On an "Ask the Pedophile" thread

About This Message Board
201

C’mon, dude, you’re smarter than this.

From comic book guy we now have a legal precedent that defines child porn as material in which no exploitation of actual children was required to produce.

If we have an Ask the Pedo thread, are you absolutely sure that the discussion won’t ever end up describing what’s sexually stimulating about children, or describing sexual acts with children, or otherwise being indistinguishable from kiddie porn storytime? Because remember, it’s no longer absolutely required that a real child was exploited to define it as bona fide kiddie porn.

So whether we agree with it or not, there is now precedent to slap Creative Loafing with a distribution charge should such a discussion happen here. Their servers would host and serve up those descriptions. Which mess will then ripple out from there. It all depends on who’s reading that day and whether that particular officer wants to use the broad definition of kiddie porn.

I agree with you that we shouldn’t have laws against “thought crimes.” Heck I always believed that the whole reason for kiddie porn laws was to prevent the exploitation of real, living children. But as of recently, we have precedent showing that this is not the case, and kiddie porn laws can include thought crimes.

Is that a risk Creative Loafing and the Board admin are willing to take? Or the people who want to participate in an Ask the Pedo thread? I’m sure as hell not willing to risk it, and if it’s allowed I will be absolutely sure I don’t click on it. (I’ll probably just stop reading the Boards entirely for a couple weeks, until, hopefully, it runs its course and sinks.)

202

I admit I’m morbidly curious about the questions and answers that would ensue, and assume that the topic would be rigorously moderated for signs of trouble or actual advocacy of illegal activity. So what the hell, why not? I’m not thrilled by his presence but maybe at last confining him to one thread would be a relief. Also, it’s simply of intellectual interest to learn something about this subject, gross or not. Looking at the underside of a rock filled with bugs isn’t pleasant, but it can have value.

That being the case, whatever decision the SDMB grand- and not-so-grand poobahs make will cause them grief. So I don’t envy them this no-win situation. Of course, it hopefully goes without saying that I have tremendous sympathy for victims of child abuse who are made uncomfortable by seeing the thread. Fortunately that’s why God and Jelsoft invented the Ignore function. If the thread really is allowed, I am sure there is no intent whatsoever to cause you pain. It is probably just the administration feel this might be a worthwhile thread.

My guess is that if it’s allowed, the thread will run its course, and that will probably be the end of Cesario.

I’m pretty sure if TubaDiva, she of the StageManager kafuffle, really thought that an actual child was in actual risk from Cesario’s presence on the board, he’d be long gone by now. The fact that he’s not indicates to me that this is not a decision they’re taking lightly, and that they genuinely, sincerely, don’t see a threat.

Personally, I don’t give a good damn if there’s some perceived hypocrisy in not being allowed to call each other ‘motherfucker’ versus possibly being allowed to have a civil discussion about one particular non-law-breaking, non-practicing pedophile. That’s besides the point to me. It’s Creative Loafing and the SDMB’s decision to allow one but not the other, or allow both, or disallow both. (And of course, you guys can decide to complain about any of the above; that’s up to you.)

I see discussions about repealing varioius laws everywhere around the SDMB. If people can handle that without civilization coming to an end or the Feds busting in on Creative Loafing’s servers, I think a single thread – perhaps confining Cesario to that single thread, invoking the Evil Captor rule – would be an interesting experiment that will harm no one. (And judging from the melodramatic reactions just to the suggestion, the thread might actually be a positive boon … at least to the manufacturers of smelling salts!)

To quote Rhode Island patriot Stephen Hopkins in the musical 1776, “I’ve never seen, heard, nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about.”

203

This is simply not a realistic concern.

204

I don’t know what else to tell you. The Handley case is not the kind of precedent you say it is, for one thing; it was a prosecution under a law that was passed in 2003. The law requires a “drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting.” So right off the bat, like I said, it’s completely beside the point. It just has nothing to do with what’s under discussion here. It’s like quoting the definition of assault in a legal context and then just changing some of it around until it applies to a message board.

The risk the board would run by allowing the new thread is not very small, it is literally zero.

205

What’s the alternative? Just gritting our teeth and looking the other way while he drops gross little turds like he did in the flirting thread?

206

When an animal shits in a room, toss the animal outside and leave it outside.

207

If the TPTB were to ban Cesario just on those grounds, I’m certain his banning wouldn’t be pointed to as grounds for another poster’s banning because they too hold an unpopular viewpoint.
Nah, that would never happen. :dubious:

I’m uncomfortably coming to the position that Cesario should be allowed to open the thread.
Because there’s a (much better than not chance) that he will step over a clear line for his banning.

CMC fnord!

208

Can we get Cesario to change his name so I am not confused with that kid shagger?

209

Honestly, when I came upon your first post in this thread, I mistook your name for Cesario’s. I’m really sorry! :frowning:

210

By the way, here’s another post where Cesario was given mod instructions for bringing up his pet topic for no particular reason. So we’re not ignoring this. On the other hand I think this is the only one of his posts that has been reported since I started moderating in GD back in November. I hadn’t realized he was still on the board.

