which is a small percentage of murders. According to the very next sentence, 66% of thos arrested for child murder don't get to court, and of the ones that do less than 27% of those arrests result in a conviction. So, it's actually quite some way off the 90% you imply. As with the FBI figure, this is still some 6 years out of date. I don't know how these things work with lawyers, but if I'd had a history essay to mark which used statistics so loosely, and with so liitle investigation into what they mean, it would have been lucky to get a pass mark.

 

Anyway, this is all really getting rather silly now. It seems that you have successfully taken this topic well away the original discussion concerning whether child pornography was acceptable in a civilised society, so I don't see much point in continuing with it.

 

BB

Peter

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Friday, December 12, 2008 3:39 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Of course solicitation is a crime. But simple possession of a filmed death has nothing to do with solicitation of murder. You had opined earlier that possessing a snuff film can lead to prosecution for the depicted murder. I say that's not correct. And where do you get your "1% of murders solved" number? Did it just sound like a nice number? According to the FBI, "64% of murders were solved -- the highest clearance rate of all serious crimes."http://www.fbi. gov/page2/ oct03/ucr102703. htmThe Independent reports that "90 per cent of adult murders are solved and result in convictions" .http://www.independ ent.co.uk/ news/uk/crime/ new-law-to- trap-parents- who-murder- 598562.htmlBlake

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:30 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

In the UK, if you pay someone to commit murder, you are committing the criminal offence of "incitement to murder". We also have laws regarding the provision of funds to criminals which supports those criminal activities. Not sure of the exact laws, but basically anyone who knowingly provides financial aid in relation to a criminal act is guilty of a criminal offence.

 

In terms of whether snuff films are a myth - what is your evidence? And please don't quote a website, give us some actual evidence, not an opinion. Incidentally, reading through the snopes article - there is not a single reference in the article itself, merely unsubstantiated generalisation. The bibliography does not contain one single authoritative source, but rather a bunch of articles from the popular media. I have no idea whether snuff films do exist or not, but it seems, with the vast number of sick people in the world, that someone must have thought of making one.

 

Oh, and the fact that "none have been found" doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist. Less than 1% of murders are solved, doesn't mean the individuals in 99% of cases haven't been killed!

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

 

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:06 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

I did not call anyone an idiot, and I don't think anyone here approaches idiothood. I speak partly from personal and professional experience, and the rest is straight "chat", i.e. opinion, anecdote, attempts at humor, tempetuousness, etc. Peter, you cited UK law pertaining to snuff films and opined that there were similar US laws. I said three things:1). snuff films are a myth2). there are no laws in the US on the topic3). I have no idea about UK laws, but I doubt they exist. 4). snuff films, child abuse, and McDonalds are the same thing. If I'm wrong about any of these, you are welcome to address them, particularly #3. Obviously, #4 is a joke and admittedly a poor analogy. I was simply trying to point out that far more children are harmed by poor diet, worldwide starvation, video games, and their own parents than by people making child porn. Regards, Blake

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Peter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who you callin an idiom pardner?

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net>

@gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:16:30 PM Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

well, speak correctly dammit.

you folks and yer weird idioms....

 

Peter VV

Dec 11, 2008 2:14 PM

@gro ups.com

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I meant cough up the cash........ .... you ex colonials... ......... .

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> @gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:12:56 PM Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

hands in yer pocket?

wot are you, a hobbit?

my precious.... .

 

Peter VV

Dec 11, 2008 11:35 AM

@gro ups.com

 

 

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aw c,mon Peter, I dont think he was calling you an idiot, was he? dont take things so personally.

If only you two could have this conversation in a bar over a few beers, be a lot lighter..... ......hell, I`d even stick my hands in my pocket!..

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:00:38 AMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

Strikes me that as a defense attorney, you are obviously used to presenting a case and arguing, and you seem to enjoy it. As a research historian, I am also very used to presenting a case and arguing it. While you may have more knowledge of the laws, my professional training has me very used to dealing with analogy, and spotting when analogies are being made due to their appropriateness, or due to their inflamatory (and usually inaccurate) nature to try to provoke a response. As a result, you'll usually find I'll just point out the flaws in the logic rather than give you what you want.

 

Incidentally, please also remember that snopes is a website. In my profession we consider websites to be highly untrustworthy sources, as there is no peer review over them. Just because snopes says something is a myth, does not make it so. It is also pretty much impossible to prove the non-existence of something, since lack of evidence is by no means the same as evidence of a lack of. But I guess historians deal in a multitude of shades of grey, while defence attorneys deal with polar opposites (guilty or not-guilty).

 

However, as a defense attorney, you must know that there is a legal definition of child abuse, and that feeding a child McDonalds food does not come into that legal definition.

