# Alberto Gonzales: Child Pornographer **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 2, 2006, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197 "2006-06-02T20:49:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Operation\_Ripper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/34f0e0/32.png) [@Operation\_Ripper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Operation_Ripper)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/21 "2006-06-03T04:28:47Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > This shit is so fucking typical of Republicans. I remember some conservatives saying back in 2000, “Bush will never censor, he’s not that kind of Republican.” I thought it was bullshit then, and as is usual wrt Repubicans, I was absolutely right. Goddamn, if this is the best we got, no wonder the Dems are doomed. ---
**Author:** ![Annie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/858c86/32.png) [@Annie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/22 "2006-06-03T04:36:51Z")
This thread winsthe week’s prize for “Thread Least Likely To Be Opened At Work” ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/23 "2006-06-03T04:40:00Z")
> [@Operation Ripper](#): > > STFU and GBTW. Shut the fuck up and Gonzales blows tiny wieners? ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/24 "2006-06-03T04:55:39Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Shut the fuck up and Gonzales blows tiny wieners? Heh! I’d wager it’s _Get Back To Work_. ---
**Author:** ![Dijon\_Warlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9a28c/32.png) [@Dijon\_Warlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dijon_Warlock)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/25 "2006-06-03T05:26:48Z")
> [@Q.E.D.](#): > > Heh! I’d wager it’s _Get Back To Work_. A wager is not a win. ---
**Author:** ![Khan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3ab097/32.png) [@Khan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/26 "2006-06-03T05:28:04Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > It’s a typical shell game. Certainly you are against child porn, so you won’t mind me pouring through the usage record of every American. Sure, other, invasive things _could_ be done with the information, but first and foremost, we’re fighting child porn. You aren’t in favor of child porn, are you? > > It’s a slight of hand that seems to work on children and Americans. While the replies to this thread have given me more than a few grim cackles, this is absolutely the most chilling aspect of this crusade of his. Ever since Gonzales started going off on this, I thought that he protests too much. Perhaps some among you remember an early MadTV sketch where Phil Lamar portrayed an artist visiting a senator to promote funding for his art. He showed the politician a number of very nice Japanese-style ink and abstract paintings, which the senator read “naked boys” into every piece. At the end he “confiscated them” and went under his desk to masturbate after accusing the patently innocent artist of being a child pornographer. It was fun to make fun of Gonzales that way. But now we see his truly terrifying purpose. From now on, I will never write these sons of bitches off as right-wing crackpots. Their positions of power notwithstanding, **Waverly** ’s exposition of their insidious methods cannot be overlooked in favor of their apparent stupidity. Wow, **Waverly**. Just. Wow. The whole “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” argument is fallacious, but turning it into “no child porn to hide, nothing to fear” turns my blood to ice. ---
**Author:** ![Dijon\_Warlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9a28c/32.png) [@Dijon\_Warlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dijon_Warlock)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/27 "2006-06-03T06:07:39Z")
Okay, somewhat serious post here (so many serious points, so many jokes…I hardly know where to start): **black445** makes a good point by quoting thusly: > [@](#): > > An executive of one Internet provider that was represented at the first meeting said Mr. Gonzales began the discussion by showing slides of child pornography from the Internet. and responding thisly: > [@](#): > > WT-FUCKING-FUCK? And then we have a response from > [@KGS](#): > > The #2 law enforcement guy in the country has possession of kiddy porn (which he has every right, he’s a cop after all) and you’re immediately profiling him as a child molester! Okay, here’s the first problem I see with this: **black445** did not (unless I missed it) accuse the AG AG of being a “child molester”. (S)He was expressing (not to put words in another’s mouth) outrage at this person condemning child porn by showing it to people. After all, posession is a felony, so why is it okay for AG AG? I mean, holy cow, if you’re of the opinion that > [@](#): > > The #2 law enforcement guy in the country has possession of kiddy porn (which he has every right, he’s a cop after all) then why wouldn’t kiddy porn fans go into law enforcement so they could look at/posess this stuff legally? That’s what _I_ would do if I were inclined in that direction, and it would appear to be okay with you. Are you _sure_ you want to take that stance? People, after all, tend to persue careers in things they enjoy. Are you so naive that you honestly think no-one who gets a job hunting down and looking at kiddie porn does so because they like it? Because they certainly could fool YOU, it appears. > [@KGS](#): > > C’mon, we all know kiddy porn is putrid, revolting, and absolutely criminal. We _do?