|
|
Forum: In the News
Thread (Discussion): [The Washington Post] Court overturns child porn conviction
Message 161207
Introduction
Posted by admin
on Sep 11, 2005 01:22 PM | Also by admin
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: N/A |
Discuss the article Court overturns child porn conviction, by Fredrick Kunkle, which appeared on The Washington Post on September 08, 2005.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 161208 (In Reply to Message 161207)
Posted by steve
on Sep 11, 2005 05:24 PM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
This is a *huge* ruling.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161207)
Message 161247 (In Reply to Message 161208)
Posted by orolan
on Sep 11, 2005 07:02 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Yes, it is. At last a court has shown some sense. There can be no victimization without a victim.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161208)
Message 161270 (In Reply to Message 161207)
Posted by indisaray
on Sep 11, 2005 10:02 PM | Also by indisaray
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Michigan,
Country: United States |
This is great news....We see this almost daily here in Michigan where the LEO sit at computer desks to entrap citizens...As stated how can there be a crime without an actual victim...I am about to send this article to a few writers here for the DETROIT FREE PRESS AND THE DETROIT NEWS. One is pro tougher legislation in regards to RSO and the other is at least understanding of the plight of many SO.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161207)
Message 161283 (In Reply to Message 161270)
Posted by orolan
on Sep 12, 2005 03:28 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
This issue needs to be broadened to cover other crimes. Not so much the entrapment, but the concept of police "creating" criminal situations in order to arrest any errant who falls into the trap.
Look at drugs. I have no problem with undercover cops making buys and busting the dealers. I do have a problem with them going into bars with a pocket full of joints and going from patron to patron asking if anybody wants to buy one in the hopes that one will and then they can bust them.
Any study I've ever read on Internet sex crimes looks at "real" occurrences. The sting operations are not included. When you look at the statistics, they tell you that in fact very few kids are actually DIRECTLY propositioned by an adult. Sure, they get porn solicitations in their email. So does Grandma and anybody else with a free email account at MSN, Yahoo, Lycos, etc. Spammers are indiscriminate. Sure they get into dirty PM sessions in chat rooms, most often statistically with other kids their own age. And yes, there is the occasional time that a teen is sucked in to a meeting with an actual adult. There will always be hte anomalies, and proper education of the kids will hamper that anomaly greatly.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161270)
Message 161516 (In Reply to Message 161283)
Posted by indisaray
on Sep 14, 2005 03:36 PM | Also by indisaray
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Michigan,
Country: United States |
You have not checked here in Michigan with the Wayne and Oakland Counties as they have hundreds, and yes I mean hundreds of "alleged interent talks" and arrests of citizens that did not touch one underage person. We are paying these LEO to sit at a machine and suck up our $$$'s instead of going out and arresting druggies and drunk drivers. They love this job, can you imagine the thinking when it it -5* outside and hardworking people going about their work-a-day job and business and they are sitting in a nice building "fighting crime" (that never even occours) with salary and bennies of over $100,000 per year...These are grown, viril men that could be on the street protecting the general public instead of pulling up carrying teddy bears, for the cozy get together and arresting the so called perps. How silly they must feel when a neighbor or associate asks them "what do you do for a living"?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161283)
Message 161600 (In Reply to Message 161516)
Posted by orolan
on Sep 14, 2005 11:28 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I don't doubt they have hundreds of such "offenses". But how many of htem involved an adult soliciting a REAL child without ANY LEA involvement?
Take away the stings and you have very little if anything left.
Incidentally, one of the dreaded 'philias' is the act and desire of an adult to pretend to be an adolescent and to then carry on sexual discussions with another adult.
I kid you not.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161516)
Message 161613 (In Reply to Message 161600)
Posted by dp1
on Sep 15, 2005 04:32 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Incidentally, one of the dreaded 'philias' is the act and desire of an adult to pretend to be an adolescent and to then carry on sexual discussions with another adult.
I kid you not.
So what type of 'philia' is it when you're 40 years old and married but you pretend to be 29 and single? I understand there's not cure for this and it's contageous:-))
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161600)
Message 161652 (In Reply to Message 161613)
Posted by artie
on Sep 15, 2005 04:43 PM | Also by artie
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
did you know that the majority of Child Porn investigations are initiated as a result of your web surfing habits of legal websites? If you download a lot of porn, you statistically have child porn on your computer. Hate child porn? Delete it. Except that it is still on your hardrive. 3 or more images are prima facia evidence of child abuse.