 

So, if you wish to treat this debate as a court room, then please do so with the professionalism you would treat a court room, and give up with the unsupportable statements that would have another defense attorney walking all over your case. Just because I am not a defense attorney, does not make me an idiot.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:17 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes. com/horrors/ madmen/snuff. aspAgain, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the "star" with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries. I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about "making anything illegal" in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that "abuse" can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.

 

I believe in the UK, purchasing "snuff" films is considered to be "encitement to murder" or "being an accessory after the fact", which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type "child porn" into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's "completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children" is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is "caught on tape" type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being "injured" per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter

2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw

 

not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child porn should not be banned?

 

Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ?????

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers

 

 

For in a Republic, who is "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain

 

For in a Republic, who is "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain

 

 

 

 

 

 

For in a Republic, who is “the country� Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.

Mark Twain

[Guest guest]

Hi Jo/Peter,

I know its not to be taken lightly, no subject of abuse is, all I was saying to Peter is maybe he is too close to the subject to discuss without reacting with accusations instead of debate.

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork Sent: Thursday, 11 December, 2008 11:17:05 PMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 Hi Peter / Peter

 

Same here. A friend was abused from 7 years old - recently found out her grand-daughter was being abused too. This time they got the b*****d and he's in prison. In fact I know several people it has happened to, and it is not at all to be taken lightly.

 

BBJo

 

-

Peter

@gro ups.com

Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:39 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 Hi Peter

 

You may be right. But this is one of those topics that does tend to get me heated up. I guess it's what comes from having known someone who was ritually abused as a child and seeing just how much it screwed up their life!

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Peter VV

@gro ups.com

Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:35 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

Aw c,mon Peter, I dont think he was calling you an idiot, was he? dont take things so personally.

If only you two could have this conversation in a bar over a few beers, be a lot lighter..... ......hell, I`d even stick my hands in my pocket!..

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:00:38 AMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

Strikes me that as a defense attorney, you are obviously used to presenting a case and arguing, and you seem to enjoy it. As a research historian, I am also very used to presenting a case and arguing it. While you may have more knowledge of the laws, my professional training has me very used to dealing with analogy, and spotting when analogies are being made due to their appropriateness, or due to their inflamatory (and usually inaccurate) nature to try to provoke a response. As a result, you'll usually find I'll just point out the flaws in the logic rather than give you what you want.

 

Incidentally, please also remember that snopes is a website. In my profession we consider websites to be highly untrustworthy sources, as there is no peer review over them. Just because snopes says something is a myth, does not make it so. It is also pretty much impossible to prove the non-existence of something, since lack of evidence is by no means the same as evidence of a lack of. But I guess historians deal in a multitude of shades of grey, while defence attorneys deal with polar opposites (guilty or not-guilty).

 

However, as a defense attorney, you must know that there is a legal definition of child abuse, and that feeding a child McDonalds food does not come into that legal definition.

 

So, if you wish to treat this debate as a court room, then please do so with the professionalism you would treat a court room, and give up with the unsupportable statements that would have another defense attorney walking all over your case. Just because I am not a defense attorney, does not make me an idiot.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:17 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes. com/horrors/ madmen/snuff. aspAgain, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the "star" with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries. I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about

"making anything illegal" in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that "abuse" can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.

 

I believe in the UK, purchasing "snuff" films is considered to be "encitement to murder" or "being an accessory after the fact", which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type "child porn" into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's "completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children" is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is "caught on tape" type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being "injured" per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to

be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter

2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw

 

not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child porn should not be banned?

 

Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ?????

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers

[Guest guest]

Possibly my last statement on this - I do believe that possession of visual material concerning child pornography should be criminalised (as it is in Britain thankfully).

 

Jo

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

Friday, December 12, 2008 5:06 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

All I did was some quick research on your statement about solved murders, which seemed preposterous, and it turns out it was. And I'm not "implying" the numbers I cited...I'm simply repeating them for your viewing pleasure. And instead of saying "yes, my figure of 1% is obviously way off", you claim I'm misusing the stats I found? Remarkable...but I agree, this conversation is over. And lastly, my original point wasn't whether CP is "acceptable", it's whether possession of images and the paper they are printed upon, regardless of their content, should subject the owner to a prison sentence. I say no. I do not believe that possession of books, films, songs and pictures should be criminalized, with very few exceptions. To make it clear, and this is my last post on the subject, I am not talking about the persons who make it or injure the child directly. I support laws against that (and realize some folks here thought otherwise; I'm sorry if I did not make that clear). Analogy: personal use of drugs, versus manufacture and distribution.Then again, I believe that all drugs, including heroin, crack, meth, LSD, should be legalized and sold openly to consenting adults. Blake

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Peter <metalscarab > wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I got my figures from Bristol Police. Although you might want to check out those figures you gave.