_ **I** don’t (yeah, “criminal” but that’s how we made the laws, which we could change. The others, not so much). I’ve never seen any KP/CP, to my knowlege, so I’ve no experience to draw an opinion from. I won’t (of course) ask you for a cite for yours, but don’t you think this is stereotyping a little bit? Sure, I would agree that exploiting and harming children is reprehensible, but I see no reason why those things would be necessary to produce sexually explicit images of them by definition. So I don’t think I’m convinced that “we all know” is true. Prove it if you like. It’s your claim.\*\* Waverly\*\* has a concise rendition of the logic here (including its fallacy): > [@](#): > > You aren’t in favor of child porn, are you? “If you’re not for us, then you’re against us, sicko!” and all that. I’m all about protecting children, but sometimes they need protected from the protectors. I think this issue is emblematic of that principle. Who was it who said, “When hunting monsters, one must take care not to become a monster?” Indeed. ---
**Author:** ![wolf\_meister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolf_meister/32/15202_2.png) [@wolf\_meister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolf_meister)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/28 "2006-06-03T06:46:20Z")
Why is it necessary to show child pornography in order to combat it? Is there anybody that really _needs_ to see it, in order to get an idea of what it is? Let’s suppose there were illegal photos (for whatever reason) of Bea Arthur having wild hot lesbian sex with Estelle Getty. Does anybody _really_ need to see the actual photos in order to determine _precisely_ what they are tracking down? ---
**Author:** ![Dijon\_Warlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9a28c/32.png) [@Dijon\_Warlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dijon_Warlock)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/29 "2006-06-03T07:15:41Z")
**wolf\_meister:** You certainly make a good argument here, and I agree with you… …but I also find myself conflicted over that question, because one thing that really torques my shorts about publicly presented “reasons to be offended” is that those who WANT us to be offended _won’t_ show us what we are supposed to be offended at (always…not trying to stereotype). We are supposed to take their word for it. That pisses me off, too. “Here’s why you should be offended like we are! We won’t show you, because you might be offended, but TRUST US, it’s _really_ offensive!” > [@](#): > > Is there anybody that really needs to see it, in order to get an idea of what it is? Is there any reason to HIDE it, if they want us to be offended legitimately? This has been a pet peeve for me for years: the media saying “Oooh, this is really offensive, and we’re going to show it to you so you can be really offended!” and then putting up something that’s so blurred/blacked out that you can’t even SEE it, and then the media expecting you to say, “Erm…yeah…I _guess_ that was offensive…since they said so, and all…I guess…” It’s not about the frustration of wanting to see offensive material (which I’m just waiting for someone to accuse), but it IS about telling the truth. If they think it’s offensive, and they want us to agree, then why HIDE it? Are they afraid we won’t agree with them, and they want to prevent that? If they want us to be pissed about kiddie porn, and believe we will be, then blurring/obscuring it is just hurting their case and makes them look like they’re lying…or worse, afraid we won’t agree with them. Tell the truth, or fuck off (not you, **w\_m** , but whomever). I can’t be bothered to get upset about something that the people who want me to be upset can’t even prove is upsetting. ---
**Author:** ![Dijon\_Warlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9a28c/32.png) [@Dijon\_Warlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dijon_Warlock)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/30 "2006-06-03T07:20:01Z")
> [@Dijon Warlock](#): > > (always…not trying to stereotype0 NOT always…sorry. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/31 "2006-06-03T08:01:57Z")
> [@Dijon Warlock](#): > > **wolf\_meister:** > > "Here’s why you should be offended like we are! We won’t show you, because you might be offended, but TRUST US, it’s _really_ offensive!"Is there any reason to HIDE it, if they want us to be offended legitimately? > > If they want us to be pissed about kiddie porn, and believe we will be, then blurring/obscuring it is just hurting their case and makes them look like they’re lying…or worse, afraid we won’t agree with them. I don’t disagree with you–I totally understand where you are coming from–but for it to be kiddie porn, it really is some child being molested. And, as I understand it, most of the time, you never find out who the kids involved are. After such a catastrophic violation of everything, it seems like adding insult to injury to violate the privacy of those annonymous people–I am avoiding the emotional “children”, because it doesn’t even matter-- by using their pictures to make political hay. And how do you make such images avalible to the general public as “proof” of pornography without also destroying privacy? And obscuring faces doesn’t seem to be enough, to me. Were it my picture, I would still feel violated. ---
