Celtic actor in Alexander Keith's commercial busted for kid porn

The BBQ Pit
41

Uh… Here’s Labbat’s statement:

Of course they’re not going to keep running the ads while we wait for a verdict – that would be poison, from a marketing point of view. Nobody’s going to pay for airtime to play ads that associate their product with someone accused of being sexually deviant in a way that is almost universally condemned.

That doesn’t mean that there’s no possibility he’s totally innocent. As has been pointed out, he might be guilty of nothing more than being dumb enough to open a dodgy e-mail attachment and having his computer hijacked by a trojan. He could be “in possession” of the images and “making them available” without having a clue, if they’re hidden in some obscure folder and being served up by a stealthy process.

If that’s the case, however, it would be inept to the point of incompetence for the Toronto police to proceed with charges. I imagine that it shouldn’t be too hard to determine if the files were accessed locally during the investigation stage – so my gut feeling is that there’s something there. But people can be spectacularly incompetent, and a gut feeling isn’t the kind of thing you want to condemn someone of something this horrible on, so a wait-and-see attitude is what you want here.

42

Hell, not even “he might be innocent”; he is innocent, and will remain innocent until such time as he is found guilty, just like for everyone else who is accused of a crime.

Once he is found guilty, go right ahead. Unleash the full extent of your vituperation, and you’ll be completely justified. But the casual dispensation with the need for so quaint a formality as a fair trial in a court of law pisses me off.

43

The idea that the eigenstate vector collapses when the verdict is returned and only then is there a possibility of guilt manifesting is a little abstract for me.

If someone makes some transgression, they are guilty, even if it never comes to light at all. We have the expectation that we’ll won’t be treated as though we’re guilty unless guilt has been properly established, and have a moral obligation to extend the same presumption of innocence to others.

Sort of a silly point to argue, I guess, seeing as the practical result is the same, either way.

But in my heart I know that I’m a guilty, guilty man who’s committed inutterable crimes against society, nature, and reason, despite having (thankfully) never been called to account for them. :wink:

44

I think we can all stipulate that he’s entitled to a presumption of innocence and due process but still discuss the nature of the crime and opinions about appropriate penalties in a rhetorical/hypothetical sense.

45

As a father with a young daughter, when I hear a story like this my stomach and my head tell me different things. My head says it’s a mental illness and should be treated, criminal behavior that can tried fairly and punished accordingly. My stomach wants to pick up a pitchfork and go skewer the bastard.

You just imagine, what if my kid was abused, and even with the abuse behind her, for the rest of time these assholes will be sending digital photos of her pain and humiliation and get off on it? Yep, that’s a thought that makes me wonder where I’ve put my pitchfork.

46

This depends. If he were personally involved with the production of these photographs I’d say lock him up and throw away the key. But for the mere possession of photos of an illegal act I think the legal punishments may be too excessive. The Zapruder film showed a criminal act. The videos of the planes flying into the twin towers captured an illegal act too. So merely having a photograph of a crime isn’t a crime in and of itself.

I know the main argument against making child porn illegal is that it further victimizes the child. I think that is valid to some extent. But mostly we are talking about thought crime here. No matter how despicable it may be, this is basically a thought crime we’re punishing.

47

I have to admit, I can’t come down on the side of “no punishment is too harsh” for looking at a photo.

Yes, it might be a photo of a crime in progress. So might the porn sites of bondage, “trust us it’s real!!!1!” rape, inter-racial sex (heck, it’s probably illegal somewhere), hypnosis, chloroform, kidnaping, and so forth. They might also be simulated, clever fakes.

And I may have stuff cached on my computer, or in my house, that might show a crime in progress that I’m not wise enough to detect. I’ll just turn all my stuff over to the cops and let them decide, shall I?

It seems as if some feel that participating in the demand-side should be illegal because perusing child porn photos leads to child abuse. Diogenes said that drawings and text wouldn’t count. But might they too not lead to photographs, which lead to abuse? How far back does the enabling chain go, how far back does ultimate punishment stretch?

Something for those people seems miswired, and as long as we continue to make them feel secretive and shunned, make them act guilty and deceptive, we’re not going to actually save any children. I don’t believe the demand is caused by child porn photos, it’s caused by nature somehow. We can rid the world of naughty pictures of children and still not rid the world of pedophilia, I think.

This seems like a sick and sad and wrong comparison to make, but when heroin creates addicts we cannot easily cure, sometimes we have clean needle programs for them. That might reduce the spread of disease (such as HIV) and prevent other people from being needlessly hurt. We also cannot cure kiddie porn lovers; can we supply them with something hurt- and crime-free — say, CGI — so they do not harm any real people?

48

Some people are suggesting that perhaps he inadvertently got a virus or trojan that downloaded child porn in the background while he wasn’t aware of it. As a computer programmer, I can definitely attest that that is possible, but has it ever happened? I’m sure every person who gets caught with it on his hard drive will claim to have no knowledge of it, but are there any documented cases of this? Why would you make such a program? To get back at someone by ruining their reputation? I know it’s possible, but it seems far-fetched to me that it ever actually happens.

49

Also, in many jurisdictions, “simple posession” of CP is itself illegal. Not the same crime as child rape, but still illegal.