 

The FBI one is 6 years out of date, and refers only to the year 2002 (and is conveniently vague when it comes to giving actual figures). Although it doesn't state how that figure is derived, my suspicion is that this is the percentage of cases which the FBI considers solved - that is by no means the same thing as convicting the perpertrator. The one from the independent refers to adults, which is a small percentage of murders. According to the very next sentence, 66% of thos arrested for child murder don't get to court, and of the ones that do less than 27% of those arrests result in a conviction. So, it's actually quite some way off the 90% you imply. As with the FBI figure, this is still some 6 years out of date. I don't know how these things work with lawyers, but if I'd had a history essay to mark which used statistics so loosely, and with so liitle investigation into what they mean, it would have been lucky to get a pass mark.

 

Anyway, this is all really getting rather silly now. It seems that you have successfully taken this topic well away the original discussion concerning whether child pornography was acceptable in a civilised society, so I don't see much point in continuing with it.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

 

 

 

Friday, December 12, 2008 3:39 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Of course solicitation is a crime. But simple possession of a filmed death has nothing to do with solicitation of murder. You had opined earlier that possessing a snuff film can lead to prosecution for the depicted murder. I say that's not correct. And where do you get your "1% of murders solved" number? Did it just sound like a nice number? According to the FBI, "64% of murders were solved -- the highest clearance rate of all serious crimes."http://www.fbi.gov/page2/oct03/ucr102703.htmThe Independent reports that "90 per cent of adult murders are solved and result in convictions".http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/new-law-to-trap-parents-who-murder-598562.htmlBlake

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:30 AM, Peter <metalscarab > wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

In the UK, if you pay someone to commit murder, you are committing the criminal offence of "incitement to murder". We also have laws regarding the provision of funds to criminals which supports those criminal activities. Not sure of the exact laws, but basically anyone who knowingly provides financial aid in relation to a criminal act is guilty of a criminal offence.

 

In terms of whether snuff films are a myth - what is your evidence? And please don't quote a website, give us some actual evidence, not an opinion. Incidentally, reading through the snopes article - there is not a single reference in the article itself, merely unsubstantiated generalisation. The bibliography does not contain one single authoritative source, but rather a bunch of articles from the popular media. I have no idea whether snuff films do exist or not, but it seems, with the vast number of sick people in the world, that someone must have thought of making one.

 

Oh, and the fact that "none have been found" doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist. Less than 1% of murders are solved, doesn't mean the individuals in 99% of cases haven't been killed!

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

 

 

 

 

Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:06 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

I did not call anyone an idiot, and I don't think anyone here approaches idiothood. I speak partly from personal and professional experience, and the rest is straight "chat", i.e. opinion, anecdote, attempts at humor, tempetuousness, etc. Peter, you cited UK law pertaining to snuff films and opined that there were similar US laws. I said three things:1). snuff films are a myth2). there are no laws in the US on the topic3). I have no idea about UK laws, but I doubt they exist. 4). snuff films, child abuse, and McDonalds are the same thing. If I'm wrong about any of these, you are welcome to address them, particularly #3. Obviously, #4 is a joke and admittedly a poor analogy. I was simply trying to point out that far more children are harmed by poor diet, worldwide starvation, video games, and their own parents than by people making child porn. Regards, Blake

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Peter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who you callin an idiom pardner?

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) net>

Sent: Thursday, 11 December, 2008 10:16:30 PM Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

well, speak correctly dammit.

you folks and yer weird idioms....

 

Peter VV

Dec 11, 2008 2:14 PM

@gro ups.com

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I meant cough up the cash........ .... you ex colonials... ......... .

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> @gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:12:56 PM Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

hands in yer pocket?

wot are you, a hobbit?

my precious.... .

 

Peter VV

Dec 11, 2008 11:35 AM

@gro ups.com

 

 

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aw c,mon Peter, I dont think he was calling you an idiot, was he? dont take things so personally.

If only you two could have this conversation in a bar over a few beers, be a lot lighter..... ......hell, I`d even stick my hands in my pocket!..

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:00:38 AMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

Strikes me that as a defense attorney, you are obviously used to presenting a case and arguing, and you seem to enjoy it. As a research historian, I am also very used to presenting a case and arguing it. While you may have more knowledge of the laws, my professional training has me very used to dealing with analogy, and spotting when analogies are being made due to their appropriateness, or due to their inflamatory (and usually inaccurate) nature to try to provoke a response. As a result, you'll usually find I'll just point out the flaws in the logic rather than give you what you want.

