# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/41 "2006-06-03T14:38:04Z")
I can see the internet getting a lot slower for a lot of people as ISPs stop running proxy servers. “I’m sorry, Mr G-man, but we don’t run a proxy server service so we have no records to give you.” ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/42 "2006-06-03T14:45:36Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > The title of this thread while eye catching is slanderous, false See…um…the point is…how do you know it’s false? I’m sure you recall the way it worked when they caught that writer with pics of kiddie porn on his computer, and convicted the hell out of him. He _claimed_ to be writing an expose and fighting child porn. Certainly could have been what he was doing, but that’s not how the courts saw it. The general default position in America for those poor bastards who happen not to be in possession of Special Rights, as the current administration fancies it is, is: have pics of naked kids = you ARE a child molester. SHOW pics of naked kids = you ARE a child pornographer. When the standard Straight Dope threads wishing death to child molesters and chil pornographers came up in the past, did you step in and say “Wait a minute, we ought to assume these people are fighting against this! I’ll bet they sleep well at night!” I’m guessing you didn’t. Probably because those poor slobs weren’t Special Rights people. So we’ve established that the thread title meets the standard used in the American dialogue and on the STright Dope for being a child pornographer – he had pictures, he showed them, he claims to have some legitimate reason, but we never give credit to ythose claims. Is the title of the thread inflammatory, despite being (as just shown) esentially accurate? No more inflammatory, for sure, than calling the post “slanderous”. Looks like a tie to me. > [@](#): > > 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. Eh. You are surely aware the AG can already get the cooperation of those people for that purpose at any time byvisiting a judge and obtaiing a warrant, right? So this meeting wasn’t “designed for getting cooperation” since that can already be done. This meeting was designed for bypassing the warrant requirement. You know, that nasty 4th amendment. Think it through, we’ll help you. Sailboat ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/43 "2006-06-03T19:22:33Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > Take that up with the ISPs. They decide what could be turned over to authorities without a warrent. Well, you see, part of the problem is that the rather obvious step 2 will be to make it so they CAN’T choose what to hand over or not. Today, an ISP can honestly answer _“but we DON’T gather and keep all that information, nor do we keep what we do for that long”_ if asked to assist in a broad fishing expedition, and they can’t be accused of maliciously not cooperating. The display of KP was indeed a brilliant pitch move. An act of crass emotional blackmail: “Prove you’re not in favor of this, by going along with us. There’s no possible reservation you may have when THIS is on the line!” ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/44 "2006-06-03T19:35:01Z")
> [@KGS](#): > > For what it’s worth, I’ve never even heard of this Gonzales guy before. You’ve never heard of the _Attorney General of the United States_ before? ---
**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, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/45 "2006-06-03T19:35:58Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > 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. Oh sweet Jesus. :rolleyes: First of all, there’s a lot more to the Internet than Kiddy Porn. (Monkey Porn, for instance.) In addition, Internet Service Providers are [already indemnified from providing illicit content](http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/p/d/pdw902/): (emphasis mine) > [@](#): > > **Information content providers:** > Any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or developement of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service. > > If the ISP does not create the debated content on a website, and merely provides the access to the site to their customers, they will not be held liable. However, if they create or aid in the creation of the content, they may be held accountable. > > The landmark case Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 958 F. Supp. 1124 (E.D.Va. 1997)" was the first to interpret Section 230, the provision which immunizes interactive service providers from liablility for communication by users or members of the service. The underlined section is important – ISPs cannot be held accountable _as long as they do not actively censor their content._ If they _do_ proactively censor certain websites, message boards, chat rooms, newsgroups, email attachments, AIM’s, etc. for salacious material, then they ARE potentially liable for the stuff that slips through the cracks. (The law is mainly designed for more pertinent issues like copyright infringement, libel & slander, etc.) > [@](#): > > 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. Bullshit. Kiddy porn ain’t the problem. Child molesters aren’t even the problem. It’s the ultimate red herring…yes, sometimes shocking cases like Polly Klass & Elizabeth Smart happen, but they are _extremely_ rare. What’s far more common – in fact, it’s virtually endemic – is the ongoing psychological abuse of children performed by their PARENTS. Treating them like private property, failing to validate their emotions, eschewing parental responsibility, leaving it up to MTv and the Internet to raise their kids, then whining and complaning when they start piercing their noses and listening to Marilyn Manson. ---
**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, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/46 "2006-06-03T19:41:01Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > 