Max Power Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Strange to judge really? And I don't condone child pornography at all.There is a thing called curiosity of which we are all guilty. Nobody knows what is in the mind of someone when they view things so are we entitled to judge on circumstance? In this case, I think it's justified. The man didn't casually find some child porn on the net, he subscribed to a child porn site. He paid someone to provide the pictures, thus contributing to the problem. The whole thing is tackled from the wrong end and fairly innocuous people are being locked up for mere titilation or curiosity. It probably prevents them from actually commiting more serious offences?? Did you really say that? Well yes, I think there are various degrees of seriousness and levels of criminality. The law seems to treat everyone the same as though they all are a serious danger to humanity! The real criminals are the producers of this stuff as usual!! These criminals wouldn't produce the stuff if there wasn't consumers. The consumers are providing the funds that make the exploitation worth while. I can't understand how a site can operate and collect funds via credit cards without being traced and closed down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I can't understand how a site can operate and collect funds via credit cards without being traced and closed down? That's exactly what happened. They then got the list of subscribers and knocked on their doors too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=^..^= Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 That's exactly what happened. They then got the list of subscribers and knocked on their doors too. If you had read the article I linked to you would have seen that Operation Ore was based upon flawed data - stolen credit card details were used to subscribe to all sorts of porn sites which the payment processing agency made a fee from. Many of the sites did not actually exist and others were set up just to use in this fraud. The article I read a month or so ago was in printed format (so unfortunately I can't send you a link) but indicated that Peter Townsend was forced into making a press statement or be locked up. Bearing in mind that this was 4 years ago and credit card fraud on the internet was not as widely publicised as it is now and that people were less 'enlightened' about C/C theft than we are today it is not hard to paint a picture where someone might manufacturer mitigating circumstances to something that they couldn't understand how they could defend themselves against. What would you do ? Defend yourself knowing you are innocent (think about the rape allogations againts Craig Charles - a man who was pretty much at the peak of his career when he was falsely accused) or try to deflect it and take a lesser punishment. In fact the very first paragraph of the article says such as the musicians Pete Townshend, the Who guitarist, and Robert del Naja of Massive Attack, both falsely accused of accessing child pornography. Who knows the actual truth though? Probably only Peter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.