211

Two questions for any mod or admin:
[ul]
[li]I think Fenris has brought up and excellent example in the pit thread here when Tuba’s favorite guy Stage Manager was brought up. Why was it not okay then, but it seems to be okay now? There is no consistency with the rules here. IMHO this is being tolerated because TPTB have dug in their heels and are going to continue with their little opera of “Why? Because I said soooooo!” ACT 105.[/li][/ul]

[ul]
[li] Why is he allowed to drop his pedo-bombs into threads not about pedo crap when EvilCaptor wasn’t allowed? (upon preview I see Marley is showing where he was warned AGAIN about it. How many warnings does he get for doing the same shit? When does it become an issue of “Do this again and you are out of here?” Will it be on his 10th warning or his 20th?) Why do you care so little about the rest of us that you allow him to bring up his repulsive shit where we aren’t expecting it? Is one pervert’s jollies really that much more important than the people who want to read threads without worrying about him jerking off talking about how little four year olds give him the come hither looks?[/li][/ul]
Yes, I understand that he could be completely lying about all of this. CurtisLemay could have been lying about (gasp!) vandalizing Wikipedia, but he got a suspension anyway. Professing to vandalize a website that has nothing to do with the Dope? SUSPENDED FOR A MONTH! Trying to convince everyone that it’s good for toddlers to be fucked by grown men? Okay! If that wasn’t so damn crazy it’d be hilarious.

To be honest, I understand why SmartAleq made the suggestion she made regarding reporting him but I think she was talking about it in the wrong way. Maybe instead of trying to get the Dope in legal trouble she should have encouraged people to contact CreativeLoafing to express their displeasure about it. Nothing would probably be done, but Ed/Cecil/Mr Barn House has already shown that he doesn’t give a shit about what anyone here thinks and I doubt he passes along anything to anyone higher than him because if it doesn’t matter to him, it just doesn’t matter. Maybe CreativeLoafing might care enough. Would that possibly backfire and cause the board to be too much of a hassle for them? Maybe, but it’s already turned into such a joke that it might be like putting down an old horse.

212

Well, it seems the answer to my question is that there hasn’t been any progress in deciding whether or not such a thread will be allowed.

(Also, since someone decided to bring up the fact that I missed most of the argument here, I’ll remind people that I do have a life outside this message board.)

213

[quote=“Sleeps_With_Butterflies, post:211, topic:527906”]

[li]I think Fenris has brought up and excellent example in the pit thread here when Tuba’s favorite guy Stage Manager was brought up. Why was it not okay then, but it seems to be okay now? There is no consistency with the rules here.[/li][/quote]

Because something was actually happening there, and it isn’t here. This is all talk.

[quote]
[li] Why is he allowed to drop his pedo-bombs into threads not about pedo crap when EvilCaptor wasn’t allowed?[/li][/quote]

He isn’t, and to back that up, I’ve posted four examples where he was instructed to stop bringing it up in threads that weren’t about pedophilia.

214

O boy you’ve sure shown us! You’ve shown us that you can tell him to stop and he (apparently) won’t stop and you’ll do nothing about it. Bravo! You’re like a parent who says “If you don’t clean your room you’re not going to the party Friday” and the kid doesn’t clean their room yet goes to the party anyway.

But hey, you got to show me that you’ve passed out your impotent warnings. Good for you. Thank you for backing up your statement to me. Too bad you guys can’t back up your warnings to a pedophile.

215

Tell you what: make up your mind on whether we’re allowing it or not and then get back to me.

216

No worries. I have dealt with paedaphiles from a law enforcement aspect and have no desire to be confused or associated with any of them

217

Allowing what? May I ask if you’re currently altered in some way? What is so hard to understand that people DO NOT WANT to be reading a thread about flirting only to have Captain Pervert drop his shitbombs about children and sex.

Like a Champion Mode you are you have to puff up your chest and show where he HAS been warn OVER AND OVER. Well bully for you, Marley. He’s been warned and then he ignores your warnings and does it again. So, in other words, you warn him and give him no consequences and you’re somehow… proud? of that? Seriously? “We warn him and then he pretty much says “Fuck y’all I’ll do it again” and he does do it again and we do nothing” Woohoo, you guys are a scary scary bunch

218

I trust that you are just being facetious, and not seriously contributing to this thread at this point.

219

Better be careful, he’ll give you a righteous warning and then if you ignore it he will give you another. Seriously, you’d better look out. A second warning as useless as the first is a frightening thing. Consider yourself warned.

220

It’s not hard to understand. That’s why he’s been told not to do it.

Who brought pride into it? We were talking about whether or not the mods deal with this behavior. The answer is that we do. I’ll grant you that this has happened enough that he should have been formally warned about it at least once. Even with somebody like Cesario we don’t usually keep track of regular mod notes.