As mentioned above, when you obtain files thru a fileshare system such as eMule, as you download you are simultaneously relaying pieces of the file to others on the network (as opposed to when you download from a Usenet newsgroup). The P2P nets are the current main home of CP, after Usenet became spammed/stung into uselessness

You are right, it is not so straightforward. However IIRC as recently as the last two or three years there were raids in locations like Belarus and Ukraine of “teen modelling” agencies that were really fronts for commercial-scale CP production, (apparently not “pictures of perv raping child” but rather “pictures of children in the style of Penthouse pictorials”). Making a profit off of it enabled them to do it more often to more kids. So there’s some of one and some of the other.

I guess if I were sure it’s absolutely artificial sim, it would become a matter of tastes, just as other formats of porn that each may see as disgusting or demeaning or “way too kinky for me” due to subject matter or idiom. I have a hard time with the notion that there are mere thoughts that just cannot be allowed to be had (as long as they are not acted upon – if I’m in a jury I don’t want to hear “the smut made me do it”)

OTOH at least in the case of the US Congress, their take on “realistic” CGI sim-CP as of today is that they’re against it See here. One of the arguments being that at some point it will be hard to tell if we’ve got a CG created ab-nullo in the software, or one morphed from a sampled image of a real victim (c&p or morphing of real children’s images into a porn pic being itself already illegal).

50

I can’t provide a cite, but I believe that someone in the U.K. escaped conviction last year because the prosecution couldn’t prove that this wasn’t the case.

51

Yes, there have been numerous documented cases of this happening, not just with child pornography, but with all manner of illegal (and sometimes legal) materials. There’s no specific program to do it, but a remote admin/trojan program can be used to install an configure a stealth-mode web/ftp server for any number of reasons. The simplest reason is that some people would rather use other people’s bandwidth than pay for their own. If you want to share around large, copyrighted files, like pirated movies or software, having them located on someone else’s property is an attractive idea, in case the copyright owner gets pissed off. If you want to share child pornography, it’s very attractive to have it located somewhere that can’t be easily connected directly to you.

There was a case a couple of years ago involving an (otherwise legal) pay porn site that was hosted almost entirely on hijacked computers. It had a pretty sophisticated way of automatically switching things around on the main site so that all the actual content was hosted on hundreds of hijacked computers, which had been compromised by a purpose-built worm. If computers became unavailable (due to them being turned off or cleaned up) the site would automatically reroute its requests to another computer containing the same content, and everything was load-balanced to try to make it less obvious that people’s computers were being used this way.

52

The only think I could fine was this.

It has links to stories about two case where suspects were infected with Torjans, as well as a link to a story about a Russian-born US resident who “said he was forced to confess to child pornography offences on the basis of material he claims may have been deposited on his PC by a browser-hijacking program.” Though there are some doubts about this case.

53

Though not as many as my spelling.

55

Yea, but what I was asking for cites to and what bup suprisingly provided, is that there are apparently some jurisdictions that are trying to impose an affirmative duty to report. I knew that such duty could be imposed on health care workers, emergency personell, and county city and state employees under various principals. But I did not know that such a duty could be imposed on all people generally such as the statute bup linked to.

I thought that the right of free speech included the right not to speak. I find it hard to believe that if I walk by a parked car and see a perv looking at kiddie porn and fail to report it to the authorities that I could be subject to prosecution. Ofcourse simple possesion is prosecutable, but apparently even accidently glimpsing without reporting is a crime. I doubt such statutes can withstand constitutional muster.

I could be wrong, I am often.

57

Hey veb do I get a cookie? You know what I am talking about. Can I spot em or what?

58

Provided you have them enabled one will be placed on your hard drive in recognition of your service.

59

It is sick to desire pre-pubescent children for sex. Now, if he was only looking at vidoes of a 17yo Traci Lords in a porno tape, then that’s perfectly normal, even if possibly illegal.

60

I agree. Porn is adult entertainment created by consenting adults.

This is evidence of a crime, an assault, a victim, and non-consensual activities. Even if not downloaded for mastubatory use, it’s evidence of a crime and as such, should be used to help find perpetrators, not SIT on a harddrive.

I am all for it, whether I am into it or not, if it is consensual. Once you put the “non” in front of that word, though; it becomes a wholly different topic.

For the record - children are incapable of giving consent, as are animals, dead people, etc. Just so all the illegalities are covered, as well as my ass.

In my job, I look at a lot of adult entertainment sites (oh, woe is me…) but if I see anything which remotely resembles child pornography, you can make DAMN sure I report it to everyone I know.

Respectfully,

Inky

61

Thanks matt_mcl for reminding us of the way the legal system is meant to work.

I had reason to be upbraided recently by a friend for the exact same reaction here. A popular and talented comedy actor in the UK is facing similar charges, and I was ranting about him being a pervert who could rot as far as I was concerned. I was arguing that possession of child porn images is a binary thing: the cops can either arrest due to evidence, or not. My friend rightly argued that, even if this is the case, there were many reasons, however unlikely, that the images could have got on the computer without intent.

I had to re-think. Second to terrorism, child abuse is regarded as the worst thing in society these days, and should someone innocent be charged, their reputation is essentially ruined for the rest of their life, regardless of their innocence (Pete Townshend, for example). It’s well that we allow room for doubt through the proper legal channels, however emotive the subject.

62

For what it’s worth, the cover story in this week’s Parade magazine (Sunday supplement in some newspapers) is about child pornography.