You are told that you can clean your hardrive. Uh uh. Modern hardrives can be forensically back-walked even if you try to clean it 100 times or more. They are layered as per commercial standard agreement.
And it is impossible for you to try to tell the prosecuter that you hate child porn as much as he. the key is thrrown away. Each evidence of an image is a separate crime. you are your own eye witness.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161613)
Message 161684 (In Reply to Message 161247)
orolan
Posted by myoung
on Sep 15, 2005 08:52 PM | Also by myoung
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
it all comes back to intent. What about the article saying that one of the men believed he was talking to a 14 year old girl and actually did come to try and meet her (and potentially a "friend" who was also 14). The conversations they had were about having sex and that was the intent of the meeting. Therefore, had there been a 14 year old girl there, he'd have had sex with her. How about conspiracy to commit? If you can get nailed for conspiracy to commit burglary, murder or any other crime than why can't you be nailed with conspiracy to commit a lewd act with a child if it can be proven that it was planned? Oh, that's right....they have to be victimized first. :Let's wait til the damage is done and THEN try to undo it yet all these creeps are out there just waiting for their chance.....sad Maybe these guys don't necessarily need jail time since they didn't get the opportunity to commit the crime yet.....however, they could get early intervention and some help. Isn't that what everyone is always preaching.....early intervention, help, therapy, etc. etc.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161247)
Message 161721 (In Reply to Message 161684)
Posted by orolan
on Sep 16, 2005 01:28 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
On the other hand, you have an adult offering up a 14 year-old girl for sex.
I guess the cop is guilty of providing a minor for sexual acts, right? Or conspiracy to do so?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161684)
Message 161722 (In Reply to Message 161613)
Posted by orolan
on Sep 16, 2005 01:32 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
So what type of 'philia' is it when you're 40 years old and married but you pretend to be 29 and single?
I don't know, but I run into a lot of women who have it;-))
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161613)
Message 161726 (In Reply to Message 161652)
Posted by orolan
on Sep 16, 2005 01:47 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
You are told that you can clean your hardrive. Uh uh.
Being quite proficient in computer forensics, I have to disagree. If you wipe a harddrive with a DOD 5220.22-M standard 28 times like PGP will do, there is only ONE way to detect any data left. That would be a method perfected by a group of Australian scientists in which the platters are scanned with an electron microscope one byte at a time. Cost estimates are in the neighborhood of $60,000 per sector and you better make sure you get it right the first time because just like the electron microscope destroys tissues in medical scanning, it destroys the coating on the platter where it just scanned. You can't go back and look again.
Of course the average person simply deletes and empties the recycle bin. In those cases I can get whole files back in seconds.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161652)
Message 161740 (In Reply to Message 161726)
Posted by artie
on Sep 16, 2005 07:55 AM | Also by artie
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Orlan, you are sorta right. DOD standards are specifications that can be followed to meet acceptable drive cleaning standards.
But overwriting is only one of many steps. You must degauze first then perform wipes then perform high level formatting.
In short, you have destroyed all the data on the drive. I forget all of the steps but I was a dot.com executive and studied all of the methods thouroughly. we decided that we had no legal issues and just didn't worry about it.
On the other hand, I am not familiar with PGP. But be careful, much like registries, drive cleaning is false security. One still has to contend with tracks left all over the internet. Finding evidence on a computer is just the easy evidence.
I'm going to go check out pgp
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161726)
Message 161796 (In Reply to Message 161740)
Posted by orolan
on Sep 16, 2005 04:59 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
PGP in itself is an encryption program. But like many programs it does have wiping capability. You can do the simple overwrite where it just writes zeros. Or you can do a 0-1-0 three pass. Or a 5-pass random character. All the way up to a 28-pass random character. I think you can actually go beyond that but the gains in security become minute beyond 28.
The best security is to not do anything illegal. But since you never know what you're going to run in to on the Net, you can't beat running your browser through an SSH tunnel:-))
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161740)
Message 161904 (In Reply to Message 161722)
Posted by 1dadof5
on Sep 18, 2005 04:20 AM | Also by 1dadof5
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Indiana,
Country: United States |
So what type of 'philia' is it when you're 40 years old and married but you pretend to be 29 and single? I understand there's not cure for this and it's contageous:-))
it is 1dadof5ophilia. Ive had it it for several years. However, married seems to be more attractive than single these days.
