From the Toronto Star . Rot in hell you prick. He had a good gig going with those beer commercials and now everyone including his agent has dropped him like the pile of crap he is. The search warrant executed on his computer found pictures that featured pre-pubescent children participating in vaginal, anal, and oral sex with adults. His entire world has just imploded because of his sick prediliction.
While I don’t know who he is, I agree that he should rot.
The content of this is clearly the Pit, not Cafe Society. Cafe Society is for discussion of art and entertainment, and this is pretty obviously real-life condemnation (hence the Pit) rather than a discussion of his acting (whence Cafe Society.)
As an aside, the use of less than formal language is not what’s causing this move. It’s the topic, not the wording.
From the article:
I’ve never heard of this guy or seen these commercials but no punishment could be harsh enough.
They should tack on a few hundred hundred years just for making those fucking commercials!!!
Seriously though, taking away a childs innocence is about the worst thing you can do to a kid. If he’s guilty (it looks like he is…but innocent until proven guilty and all that) I hope he spends a long time thinking about it.
“Those who like it, like it a lot.” However, it’s totally distasteful to everyone else.
Keith’s, kiddie porn. Whatever.
As young as one year old? Christ.
Two things,
I don’t think a 1 year old will remember anything, as long as there is no further abuse.
I also don’t think ‘no punishment could be harsh enough’’ for looking at pictures. From how I read the article, he is just looking at them. They are not pictures of himself and a child. He did not have sex with a child. He is just looking at pictures.
Memory doesn’t matter. Early childhood trauma causes permanent physical changes in the brain. It leaves a physiological “imprint” which continues to cause emotional problems well into adulthood. It doesn’t matter if the infant/child remembers anything or not. Trauma changes brain chemistry.
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/brain.html
http://www.childtrauma.org/ctamaterials/ptsd_child.asp
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/focus/earlybrain/earlybraind.cfm
I was severely physically abused as an infant. I don’t remember any of it but it fucked me up for years and I still have some issues with it now, almost 40 years later.
Still, no punishment harsh enough for looking at a photo?
Not as far as I’m concerned. It’s no different than obtaining a snuff film. He possesses photographic evidence of a brutal crime against an infant and instead of giving it to law enforcement he masturbates to it. This is not a person who has any business walking around in the sunshine for the rest of his life.
You are only assuming that he jerks off to it. Even if he does, I think a life sentence for having weird taste in porn is too harsh.
What should happen to people who hide photographic evidence of children being raped?
I’m a bit ambivalent about this. On the one hand, I agree that “no punishment could be harsh enough” doesn’t really apply in this case. (Or any case, really. I can’t really think of any crime, no matter how horrific, for which, say, disembowelling and pouring caustic soda directly onto the internal organs would have a place in any society I care to take part in.)
That being said, “just looking at pictures” sounds a little dismissive. Using child pornography for personal gratification and participating in its dissemination is an action with aggregate consequences. It is participating in the abuse.
Of course, abuse takes place anyway – but the demand for child pornography creates more abuse. Some children are abused because a lone freak can’t help themself, and some are exploited for profit.
I object to calling it “porn,” by the way. It may be used that way by some people but I think calling “weird porn” conceals the fact that these are photographs of sex crimes.
Essentially this is where I sit. If he were just looking at hand drawn pictures that’s one thing but these aren’t.
I agree. What he fantasizes about isn’t the point and if it was drawings or text I wouldn’t say he should be punished. I just think that we need to remember that all of these photographs are photographs of crimes. They are evidence, not just sick porn.
By the way, my “no punishmnent could be harsh enough” statement was a bit of reflexive hyperbole. I’m emphatically not in favor of torture or execution but I have no problem at all with a long prison sentence.
That’s all I wanted to hear DtC. I think the world has enough people who think “That Image is so offensive that someone must burn for it.”
There are plenty of people who witness crimes but do not come forth. If he was indeed distrubuting the images as well, that adds to his sentence.
How many people have Tub Girl on their hard drive? That’s weird porn.
His computer may have been hijacked and was being used as a server by someone else. He may be just wondering why his computer is so slow.
Let’s give him a trial first shall we? And then, if he is guilty, he’ll spend some time behind bars.
It’s also not a photograph of a crime.
Could we at least have the pretense that he gets to go to trial first?
Afterwards, assuming he’s found or pleads guilty, have at it. But it annoys me when people hear about someone’s arrest and go off about what a horrible criminal they are. There’s a missing step in there, folks.