**Author:** ![groo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecd19e/32.png) [@groo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/groo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/32 "2006-06-03T08:30:24Z")
I can’t sleep, so I’m not going to attempt any humor. AG shows child porn to industry reps so they have to react negatively to these images, and the only option given them to show they’re disgusted by these images is to accede to his demands. Putting up child porn is an ultimate strawman, because AG isn’t trying to get help hunting down child pornographers – he’s trying to get records of everyone so he can better police “evil doers.” Once prosecutors have their feet in the door looking for child molesters, there’s murderers and rapists they might as well look for, and they might as well start looking for proto-terrorist groups as well (e.g., PETA, ELF, ACLU, etc.) They can rationalize anything, and the problem is that the data’s all there for the taking, so it’s going to be irresistable to every prosecutor up and down the line. Also, keep in mind that these are regular, fallible humans being given access to the lurid, secret habits of, well, everyone in America. Mightn’t someone take home the records of everyone who visits [FurryTransvestiteGoldenShowers.com](http://FurryTransvestiteGoldenShowers.com) and maybe have that information stolen from them? It’s a possibility. Once the information is out there, it’s out there. [Veering off into left wing paranoia] Some say that people who disagree with the administration are basically treasonous, so they could rationalize using this info to buy the silence of anyone who threatened the administration. After all, they need to protect our freedom. [/veering] I guess, and it’s 1:30 AM so I’m still not able to make the funny, I just want to send a hearty Fuck You to AG. (You people tracking my seditious ramblings should knock twice before breaking down my door, as I need some time to put on my pants.) ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/33 "2006-06-03T09:40:19Z")
> [@Dijon Warlock](#): > > Okay, here’s the first problem I see with this: **black445** did not (unless I missed it) accuse the AG AG of being a “child molester”. (S)He was expressing (not to put words in another’s mouth) outrage at this person condemning child porn by showing it to people. After all, posession is a felony, so why is it okay for AG AG? When someone titles a thread **“Alberto Gonzales: Child Pornographer”** , that’s a direct allegation, don’tcha think? Plus, there’s this quote from another poster: > [@Sailboat](#): > > I believe it’s time we prosecute this guy. In the meantume, no bail. For what it’s worth, I’ve never even heard of this Gonzales guy before. So, maybe there’s another smoking gun I don’t know about? On its face, however, there’s no reason to get upset about law enforcement personnel possessing kiddy porn, no more than drugs, illegal firearms, and other things. It’s part of their job, and preventing the police from contacting such material would make it awfully hard for them to defend the law, don’tcha think? > [@Dijon Warlock](#): > > …then why wouldn’t kiddy porn fans go into law enforcement so they could look at/posess this stuff legally? That’s what _I_ would do if I were inclined in that direction, and it would appear to be okay with you. Are you _sure_ you want to take that stance? People, after all, tend to persue careers in things they enjoy. Are you so naive that you honestly think no-one who gets a job hunting down and looking at kiddie porn does so because they like it? I’m sure some do!!! Just like some men join the priesthood for easy access to altar boys, or become dentists just to fondle anesthetised women. However, it’s a gross generalization to suggest that ALL people have deviant ulterior motives when choosing a career. (Aside from being power-hungry, money-grubbing, politically motivated bastards…but everyone in D.C. is like that, so why point it out?) > [@Dijon Warlock](#): > > I’ve never seen any KP/CP, to my knowlege, so I’ve no experience to draw an opinion from. I won’t (of course) ask you for a cite for yours, but don’t you think this is stereotyping a little bit? I’ve stumbled across it from time to time…trust me, it’s something that sticks in your mind. And we’re not talking Sally Mann photographs, or videos from European nudist camps, or screenshots from “The Tin Drum”. We’re talking small children engaged in various forms of coitus, adult penises shoved down a six-year-old girl’s throat, stuff like that. Forgive me, if I didn’t take the time to study the artistic, aesthetic elements of such