On the issue of internet stings, I have mixed feelings on that one. Thats simply because they have been a standard practice in My home for a few years from when my oldest daughter was 13 and regularly was solicited by older men (30+) while online. In our case, we got scores of people banned from our ISP and have actually caught 4 real predatory types with a resulting conviction after the police took over. Thing is, my daughter actually WAS a real underage girl. The chat logs were always geat evidence in those cases. Orolan was very correct in his statement that adults do pretend to be teens and engage in these types of chats with regularity. I think those who choose to engage illegally with real kids need to be locked up, BUT its entirely a different thing when its the police that entice and and lure people into alleged criminal activity. This type of police work does border on the actions of a police state and the creation of "thought crimes"
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161722)
Message 161937 (In Reply to Message 161904)
Posted by Navigatr1
on Sep 18, 2005 02:20 PM | Also by Navigatr1
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I want to point out that sometimes there are teens who pretend to be adults, and carry on very real adult conversations. This is why kids need to be supervised while on the Internet. We really don't know what the person's true age at the other end of the conversation is whether it is in a chat room or on a discussion board.
--Navigatr1
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161904)
Message 162009 (In Reply to Message 161721)
good point
Posted by myoung
on Sep 19, 2005 07:16 AM | Also by myoung
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
however....the other guy (alleged perp) does not know it's an adult so there is no real "14 year old" being offered up just as there is no real 14 year old to be "had" so to speak. I don't know....it still disturbs me in a very deep way that the alleged pervert would be seeking out such things in the first place. If he's talkin' sex to, what he believes to be a 14 year old girl and he's 25 or 35 etc, well....that's pretty sick no matter how you look at it and he certainly needs help. If they have to "etnrap" him to do so....well, I'm all for it.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161721)
Message 162010 (In Reply to Message 161722)
orolan
Posted by myoung
on Sep 19, 2005 07:18 AM | Also by myoung
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
oh puleez......MEN invented it
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161722)
Message 162011 (In Reply to Message 161937)
Nav
Posted by myoung
on Sep 19, 2005 07:22 AM | Also by myoung
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
I' ve heard that many times from my kids....telling me that kids at school do that all the time. It's much more prevalent than we think IMO. Some of these kids are very bold and would not think twice about luring an adult into a meeting and then teasing them etc. They can be vile little people....how can I say such things you may ask? Well....geez....I was one of them and I gave my mother every gray hair she's got. For the record....I've spent the past 8 years apologizing for every incident too :-) I even landscaped their home and did some renovations on the inside....hehe Nothing can make up for teenage behavior...know what I mean?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161937)
Message 162094 (In Reply to Message 162010)
Posted by orolan
on Sep 20, 2005 01:30 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
MEN invented it
Yep. But never satisfied with anything, women PERFECTED it;-))
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (162010)
Message 162181 (In Reply to Message 161684)
Posted by saintjimmy
on Sep 20, 2005 05:51 PM | Also by saintjimmy
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Michigan,
Country: United States |
it all comes back to intent.
Obviously it does not.
If you can get nailed for conspiracy to commit burglary, murder or any other crime than why can't you be nailed with conspiracy to commit a lewd act with a child if it can be proven that it was planned?
You still can, provided an actual child exists. You simply can't be nailed for conspiring to commit a lewd act with a nonexistent child (an "unperson" in Newspeak)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161684)
Message 162223 (In Reply to Message 162009)
Posted by saintjimmy
on Sep 21, 2005 04:00 AM | Also by saintjimmy
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Michigan,
Country: United States |
If he's talkin' sex to, what he believes to be a 14 year old girl and he's 25 or 35 etc, well....that's pretty sick no matter how you look at it and he certainly needs help.
Actually, sexually normal human beings are hard-wired to be attracted to persons usually of the opposite sex from puberty onward. I assume you are using the word "sick" in a disparaging rather than a diagnostic way, since it does not meet the definition of any paraphilia I've heard of.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (162009)
Message 162356 (In Reply to Message 162094)
orolan
Posted by myoung
on Sep 22, 2005 06:53 AM | Also by myoung
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
hehehe....
now how did I know you'd say that :-P ?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (162094)
Message 162491 (In Reply to Message 162356)
Posted by orolan
on Sep 23, 2005 07:01 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Because I'm a man and we are SO predictable:-P
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (162356)
Message 163137 (In Reply to Message 162009)
I forgot to mention...