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. Oh sweet Jesus. :rolleyes: First of all, there’s a lot more to the Internet than Kiddy Porn. (Monkey Porn, for instance.) In addition, Internet Service Providers are [already indemnified from providing illicit content](http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/p/d/pdw902/): (emphasis mine) > [@](#): > > **Information content providers:** > Any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or developement of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service. > > If the ISP does not create the debated content on a website, and merely provides the access to the site to their customers, they will not be held liable. However, if they create or aid in the creation of the content, they may be held accountable. > > The landmark case Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 958 F. Supp. 1124 (E.D.Va. 1997)" was the first to interpret Section 230, the provision which immunizes interactive service providers from liablility for communication by users or members of the service. The underlined section is important – ISPs cannot be held accountable _as long as they do not actively censor their content._ If they _do_ proactively censor certain websites, message boards, chat rooms, newsgroups, email attachments, AIM’s, etc. for salacious material, then they ARE potentially liable for the stuff that slips through the cracks. (The law is mainly designed for more pertinent issues like copyright infringement, libel & slander, etc.) > [@](#): > > 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. Bullshit. Kiddy porn ain’t the problem. Child molesters aren’t even the problem. It’s the ultimate red herring…yes, sometimes shocking cases like Polly Klass & Elizabeth Smart happen, but they are _extremely_ rare. What’s far more common – in fact, it’s virtually endemic – is the ongoing psychological abuse of children performed by their PARENTS. Treating them like private property, failing to validate their emotions, eschewing parental responsibility, leaving it up to MTv and the Internet to raise their kids, then whining and complaning when they start piercing their noses and listening to Marilyn Manson. ---
**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, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/47 "2006-06-03T23:28:09Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > 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. These are not ordinary business people. these are people who provide the avenue for the distribution of child pornography. > [@](#): > > Not one fucking person here has said there are “OK” with the distribution of child porn.[ I never , never implied that. > [@](#): > > What they object to is the sacrifice of individual freedoms under the false pretense of fighting crime. Its a pretense , not a false pretense > [@](#): > > 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? Look you asshole, I take this child pornography problem very, very seriously. More fucking seriously than your right to hide from your federal government. ---
**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, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/48 "2006-06-03T23:39:36Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > T > 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. And you’d be ok with it if these were pictures of you as a child being molested? Or of your own child or other loved one? I find it unlikely they tracked down the kids in these pictures and secured their consent. ---
**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, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/49 "2006-06-03T23:41:44Z")
> [@KGS](#): > > Oh sweet Jesus. :rolleyes: First of all, there’s a lot more to the Internet than Kiddy Porn. Big fucking deal. I’m opposed to the war in Iraq as well, but I’m well aware there’s a lot more to America than its involvement in Iraq. > [@](#): > > (Monkey Porn, for instance.) In addition, Internet Service Providers are [already indemnified from providing illicit content](http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/p/d/pdw902/): (emphasis mine) > The underlined section is important – ISPs cannot be held accountable _as long as they do not actively censor their content._ If they _do_ proactively censor certain websites, message boards, chat rooms, newsgroups, email attachments, AIM’s, etc. for salacious material, then they ARE potentially liable for the stuff that slips through the cracks. (The law is mainly designed for more pertinent issues like copyright infringement, libel & slander, etc.) Big fucking deal. What’s your point? I’ve never promoted legal action against ISPs. Getting their cooperation against the purveyors and recipients of kiddie porn is a legitimate objective for a law enforcement agency. > [@](#): > > Bullshit. Kiddy porn ain’t the problem. Child molesters aren’t even the problem. It’s the ultimate red herring…yes, sometimes shocking cases like Polly Klass & Elizabeth Smart happen, but they are _extremely_ rare. What’s far more common – in fact, it’s virtually endemic – is the ongoing psychological abuse of children performed by their PARENTS. Treating them like private property, failing to validate their emotions, eschewing parental responsibility, leaving it up to MTv and the Internet to raise their kids, then whining and complaning when they start piercing their noses and listening to Marilyn Manson. This is the most stupid statement that I’ve ever come across in my entire life. ---
**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, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/50 "2006-06-03T23:49:38Z")
> [@Manda JO](#): > > And you’d be ok with it if these were pictures of you as a child being molested? Or of your own child or other loved one? I find it unlikely they tracked down the kids in these pictures and secured their consent. **Manda JO** , the issues you raise are mild compared to devastation wrought by pornographers. Absolutely, if I was the object of a child pornography video being used against these assholes, there is no question that my cooperation would be given. I might add that Gonzales did not use the internet to display this child pornography. I would draw the line there. ---