entertainment…I was more concerned with eliminating that stuff from my hard drive. (As well as the spyware that came with one of those sites…long before AdAware/Spypot existed…boy was THAT a nightmare!!!) However…strange as it may seem, I have no problem with pedophiles having access to LEGAL forms of KP – stories, drawings, computer-generated images, anything that doesn’t require the involvement of actual children to produce. Assuming, of course, that such material actually PREVENTS them from seeking sex with kids (another giant can of worms!) > [@Dijon Warlock](#): > > I’m all about protecting children, but sometimes they need protected from the protectors. Absolutely! Playing the “PROTECT OUR CHILDREN!” card is the easiest way to get money, votes, or TV ratings, and that’s they really care about, these so-called defenders of “Family Values” (whatever the hell that means!) In that sense, Gonzales’s actions were reprehensible. On the other hand, it really boils down to a standard sales pitch – get the audience’s attention first, preferably with something that shocks the hell out most people, induces fear, which makes the client more amenable to the rest of your pitch. That’s really all that happened, there’s no need to get our panties in a bunch. ---
**Author:** ![cards](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@cards](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cards)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/34 "2006-06-03T09:50:34Z")
Slight clarification, but I thought the AG was the country’s number one law enforcement facis…er, officer. ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/35 "2006-06-03T09:51:52Z")
> [@Dijon Warlock](#): > > "Here’s why you should be offended like we are! We won’t show you, because you might be offended, but TRUST US, it’s _really_ offensive!"Is there any reason to HIDE it, if they want us to be offended legitimately? > > This has been a pet peeve for me for years: the media saying “Oooh, this is really offensive, and we’re going to show it to you so you can be really offended!” and then putting up something that’s so blurred/blacked out that you can’t even SEE it, and then the media expecting you to say, “Erm…yeah…I _guess_ that was offensive…since they said so, and all…I guess…” This kinda reminds me of the Abu Grab-Ass photographs, how Karl Rove and others kept on saying there were WORSE pictures, stuff like 12-year-old boys being assfucked and murdered, and they were so shocking and disturbing…we’re not gonna show them!!! Yeah, bullshit. Those pictures never existed, it was blatant fear-mongering. Any level-headed person can see right through that charade. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/36 "2006-06-03T10:56:47Z")
> [@KGS](#): > > This kinda reminds me of the Abu Grab-Ass photographs, how Karl Rove and others kept on saying there were WORSE pictures, stuff like 12-year-old boys being assfucked and murdered, and they were so shocking and disturbing…we’re not gonna show them!!! Yeah, bullshit. Those pictures never existed, it was blatant fear-mongering. Any level-headed person can see right through that charade. What on earth would _Rove_, of all people, get out of making the AG thing worse than it already was? ---
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/37 "2006-06-03T12:25:42Z")
> [@KGS](#): > > When someone titles a thread **"Alberto Gonzales: Child Pornographer"** It’s called hyperbole. A wise doper once said: > [@](#): > > On the other hand, it really boils down to a standard sales pitch – get the audience’s attention first, preferably with something that shocks the hell out most people, induces fear, which makes the client more amenable to the rest of your pitch. That’s really all that happened, there’s no need to get our panties in a bunch. > [@groo](#): > > I can’t sleep, so I’m not going to attempt any humor. AG shows child porn to industry reps so they have to react negatively to these images, and the only option given them to show they’re disgusted by these images is to accede to his demands. Putting up child porn is an ultimate strawman, because AG isn’t trying to get help hunting down child pornographers – he’s trying to get records of everyone so he can better police “evil doers.” We have a winner! I’ve got no problem with cops who need to look at it to track down the molesters or figure out who the victims are. What I’m fucking pissed about is that he decided to do in a _policy debate_. If one of our pro-gun-control posters opened an OP with links to the bullet riddled corpses of suicide or murder victims, wouldn’t we consider it a vile tactic? This is even worse, because the Attorney General as a far greater obligation not to be a total douche than the average Doper. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/38 "2006-06-03T12:37:45Z")