Posted by saintjimmy
on Oct 01, 2005 04:04 AM | Also by saintjimmy
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Michigan,
Country: United States |
Entrapment has been clearly illegal since at least the 1920s, so even if done 'for a good cause' it is a waste of money, since every case will be tossed out eventually.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (162009)
Message 163529 (In Reply to Message 161207)
Posted by Scaye
on Oct 04, 2005 10:06 PM | Also by Scaye
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I say that luring a possible offender out, as long as they are not baited by the officer, is acceptable if the person lures the minor out. And I think there should be mandatory therapy and probation until the program is completed for anyone caught attempting to lure a minor into sex.
Several years ago I posted to some boylover site as I was trying to understand myself better, I didn't agree with a lot of what people were saying on those boards, but I met a good friend whom I stayed in contact for years there. Anyhow, I was contacted by a supposed minor that kept trying to get me to meet him and his "buddies" for nothing but sex. Now, given that I know teens do things, this teen talked like a really dirty porno. I knew it was the cops, and they tried twice to get me to meet them. Once at some beach and once with an entire soccer team. Now... how dumb is that?
Anyhow that's the type of case that would be unacceptable. Just like mailing out kiddie porno to nab someone, you can't lure them into it, they have to lure you into it to be guilty of an attempt.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161207)
Message 163608 (In Reply to Message 163529)
Posted by artie
on Oct 05, 2005 07:55 PM | Also by artie
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Interesting.
now there are two kinds of Child Pornography; One is commercial and must be sought and purchased. Impossible to recieve without payment.
Then there is the other disturbing kind; the kind that is spread all around newsgroups and distributed free through Yahoo, Mirc, etc.. The photo's are flying in your face. Authorities know it is there and it is easy to find and delete them. Instead, it is allowed to reside on commercial servers. If you download it or stumble upon it, you will be an RSO.
The worst part is that there is a list of newsgroups and fservs that are banned. The ones I mention above spread old 1960's classics and fake virtual porn. they are known to all but they are not banned.
But you will be prosecuted for visiting them. easy target.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (163529)
Message 163627 (In Reply to Message 163529)
Posted by orolan
on Oct 06, 2005 12:48 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
The problem with these types of cases is that it is extremely hard to decide if the offender is luring the "child" or the "child" is luring the offender. Especially when the offender breaks off contact and the "child" starts badgering and pressuring the offender to resume the "luring".
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (163529)
Message 164204 (In Reply to Message 161722)
Posted by mawmaw
on Oct 11, 2005 10:46 PM | Also by mawmaw
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
If a person does not have kids ......WHY are they at a kids site ? and if they do have kids .. WHY are they there anyway ? lie about their age and make dates ??
They are up to NO good and deserve to be caught , busted !
NO excuse !
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (161722)
Message 164244 (In Reply to Message 163627)
Posted by mawmaw
on Oct 12, 2005 06:58 AM | Also by mawmaw
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
The problem with these types of cases is that it is extremely hard to decide if the offender is luring the "child" or the "child" is luring the offender. Especially when the offender breaks off contact and the "child" starts badgering and pressuring the offender to resume the "luring".
Orolan ........... What is a sex offender doing at the site in the first place ???
If the person is a sex offender then they have already been caught ... and got in trouble .... "what the heck..is the sex offender doing back on a child site in the first place ???" Wanting to get in worse trouble ??
Nope, the sex offender has a lust for children as their sex preference ..... these people DONT change and need to be locked up !!!
You said .... the "child" starts badgering and pressuring the offender to resume the "luring".
IF the sex offender would stay away from the child sites and children ... there would be NO luring or problems for themselves.
If a sex offender or any adult goes to kid sites and talks sex and tries to lure kids .... I say that adult person wants action !!!!
GO get um !! Sick um Police !
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (163627)
Message 164329 (In Reply to Message 164244)
Posted by saintjimmy
on Oct 12, 2005 05:50 PM | Also by saintjimmy
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Michigan,
Country: United States |
I think you have it backwards. The luring/being lured, whichever spin you put on it, is what makes a lot of these guys sex offenders--many of them have never committed any other crime. In my state, by the way, trying to meet a 14 yo for sex on the internet, even an imaginary 14 yo, carries a 20 year max sentence. Actually having sex with a real 14 yo carries a 15 year max. Just one of many absurdities and oddities in our justice system.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164244)
Message 164387 (In Reply to Message 164329)
Posted by mawmaw
on Oct 13, 2005 04:02 AM | Also by mawmaw
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
NOBODY make a guy a sex criminal !!
you said :............
many of them have never committed any other crime. In my state, by the way, trying to meet a 14 yo for sex on the internet, even an imaginary 14 yo, carries a 20 year max sentence. Actually having sex with a real 14 yo carries a 15 year max.
