LogFAQs > #941601079

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Georgia Man who had the World's LARGEST CHILD PORN is RELEASED after 7 YEARS!!!
Zeus 07/02/20 11:49:56 PM #14:	mrduckbear posted... He also had a secret desk camera used to record young women in his office And were the young women naked in his office....? If so, why? And if the guy is into kids, why is he recording young women? Because that doesn't sound nearly young enough for the guy. mrduckbear posted... Following his release, the parole board said they were "confident" that Mallory will be closely monitored and that he will not try to do this again.. Well, he's 72, in a few years he probably won't be doing much of anything. wwinterj25 posted... The kids and kids parents he sexually objectified Pretty sure he wasn't objectifying parents. Dude was into kids. Otherwise it's unlikely he met any of the kids involved or that any of them knew of his existence. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... We're assuming he was looking at actual people. I think porographic cartoons are also considered possession so it's not as clear cut as that. Who is the victim in that scenario? Technically it's true you can be arrested on child porn when it's a depiction rather than involving actual children and people have gone to prison over it, but usually it's specified when it doesn't involve actual people. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Let's say that's correct. That means he had evidence of someone else committing a crime. If you have a video of someone running a red light you don't also get a ticket for running a red light. It doesn't make sense to me that this is different where knowledge of a crime is itself a crime. While the claim that the possession supports the industry itself is a little tenuous at best, there are many other reasonable amounts for reducing the overall amount of child porn in circulation because it helps to stem a culture of abuse, it makes it easier to identify + help victims, it reduces the possibility of its existence being used to re-harm a child, etc. It's not just strictly moral shaming where it's banned because people find it distasteful, there are pragmatic reasons for banning it. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:941601079] in Georgia Ma... [t:78820552]...</cite> <quote> mrduckbear posted... </cite> <quote>He also had a secret desk camera used to record young women in his office</quote> And were the young women naked in his office....? If so, why? And if the guy is into kids, why is he recording young women? Because that doesn't sound nearly young enough for the guy. mrduckbear posted... </cite> <quote>Following his release, the parole board said they were "confident" that Mallory will be closely monitored and that he will not try to do this again..</quote> Well, he's 72, in a few years he probably won't be doing much of anything. wwinterj25 posted... </cite> <quote>The kids and kids parents he sexually objectified</quote> Pretty sure he wasn't objectifying parents. Dude was into kids. Otherwise it's unlikely he met any of the kids involved or that any of them knew of his existence. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>We're assuming he was looking at actual people. I think porographic cartoons are also considered possession so it's not as clear cut as that. Who is the victim in that scenario?</quote> Technically it's true you can be arrested on child porn when it's a depiction rather than involving actual children and people have gone to prison over it, but usually it's specified when it doesn't involve actual people. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Let's say that's correct. That means he had evidence of someone else committing a crime. If you have a video of someone running a red light you don't also get a ticket for running a red light. It doesn't make sense to me that this is different where knowledge of a crime is itself a crime.</quote> While the claim that the possession supports the industry itself is a little tenuous at best, there are many other reasonable amounts for reducing the overall amount of child porn in circulation because it helps to stem a culture of abuse, it makes it easier to identify + help victims, it reduces the possibility of its existence being used to re-harm a child, etc. It's not just strictly moral shaming where it's banned because people find it distasteful, there are pragmatic reasons for banning it. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1