The title of this thread while eye catching is slanderous, false and similar to the same style so common in headlines one reads on tabloids positioned at supermarket checkouts for the intellectually impaired. > [@black455](#): > > There’s an article in [today’s NYT](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/washington/02records.html) regarding efforts by the DOJ to get your ISP to retain records of your browsing habits for a much as two years. Currently, they throw it away after a couple of weeks. From your link I read a “few weeks or months”. Lets be accurate in reporting. Clearly up to now, the length of time your ISP retains records has not been an issue with the public. > [@](#): > > Naturally, AG AG’s justification for this is fighting … terror porn, and kiddie terrorism. You think fighting terrorism and child pornography is a joke? > [@](#): > > Yeah… but… they would never look at without a warrant. Unless you’re foreign. Or send emails to foreigners. Or aren’t foreign, actually, but just trust 'em. They won’t. Honest. Yup. Take that up with the ISPs. They decide what could be turned over to authorities without a warrent. > [@](#): > > But that’s not what I’m most pissed off about at the moment. I’m most pissed off about this: > > WT-FUCKING-_FUCK_? > > So the nation’s number two law enforcement official is disseminating images of kids being fucking abused _not_ as evidence in an investigation or a court case, but to make a fucking political point to a bunch of fucking suits in a fucking _meeting_? Did Clippy go, like: > > It looks like you’re looking for pictures of children being raped, Would you like to: > [ul][li]Use a little boy getting fucked in the ass?[/li][li]Use a little girl sucking her uncle’s dick?[/li][li]Visit the NAMBLA Online Clip Art Archive?[/li][/ul] > > …or something? Bullshit. There is no report that child pornography images were disseminated at that meeting. These materials had already been disseminated by the ISPs, but that is okay by you is it ? > [@](#): > > This is like those abortion protesters with their pamphlets with that photo of a bloody fetus in a garbage bag, or the PETA shmuchks who hand out leaflets with pictures of a steer being gutted in front of Burger King. Only much, much more fucked up. I see. You compare the scourge of child pornography with abortion and meat processing :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > What a sick fuck. Actually, I’ll bet Gonzales sleeps pretty good at night knowing he’s doing the best he can fighting child pornography and terrorism. Some people might take issue with the tactic of opening a meeting designed for getting cooperation from ISPs in retaining evidence with a slide show of child porn. I think it was a brilliant move. All those executives who make their living in part by disseminating this disgusting material ought to be confronted with the evidence. You can bet there was a lot of discomfort in that room. It sort of is on par with the images of war brought forward by the present day media that are instrumental in our attitudes towards that issue. I recently viewed that famous picture of a naked burnt Vietnamese girl running up the road from a napalm blast. War is hell. Child pornography is hell. Other than the pixilated images that rarely appear in the news media, I have never seen an example of child porn. To be frank, it is an issue that only comes up when I’m confronted with a story like now. Perhaps it would be a good idea if we were all drenched with child porn pictures so that we can be mobilized to help save the children. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/39 "2006-06-03T14:08:52Z")
> [@Khan](#): > > But now we see his truly terrifying purpose. From now on, I will never write these sons of bitches off as right-wing crackpots. Their positions of power notwithstanding, **Waverly** ’s exposition of their insidious methods cannot be overlooked in favor of their apparent stupidity. I’m convinced that is the ultimate purpose. Pictures of [imaginary] mobile chemical weapons labs were followed by an invasion. Warnings about terrorists cells already operating from within our borders leads to extensive data mining of communication records. Now, shocking of evidence of child pornography will be the build up to yet more data mining of internet records. I’m sure there are other examples. When can we say “we won’t get fooled again”? This is not to say that some porn crusaders aren’t more like their enemies than they let on. It’s a classic defense mechanism allowing one to indulge in their abhorrent proclivities while maintaining a façade of riotousness. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/40 "2006-06-03T14:21:46Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > Bullshit. There is no report that child pornography images were disseminated at that meeting. These materials had already been disseminated by the ISPs, but that is okay by you is it? Actually there is. Read the fucking thread. Images were shown, not as evidence in a court of law where they belong, but as a shock tactic in front of ordinary business people. Not one fucking person here has said there are “OK” with the distribution of child porn. What they object to is the sacrifice of individual freedoms under the false pretense of fighting crime. Look, tell me something confidentially… I promise not to tell anyone else. Are you a fucking simpleton, an unabashed apologist for any conservative agenda, or do you have a legitimate personality disorder? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197.md?page=3)