**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, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/51 "2006-06-03T23:59:34Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > **Manda JO** , the issues you raise are mild compared to devastation wrought by pornographers. Absolutely, if I was the object of a child pornography video being used against these assholes, there is no question that my cooperation would be given. I might add that Gonzales did not use the internet to display this child pornography. I would draw the line there. Right, but having the chance to agree to cooperate to say, helping train people or something, is different than finding out after the fact that a political figure used your pictures as a rhetorical device. And I would suspect he got the photos OFF the internet. They were examples of what was avalible, presumably. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/52 "2006-06-04T00:30:41Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > These are not ordinary business people. these are people who provide the avenue for the distribution of child pornography. Right. They’re ISPs. You’re dealing with one, or you wouldn’t be posting here. Therefore you’re helping to support someone who provides the avenue… > [@](#): > > Its a pretense , not a false pretense. In other words, American freedoms mean nothing to you as long as we’re “fighting crime”? > [@](#): > > Look you asshole, I take this child pornography problem very, very seriously. More fucking seriously than your right to hide from your federal government. The Government has the power to decide it wants to know anything and everything it chooses to about you? You chose your name well, Mr. Vandervecken – you are certainly not anyone I or any other person would want to claim as a compatriot, if that is how you feel. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/53 "2006-06-04T00:31:04Z")
> [@KGS](#): > > 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? On its face, this display has no relationship to the narrowly-carved exemption to the child porn laws permitting such collection and use of evidence. If the facts are as advertised, lock 'im up. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/54 "2006-06-04T00:33:06Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > 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. Well, yeah, I do sort of take issue with a high-level law enforcement official violating the law. Duh. ---
**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 4, 2006, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/55 "2006-06-04T00:53:39Z")
> [@KGS](#): > > When someone titles a thread **“Alberto Gonzales: Child Pornographer”** , that’s a direct allegation, don’tcha think? Well, sure…but it isn’t the allegation that you were accusing them of making. You said > [@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! Now, perhaps you weren’t accusing the OP of this, but it sure sounded like it. If I am wrong, I will certainly apologise. But I don’t see where your note of the OP’s thread title (“Alberto Gonzales: Child Pornographer”) automatically parses into “Alberto Gonzales: Child Molester” (which you seem to be implying that it does). Maybe I’m missing something (Og knows, it’s happened before). I don’t have much of an opinion over the ISP issue, so I won’t comment on that. Let’s face it: ISP’s don’t care what I think, anyway. > [@Manda Jo](#): > > And you’d be ok with it if these were pictures of you as a child being molested? Or of your own child or other loved one? I find it unlikely they tracked down the kids in these pictures and secured their consent. I don’t have an issue with you, just to get that out of the way. I certainly respect others’ opinions, because I would like them to respect mine. That being said, I’d STILL like to see some proof that kiddie porn is molestation _by definition_. Sure, that’s how it CAN happen, but if we are going to unilaterally condemn it on that basis, then it damned well better be true all of the time (and not just because we say so). One of the problems that _I_ have with the universal hatred of child pornography is that it is predicated upon the believe that it is ALWAYS harmful to the child…which is true (I will grant you) in our current culture, but NOT exclusively because of the activity itself (as far as I know). Our social condemnation of it does as much (if not more) to traumatize the children as anything, yet we don’t seem to care anything about that. If we care at all about our kids, then we SHOULD. > [@](#): > > I find it unlikely they tracked down the kids in these pictures and secured their consent. I find it unlikely, too. So, if the pornographers are at fault for exploiting these children and not getting their consent, then why isn’t the AG? I think THAT’S the question being asked here. > [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > Manda JO, the issues you raise are mild compared to devastation wrought by pornographers. A cite for that would be nice (not that I’m arguing with you, but “Fighting Ignorance” and all). I don’t get the impression that the “devastation wrought by pornographers” is entirely their fault. Our objection as a society has to play a part, and should take its responsibility…but it doesn’t. I suspect it won’t anytime soon, either. ---
