Author Topic: Prison Time For Viewing Porn? (Read 2690 times)

Peacimowen · « **on:** January 16, 2007, 04:16:25 AM »

A Teenage Boy Faces Decades in Prison For Visiting Sexually Explicit Web Sites -- But Was It Really Someone Else?

Wtf?

Foxy Brown · « **Reply #1 on:** January 16, 2007, 04:31:17 AM »

Is ABC News now relying on trained chimpanzees to write their articles for them? Apparently this kid is in trouble because he accessed a Yahoo account that has child pornography on it*, and also the family's computer has nine child pornography pictures that were put there by hackers*.

*What?

arun.yothin · « **Reply #2 on:** January 16, 2007, 04:41:33 AM »

Computers are not safe!:pc problems:

ferrar1 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 16, 2007, 04:51:20 AM »

Quote

Police officers stormed into the house with guns pointed. "The first thing I thought was, someone's trying to break in our house," Matthew said. "And then there [were] police officers with guns pointed at me, telling me to get downstairs."

Police need guns to arrest a child pornography suspect?

Edit: I'm glad the kid was cleared of everything at the end, this is really frightening stuff

Since1983 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 16, 2007, 05:34:04 AM »

Quote from: ferrar1;284110

Police need guns to arrest a child pornography suspect?

Edit: I'm glad the kid was cleared of everything at the end, this is really frightening stuff

Reminded me of watching Dateline on NBC when they were doing a special on catching child molestors. They had a whole swat team with kevlar and rifles in place to catch one person.

Mugen · « **Reply #5 on:** January 16, 2007, 06:10:24 AM »

hahaha owned.

ctz · « **Reply #6 on:** January 16, 2007, 07:57:22 AM »

It's fun how in some countries police has a habit to use some overpowered measures... Like when they arrested some doped athletes in France, they were cuffed like they'd were some big criminals trying to escape any second.

chera · « **Reply #7 on:** January 16, 2007, 08:15:12 AM »

From the article:

In exchange for dropping all counts of child pornography, Matthew pleaded guilty to the strange charge of distributing obscene materials to minors — a "Playboy" magazine to his classmates.

"To be precise, he was charged with showing [a Playboy magazine to other 16-year-olds] before school, at lunch and after school," Greg Bandy said.

But the Bandy family nightmare was not over. While the prosecution deal offered no jail time for Matthew, he would still be labeled a sex offender. Under Arizona law and in most states around the country, sex crimes carry with them a life of branding. Matthew would be forced to register as a sex offender everywhere he lived, for the rest of his life.

"I have to stay away from children," said Matthew. "I cannot be around any area where there might be minors, including the mall, or the movies, or restaurants or even church. To go to church I have to have written consent from our priest, I have to sit in a different pew, one that doesn't have a child sitting in it."

That's horrible! What would the feds do if a malicious hacker exploited some hole in Windows or IE and put a small 10KB child-porn jpeg in some deep directory in every infected computer, and then wiped any traces of itself?

Would that not make every infected user guilty of possession of child pornography?

Or what if you bought a 2nd hand hard drive, and the previous owner had child-porn on it. If the feds sent their goons in, looked into the un-overwritten sectors of the drive and found the porn... That would also make you guilty, wouldn't it?

Fracture · « **Reply #8 on:** January 16, 2007, 09:29:02 AM »

Quote from: chera;284221

What would the feds do if a malicious hacker exploited some hole in Windows or IE and put a small 10KB child-porn jpeg in some deep directory in every infected computer, and then wiped any traces of itself?

Would that not make every infected user guilty of possession of child pornography?

Sadly, yes it would. Just to play devil's advocate, it could be argued that making exceptions in those cases might set a precedent that pedophiles could exploit to absolve themselves. Meaning that everyone who was ever caught with child porn could play the "hacker" card.

Kei · « **Reply #9 on:** January 16, 2007, 11:58:08 AM »

I hope that family sues the SHIT out of the state. They would easily win and I reckon they could get a few million out of this.

Dj-B13 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 16, 2007, 03:12:45 PM »

What in the world....:ONdunno:

that is just plain crazy.

Foxy Brown · « **Reply #11 on:** January 16, 2007, 03:22:13 PM »

Damn hackers, going around randomly putting child pornography onto innocent people's computers.

Hazu · « **Reply #12 on:** January 16, 2007, 03:58:53 PM »

Wow, i didn't know lacking of computer securities could lead to this. O_O

Peacimowen · « **Reply #13 on:** January 17, 2007, 01:12:33 AM »

And now that familly won't even use the computer, let alone go online. That's just plain crazy what they did there.

LovelyMermaid · « **Reply #14 on:** January 17, 2007, 01:46:25 AM »

Wait, wait, wait. He had to "plead guilty" to showing some kids a playboy mag? (or something like it)

..how exactly is that a crime..?

arun.yothin · « **Reply #15 on:** January 17, 2007, 02:05:09 AM »

^By showing his friends that magazine, he was "distributing obscene materials to minors", which is a crime.

LovelyMermaid · « **Reply #16 on:** January 17, 2007, 02:31:32 AM »

^ Oh, ok, even though he was a minor himself?

JFC · « **Reply #17 on:** January 17, 2007, 02:33:56 AM »

^ Yep, the fact that he's a minor himself doesn't make any difference with the charges against him.

tkblingx2 · « **Reply #18 on:** January 17, 2007, 03:24:00 PM »

Wow governments need to take a chill pill