Now how would you know this ? Why would you seek this information out ??
I think IF YOU seek out the kid sites and seek out a conversation with a 14 yr.old ..... YOU are asking for trouble .... If that person is smart they will STOP their thoughts about children !! If they are stupid and act upon their thoughts , then they deserve to get whats coming to them either by being shot, jail, or ? as the adult person ask for it themself !! The adult needs to be with adults their age and get their thoughts OFF children !!
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164329)
Message 164446 (In Reply to Message 164387)
Posted by saintjimmy
on Oct 13, 2005 06:08 PM | Also by saintjimmy
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Michigan,
Country: United States |
Now how would you know this ? Why would you seek this information out ??
They don't have newspapers in your section of the country? Oh, Texas, never mind, no need to explain.
If you could keep your mind on one track of thought, you would notice that the original issue was sex offenders hanging out at websites, by which was meant: people who are already SOs, not people who end up that way based on police tactics that border on unethical and are illegal in some states.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164387)
Message 164579 (In Reply to Message 164446)
Posted by 1dadof5
on Oct 15, 2005 05:05 AM | Also by 1dadof5
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Indiana,
Country: United States |
"what the heck..is the sex offender doing back on a child site in the first place ???" Wanting to get in worse trouble ??
where do you get that yahoo messenger/chats and aol's community chatrooms are strictly for children? many/most are adult and the "children" come to them NOT the other way around. If adults were hitting on children on disney.com or nickJr.com then your argument would have some merit.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164446)
Message 164619 (In Reply to Message 164204)
Posted by orolan
on Oct 15, 2005 03:24 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
If you are going to respond to posts by me, please have the common courtesy to address the post you are responding to instead of flying of on some demented tangent.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164204)
Message 164621 (In Reply to Message 164244)
Posted by orolan
on Oct 15, 2005 03:41 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
What is a sex offender doing at the site in the first place ???
Moore was not a "sex offender".
If the person is a sex offender then they have already been caught
Moore was not a "sex offender".
what the heck..is the sex offender doing back on a child site in the first place ???
Moore was not a "sex offender".
Are you getting this yet?
The trouble with pretending is that it is just that. What happens if a 15 year-old pretends to be 25 and ends up agreeing to have sex with a 15 year-old who in reality is a 30 year-old cop? Has the 30 year-old cop not just committed a crime by agreeing to meet a 15 year-old for sex, even though he thought the 15 year-old was 25?
See the issue here?
I agree that persons trolling chat rooms looking for sex with kids need to be busted. But only when they have actually contacted a child. If this so-called epidemic is real, there is no need for police to fabricate situations. The phone should be ringing off the hook down at the station with 14 year-olds complaining. Is it?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164244)
Message 164693 (In Reply to Message 164621)
Posted by mawmaw
on Oct 16, 2005 05:36 AM | Also by mawmaw
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
Well somehow sometime somewhere in the chat room while chatting ..... you find out you are talking to a 14 yr.old kid ! ... Do you keep talking knowing this is a kid ??
There is ways that a perverted mentaly deranged Sex Criminal can tell that he's at a kid site !! or a site that he should know better than go to by the name of the site .... like " Young girls for older guys " ...... Now what mentality does it take to KNOW better than to go to that site ? Whoever goes to a site like that is just asking to get busted !!........ but then the Sex Criminal is deranged with lusting for sex with a child and not with someone his age or an adult ..
.
I hope they get caught and then they can have the wonderful pleasure to register for the rest of their life as a SEX CRIMINAL !!
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164621)
Message 164793 (In Reply to Message 164693)
Posted by 1dadof5
on Oct 17, 2005 04:49 AM | Also by 1dadof5
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Indiana,
Country: United States |
tha was an excellent post and a great observation about the 30 year old cop and the 15 year old kid. Now mawmaw a chat group that says "young girls for older guys" could be a site with 18-22 year old women looking for 40+ guys
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164693)
Message 164810 (In Reply to Message 164693)
Posted by Navigatr1
on Oct 17, 2005 12:45 PM | Also by Navigatr1
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
mawmaw wrote:
Well somehow sometime somewhere in the chat room while chatting ..... you find out you are talking to a 14 yr.old kid ! ... Do you keep talking knowing this is a kid ??