**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 4, 2006, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/56 "2006-06-04T01:00:37Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Right. They’re ISPs. You’re dealing with one, or you wouldn’t be posting here. Therefore you’re helping to support someone who provides the avenue… There is an assumption on your part that I’m making a moral judgement on these ISPs. I’m not. All I’m saying in the context of the OP that enlisting their participation in ferreting out child molesters is a legitimate objective. > [@](#): > > In other words, American freedoms mean nothing to you as long as we’re “fighting crime”? So which freedom would you suggest I’m willing to sacrifice? The freedom to diddle a child ? > [@](#): > > The Government has the power to decide it wants to know anything and everything it chooses to about you? Hopefully yes if a judge is convinced enough to provide a warrant. > [@](#): > > You chose your name well, Mr. Vandervecken – you are certainly not anyone I or any other person would want to claim as a compatriot, if that is how you feel. I never said I was a saint. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/57 "2006-06-04T01:11:12Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > So which freedom would you suggest I’m willing to sacrifice? The freedom to diddle a child ? You **are** an asshole, aren’t you? Even the most diligent defender of the Bush Administration, save you, has been willing to concede that it’s quite unlikely that the Justice Department will restrict its ability to research what it likes from ISP records to simply the ferreting out of child pornography. And personally, I’d find it very unlikely that Mr. Gonzalez’s staff will have the moral stamina to refrain from snooping around to find what they can find – such as means to play dirty tricks on their political opponents? In any case, you have effectively poisoned the well, there. Obviously, the only possible reason why any person might not want any governmental official who so chooses to browse at random through his or her Internet use is because they’re fixing to commit underage sex. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/58 "2006-06-04T01:21:07Z")
> [@Dijon Warlock](#): > > That being said, I’d STILL like to see some proof that kiddie porn is molestation _by definition_. Sure, that’s how it CAN happen, but if we are going to unilaterally condemn it on that basis, then it damned well better be true all of the time (and not just because we say so). One of the problems that _I_ have with the universal hatred of child pornography is that it is predicated upon the believe that it is ALWAYS harmful to the child…which is true (I will grant you) in our current culture, but NOT exclusively because of the activity itself (as far as I know). Our social condemnation of it does as much (if not more) to traumatize the children as anything, yet we don’t seem to care anything about that. I am assuming that we are talking about photographic or video records of acts that would qualify as sexual assult of a minor–not sketches or written erotica or anything. The issue isn’t whether or not the picture is molestation–it’s a record of the molestation that is the issue. You want to discuss what degrees and types of contact and behavior ought to count as “molestation”, debate away. You don’t need photos to point at and say “ok, should this here be illegal? What if his hand was two inces to the left?” > [@](#): > > I find it unlikely, too. So, if the pornographers are at fault for exploiting these children and not getting their consent, then why isn’t the AG? He should be. That’s my point. Images of children being humilated should not be used to make _a rhetorical point_. That, in and of itself, is a violation of privacy that is ironic when coming from someone who would have us believe he takes privacy very seriously. ---
**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 4, 2006, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/59 "2006-06-04T01:23:07Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > You **are** an asshole, aren’t you? That was real Christlike **Polycrap** :rolleyes: ---
**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 4, 2006, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197/60 "2006-06-04T01:45:26Z")
> [@Manda JO](#): > > I am assuming that we are talking about photographic or video records of acts that would qualify as sexual assult of a minor–not sketches or written erotica or anything. The issue isn’t whether or not the picture is molestation–it’s a record of the molestation that is the issue. You want to discuss what degrees and types of contact and behavior ought to count as “molestation”, debate away. You don’t need photos to point at and say “ok, should this here be illegal? What if his hand was two inces to the left?” That seems (IMHO) to be part of the problem here. Sure, I’m going to object to documentable proof of “acts that would qualify as sexual assault of a minor,” because I object to sexual assault on _anybody_. The law, however, doesn’t quite see it that way, and that’s where I’m in a slight disagreement with them (and possibly you…but only possibly). Just because a participant in sex is a child doesn’t automatically mean they’re being abused, IMHO. Society feels otherwise, of course…but I’d sure like to hear a legitimate rationale for that. I don’t personally believe that age should be the defining metric of abuse. From my perspective, eliminate the age factor: is it still wrong? If not, then not. If so, then so. The arguments in favor of age-related descrimination don’t seem to hold water, to me. > [@](#): > > He should be. That’s my point. Images of children being humilated should not be used to make _a rhetorical point_. That, in and of itself, is a violation of privacy that is ironic when coming from someone who would have us believe he takes privacy very seriously. I agree with this. Children should NOT be exploited, _regardless_ of which side of this debate you are on. That’s where (IMHO) AG made his mistake: He seems to think that exploiting children is wrong, except when HE does it. I call bullshit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzales-child-pornographer/359197.md?page=4)