Out and Proud Pedophiles

The way there are faux johns who catch prostitutes in the act, you mean? The way there are cops that go undercover and catch men and women who are trying to pay someone to kill their spouse?

Really? You have statistics on this?

I'm sure Hitler made the same argument about the Jews.

No, I just believe that no one's rights should be violated unless they have committed an actual crime. Due process should be extended to EVERYONE, regardless of their moral integrity.

The perverts at Perverted Justice aren't cops, though. It's one thing for a cop to lure possible kiddy-diddlers in, but another for a vigilante group to do so, and for Chris Hansen to televise it.

Sorry, I thought you meant that his website was linking to websites with actual pictures. That is a different issue entirely, and more reprehensible than simply linking to the sites. It's quite obviously a violation of the girls' privacy for him to do something like that. But his site was probably hosted outside the US.

Aw, how noble of you. You should be a lawyer.

It was hosted by Network Solutions for two years until the complainers finally got media attention and Perverted Justice got alerted to it.

Did you just compare Jews to pedophiles? :flow2:

Good lord.

Eesh... don't even want to put my mouse NEAR those links.

Honestly, I'd prefer that those links not even exist as clicking them accidentally could have serious reprecussions.

Unlike basically EVERYTHING else on the net... that type of content is actually dangerous to view.

Treated.

No, I compared Anna to Hitler.

Kill em all!!!

No, I want pedophiles locked up for starting websites where they go on about how much they love committing crimes, and how they look forward to committing more crimes in the future. This is more than thinking.

If I publicly announced my intent to blow up the mall, I'd get locked up. If you started a website about your desire and intent to kill sitting American Presidents, you'd get locked up. How is this different?

For better or for worse, the right to free speech and freedom of association does and should trump the potential harm to kids until it becomes some form of actual harm.

Since many people's ideas of "help" involves a bullet to the brain or some other form of vigilante justice, I'd have to say no. I would not be averse to some forms of monitoring the site and/or the people who participate at them, particularly with court order in hand.

However, other forms might go to far. I would hate, for example, to think that I would be subject to such monitoring because I did click on the links that Tamar provided.

Even as disgusting as pedophilia is, alleged kiddy fiddlers do get the same presumption of innocence as the rest of us.

Let's apply that reasoning to other potential crimes.

Anyone who is a self-admitted drinker should be monitored and helped before they go through with driving under the influence or reckless homicide.

Anyone who is a self-admitted gun enthusiast should be monitored before they shoot someone, intentionally or accidentally.

Anyone who makes phone calls should have their lines tapped so they don't make obscene calls.

The main difference is we all find the behavior of pedophiles repulsive whereas we all engage in the other behaviors I've listed or know innocent people who do.

I can't approve of the cops allowing lynch mobs for any reason. History has shown no good can come of that.

What if the law changed to make supporting pedophilia a crime?

Not to go too much on a race-based soapbox, but I really don't understand why a person of color would support the denial of due process in the criminal justice system, given the history of that system.

:flow2:

You can be any of these things without harming anyone. Liking booze or guns is somewhat different than liking kids sexually.

What form of pedophilia is innocent? In what way can this be expressed that isn't potentially harmful to a segment of the population unequipped to protect themselves?

Jack already goes out and takes pictures of kids..getting close to them and rating their assets..basically lusting after them.

Where is the line of freedom of speech and privacy and inappropriate behavior that is actionable? Must a child's life always be fucked up in order to take care of the problem?

When someone starts talking about committing suicide, do we ignore them until they act on it or do we try and stop them from taking the action?

According to the Supreme Court, the fine line is when it's illustrations ( such as sketches or paintings or computer generated) or when it's an expression of a fantasy, as long as no child is actually being harmed. One of the big problems that was addressed was that the definition in the proposed legislation was too boradly defined so the Supreme Court shut it down.

Is it harm to take a child's picture without their or their parent's or guardian's knowledge and put it on the internet in a place specifically meant for people sexually attracted to children to get tips?

Legally, I don't know. However, he can't use those pictures without specific permission from the parents.

A lawer can answer that better than I can though.

Apparently it hasn't been enough for authorities to do anything about him.

I don't understand how you'd even compare the two, as I'm sure you're a father yourself.

Yeah, I really want a bunch of Internet Vigilantes with an entitlement complex doing the jobs of law enforcement.

But simply being a pedophile isn't harming anyone, unless the pedophile acts on his attraction to children. How is saying "I'm a pedophile" harmful to anyone but the person who admits it?

Would you lock someone up who admits to being depressed? Because both depression and pedophilia are considered mental disorders, and have the potential to harm others.

I agree that if they commit the crime, they should indeed be tried in a court of law. But once again, simply being a pedophile shouldn't be (and I don't think it is) a crime unless one acts on it.

Legally? Yes...although it's considered a civil matter...


...Until someone makes money doing it.

"If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech."

Mob justice!

Worked for that man they beat to death at that Juneteenth celebration a while back. Everybody knew he just 'saved' the child from traffic for himself!

You can't treat humans like animals; that's not civilization and it just leads to humans acting like animals. You don't want your kids getting molested, keep an eye on them! Raise them right! Just like preventing other crimes - if you don't want your stuff getting stolen, don't give thieves the opportunity.

Speech is not a crime, and I'm not in favor of preemptive punishment, but if I walk around proclaiming my desire to murder people I don't like, it is not an infringement of my rights when everyone starts keeping an eye on me.

Like I said, the main difference is that we know people or are people who like booze or guns.

If it makes the analogy work better for you, then try this one:

Anyone who is a self-admitted porn user should be monitored and helped so that they don't rape or sexually harass others.

We wouldn't stand for such an intervention in such cases because we respect the rights of porn users, gun fans and casual drinkers until they actually cross the line.

If someone is in their home and they prefer jacking off to stories about little girls or computer-generated images of fictional little boys or using boy or girl blowup dolls, no one is harmed.

Even as disgusting as this Jack's behavior is, if he were to do so solely for his own enjoyment and got the kid's permission, I don't see how the child's life would be fucked up.

The chance of the child's being affected in anyway only comes from Jack publishing the photos, causing embarassment that pedophiles find the child hot (or not), and possibly creating a situation where another pedophile is unable to restrain himself.

I don't know where Jack is located, but I'd imagine that he has freedom to take people's pictures in public places and publish them, even if his intent for doing so is unsavory.

Entirely different situation. The law has established that the harm's greater in a case of suicide than in a case of child molestation (as much as many might disagree), and so the law might recognize that there be greater steps to prevent that greater harm. Also, in the case of a suicide, we're talking about friends and family (for the most part) potentially intervening rather than the government. I would be against the government monitoring and helping everyone who expressed what might be a suicidal thought, at least in the sense I'm imagining we're talking about helping and monitoring potential pedophiles. I don't have a problem with people being put on psych holds when the danger seems so imminent that they might kill themselves, but those are typically cases where the person has done something more than just say, "I want to die."

Actually, not yet.

And the comparision isn't that hard.

People of color were once a despised minority who were denied due process of the law (and some would argue, with some justification, have all too many members who still are).

Pedophiles continue to be a despised minority who some would deny due process of the law.

I'm sure you'd never walk around proclaiming your desire to murder people you don't like, right UA?

Well, old 'Dolph certainly had Ernst Rohm taken out for being a fag...
However, Mimi Reiter was born in 1911
Geli Raubal was born in 1908

Seems to me that he himself kinda dug the young'uns
Eva Braun was born in 1912

It's funny how quick people are to judge, yet would want that due process for themselves if they were accused. When someone's accused of being a pedophile, their life is pretty much over. When somebody's accused nobody's really interested in seeing them innocent. And in some cases, even after proven innocent in a court of law, they're still considered guilty. Under those circumstances, why should we let adults near children at all? If pedophilia is so prevalent, why not just take children away and separate them froma dults? It's your kid? Doesn't matter, there's danger of pedophilia!

So why not got the full bore and do this? After all, kids must be protected from pedophiles at all costs. Might as well just separate them from adults all together.

I am amazed at the responses in this thread and the hyperbole of apologies for a behaviour that is one of the lowest forms.

So a kid has to be molested, dismembered and found dead in a ditch before any action is taken against them huh?

Fuck you. When you've seen a kid dead in a ditch get back to me with any arguments about free speech. I lost a friend as a kid to one of these fucking animals.

In your little cocooned world it must be nice to play internet lawyer, but your logic is deeply flawed. To condone such as acceptable even as a thought process is surely another sign of not only the epitome of ignorance, but the common sense of a fucking toad.

These cocksuckers need one thing and one thing only.

To meet The Reaper.

They deserve nothing less and certianly nothing more.

I just hope all of you dumb bastards backing this in this thread don't ever have to go through the heartache of being a victim of these sick fucks. Funny how Karma works sometimes though, not that I'm wishing it upon you.

I assure you, if I had to spend ten years in the joint to save a kid's life from one of these predatory monsters, all I'd ask is a couple of cartons of smokes a week to keep Bubba at bay.

less smile.