I have moderated a chat room before, and I had admin status which meant I could kick people out of the room. The chat room I moderated was for depression support, so we had kids in there sometimes. I tried to keep it a safe enviroment for all involved. I let the participants know that they could private message me if someone was trying to cyber sex them. If the person didn't knock it off after a warning, they were kicked out of the room and possibly banned if they kept abusing the rules.
I have also visited depression chat rooms such as ones on Yahoo were they were unmoderated and it was a free for all. Kids are generally safer in a moderated chat room where a responsible person can keep order.
I know a lot of these kids were on the Internet unsupervised by their parents because they had a computer with Internet access in their rooms. Computers with Internet access should be in a family room where a parent can monitor what their kid is doing on the Internet. Most parents don't do this. In my opinion, they should be charged with child neglect or some such charge for such stupidity. The parent has some responsibility in this too for the Internet has its dangers. They should be monitoring their kids Internet use.
I set up a computer with Internet access in the family room for a family who knew very little about computers and the Internet. I gave everyone the lecture about safe surfing habits. The mother always supervises her daughters Internet use when she is on the Internet.
--Navigatr1
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164693)
Message 164854 (In Reply to Message 164793)
Posted by mawmaw
on Oct 17, 2005 08:43 PM | Also by mawmaw
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
Now dad , you said ........{[guote] Now mawmaw a chat group that says "young girls for older guys" could be a site with 18-22 year old women looking for 40+ guys
I notice YOU said " woman " not girls !!
I am sure you know and can tell the difference , Dont give me the crap ....... you KNOW !
use common sense !!
and then to orolan post ,
I know how yahoo is, I know how many messages of porn I get while at sites, I have saw the titles of the sites offered to post at , I CHOOSE to stay away from yahoo , I am busy and have other interest .
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (164793)
Thread
161207, admin, Sep 11, 2005 01:22 PM [Introduction]
161208, steve, Sep 11, 2005 05:24 PM
161247, orolan, Sep 11, 2005 07:02 PM
161684, myoung, Sep 15, 2005 08:52 PM [orolan]
161721, orolan, Sep 16, 2005 01:28 AM
162009, myoung, Sep 19, 2005 07:16 AM [good point]
162223, saintjimmy, Sep 21, 2005 04:00 AM
163137, saintjimmy, Oct 01, 2005 04:04 AM [I forgot to mention...]
162181, saintjimmy, Sep 20, 2005 05:51 PM
161270, indisaray, Sep 11, 2005 10:02 PM
161283, orolan, Sep 12, 2005 03:28 AM
161516, indisaray, Sep 14, 2005 03:36 PM
161600, orolan, Sep 14, 2005 11:28 PM
161613, dp1, Sep 15, 2005 04:32 AM
161652, artie, Sep 15, 2005 04:43 PM
161726, orolan, Sep 16, 2005 01:47 AM
161740, artie, Sep 16, 2005 07:55 AM
161796, orolan, Sep 16, 2005 04:59 PM
161722, orolan, Sep 16, 2005 01:32 AM
161904, 1dadof5, Sep 18, 2005 04:20 AM
161937, Navigatr1, Sep 18, 2005 02:20 PM
162011, myoung, Sep 19, 2005 07:22 AM [Nav]
162010, myoung, Sep 19, 2005 07:18 AM [orolan]
162094, orolan, Sep 20, 2005 01:30 AM
162356, myoung, Sep 22, 2005 06:53 AM [orolan]
162491, orolan, Sep 23, 2005 07:01 PM
164204, mawmaw, Oct 11, 2005 10:46 PM
164619, orolan, Oct 15, 2005 03:24 PM
163529, Scaye, Oct 04, 2005 10:06 PM
163608, artie, Oct 05, 2005 07:55 PM
163627, orolan, Oct 06, 2005 12:48 AM
164244, mawmaw, Oct 12, 2005 06:58 AM
164329, saintjimmy, Oct 12, 2005 05:50 PM
164387, mawmaw, Oct 13, 2005 04:02 AM
164446, saintjimmy, Oct 13, 2005 06:08 PM
164579, 1dadof5, Oct 15, 2005 05:05 AM
164621, orolan, Oct 15, 2005 03:41 PM
164693, mawmaw, Oct 16, 2005 05:36 AM
164793, 1dadof5, Oct 17, 2005 04:49 AM
164854, mawmaw, Oct 17, 2005 08:43 PM
164810, Navigatr1, Oct 17, 2005 12:45 PM
169663, Rejected
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