 

Incidentally, please also remember that snopes is a website. In my profession we consider websites to be highly untrustworthy sources, as there is no peer review over them. Just because snopes says something is a myth, does not make it so. It is also pretty much impossible to prove the non-existence of something, since lack of evidence is by no means the same as evidence of a lack of. But I guess historians deal in a multitude of shades of grey, while defence attorneys deal with polar opposites (guilty or not-guilty).

 

However, as a defense attorney, you must know that there is a legal definition of child abuse, and that feeding a child McDonalds food does not come into that legal definition.

 

So, if you wish to treat this debate as a court room, then please do so with the professionalism you would treat a court room, and give up with the unsupportable statements that would have another defense attorney walking all over your case. Just because I am not a defense attorney, does not make me an idiot.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:17 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes. com/horrors/ madmen/snuff. aspAgain, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the "star" with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries. I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about "making anything illegal" in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that "abuse" can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.

 

I believe in the UK, purchasing "snuff" films is considered to be "encitement to murder" or "being an accessory after the fact", which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type "child porn" into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's "completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children" is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is "caught on tape" type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being "injured" per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter

2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw

 

not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child porn should not be banned?

 

Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ?????

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers

 

 

For in a Republic, who is "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain

 

For in a Republic, who is "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain

[Guest guest]



Hi Peter

 

I have always felt the same about the subject, but have known my friend who had suffered childhood rape for only two years. I think you either condemn or condone it, no matter what your experience. You can have empathy without experience. The line between accusations and debate is often mentioned once someone is challenged on what they have said.

 

BBJO

 

 

-

Peter VV

Friday, December 12, 2008 6:27 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Jo/Peter,

I know its not to be taken lightly, no subject of abuse is, all I was saying to Peter is maybe he is too close to the subject to discuss without reacting with accusations instead of debate.

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork > Sent: Thursday, 11 December, 2008 11:17:05 PMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 Hi Peter / Peter

 

Same here. A friend was abused from 7 years old - recently found out her grand-daughter was being abused too. This time they got the b*****d and he's in prison. In fact I know several people it has happened to, and it is not at all to be taken lightly.

 

BBJo

 

-

Peter

@gro ups.com

Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:39 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 Hi Peter

 

You may be right. But this is one of those topics that does tend to get me heated up. I guess it's what comes from having known someone who was ritually abused as a child and seeing just how much it screwed up their life!

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Peter VV

@gro ups.com

Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:35 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

Aw c,mon Peter, I dont think he was calling you an idiot, was he? dont take things so personally.

If only you two could have this conversation in a bar over a few beers, be a lot lighter..... ......hell, I`d even stick my hands in my pocket!..

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comThursday, 11 December, 2008 10:00:38 AMRe: before you order from amazon

 

 

Hi Blake

 

Strikes me that as a defense attorney, you are obviously used to presenting a case and arguing, and you seem to enjoy it. As a research historian, I am also very used to presenting a case and arguing it. While you may have more knowledge of the laws, my professional training has me very used to dealing with analogy, and spotting when analogies are being made due to their appropriateness, or due to their inflamatory (and usually inaccurate) nature to try to provoke a response. As a result, you'll usually find I'll just point out the flaws in the logic rather than give you what you want.

 

Incidentally, please also remember that snopes is a website. In my profession we consider websites to be highly untrustworthy sources, as there is no peer review over them. Just because snopes says something is a myth, does not make it so. It is also pretty much impossible to prove the non-existence of something, since lack of evidence is by no means the same as evidence of a lack of. But I guess historians deal in a multitude of shades of grey, while defence attorneys deal with polar opposites (guilty or not-guilty).

 

However, as a defense attorney, you must know that there is a legal definition of child abuse, and that feeding a child McDonalds food does not come into that legal definition.

 

So, if you wish to treat this debate as a court room, then please do so with the professionalism you would treat a court room, and give up with the unsupportable statements that would have another defense attorney walking all over your case. Just because I am not a defense attorney, does not make me an idiot.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

 

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:17 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes. com/horrors/ madmen/snuff. aspAgain, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the "star" with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries. I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about "making anything illegal" in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that "abuse" can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blake

 

I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor.

 

I believe in the UK, purchasing "snuff" films is considered to be "encitement to murder" or "being an accessory after the fact", which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well).

 

BB

Peter

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

 

 

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type "child porn" into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's "completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children" is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is "caught on tape" type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being "injured" per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter

2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw

 

not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child porn should not be banned?

 

Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ?????

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

-

Blake Wilson

@gro ups.com

 

Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM

Re: before you order from amazon

 

 

 

bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers