Video: Michelle on the ACLU chapter prez child porn arrest

posted at 10:05 pm on February 26, 2007 by Allahpundit

I would have used the red meat graphic if not for the fact that it’s video.

O’Reilly’s straining here. Doubtless the media response would have been different if a former Christian Coalition chapter president had been hauled in, but this simply doesn’t rise to Haggard levels of notoriety. For one thing, like Powers says, Rust-Tierney’s an ex-president, not a sitting officeholder; for another thing, the Virginia chapter of the ACLU has 9,000 members compared to the millions represented by the National Association of Evangelicals. On the other hand, Haggard’s crimes — if in fact he committed any — are drastically less serious than the ones Rust-Tierney allegedly committed, and after all it’s idiotic to weigh the seriousness of a leader’s sexual offenses by the size of his group’s membership — unless, of course, you’ve got evidence that the membership somehow endorses his behavior. The left had no argument on that grounds against evangelicals but that didn’t stop them from extrapolating Grand Truths from Haggard’s fall. Whether the right could and should do the same with the ACLU is questionable, but we’re at least on firmer ground than they are.

I was going to splice in another Fox clip of KP from last night that’s had me laughing since I saw it, but she told me she’d kill me if I did and, um, I think she means it. So you’ll have to content yourself with this screencap of her looking vaguely like Elisabeth Shue.

kp3.jpg


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

but she told me she’d kill me if I did

So, Log In As BRYAN!!!

Mazztek on February 26, 2007 at 10:16 PM

Well, look on the bright side AP, you got her attention and interest. Kinky, but it’s a start.

omegaram on February 26, 2007 at 10:19 PM

..”are drastically less serious than the ones Rust-Tierney allegedly committed,..”

Thats a major point that got lost in the heat of the moment.
The raping of young girls, screaming and crying young little girls on video should be a life sentence for Rust-Tierney. And I dont think this guy started his deviant ways AFTER he left the ACLU. I agree very much with an email O’Reilly read, this group and all of the ACLU with NAMBLA contact should be investigated.
I BET HUGE there are many many more of these sick bastards at the ACLU and the boy-man club. Disgusting!

shooter on February 26, 2007 at 10:20 PM

From the ‘firmer ground’ link above

His ACLU connection is a legitimate issue. As Stop the ACLU pointed out, the ACLU has argued for the distribution of this material — criminalizing the production only — as far back as 1982. That is 25 years ago. That is an absurd position in which people profit from the statutory rape (and worse) of children.

There’s a difference between taking an unpopular position and an absurd one.

shooter on February 26, 2007 at 10:24 PM

KP into the Kool-Aid again?

Wade on February 26, 2007 at 10:25 PM

If I thought I was worthy of the traffic, I would say send that KP video my way.

steveegg on February 26, 2007 at 10:28 PM

Doubtless the media response would have been different if a former Christian Coalition chapter president had been hauled in, but this simply doesn’t rise to Haggard levels of notoriety.

You’re kidding right?
As I said when you first posted this story, given the salacious details of this case, if this scumbag were even remotely connected to conservative, his story would headline media coverage for a week.

Anyone who would argue differently must have slept through the ’06 election.

billy on February 26, 2007 at 10:29 PM

KP’s parallel with Ted Haggard isn’t as good as comparing this guy with Mark Foley, who sponsored online child predator legislation. That was part of the story hook, even though it might have mitigated some of his conduct with the pages.

And as for her idea that because he’s a former chapter president, it doesn’t matter: well, that’s like saying it doesn’t really matter that Sandy Burger took those documents because he’s not the National Security Advisor anymore.

see-dubya on February 26, 2007 at 10:30 PM

Allah, bud, you didn’t actually tell her she looked like Elisabeth Shue, did you? It’ll take you weeks of barbs to undo that praise.

By the way…you’re right!

stonemeister on February 26, 2007 at 10:31 PM

I’m actually pretty disappointed in KP in this clip, I thought she had more common sense than that.

infidel4life on February 26, 2007 at 10:39 PM

For one thing, like Powers says, Rust-Tierney’s an ex-president, not a sitting officeholder; for another thing, the Virginia chapter of the ACLU has 9,000 members compared to the millions represented by the National Association of Evangelicals.

When they haul you in for child porn, I don’t think they bother to ask if you’re a sitting office holder or the size of the membership in your organization before slapping the cuffs on you.

It’s illegal and immoral for anyone who commits this sick crime. There aren’t degrees of guilt relative to one’s occupation or standing in the community. They’re all deranged predators who need to be removed from society.

That’s the bottom line.

fogw on February 26, 2007 at 10:44 PM

Interesting that Michelle parlayed this Hot Air gig into a Fox News web-watch show (and sitting in on the Factor).

Someone trying to get a recurring reporting role on Fox News? I report, you decide.

Neo on February 26, 2007 at 10:49 PM

yeah – where are the clips from last night’s premiere? it seems likes it’s being downplayed here. I thought it would be a huge event.

el75 on February 26, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Rust-Tierney’s an ex-president, not a sitting officeholder

I am quite sure that it may take a little time to compile the information that he had in his posession.

Or did he start, the very first day he left office, out of his high morals?

PinkyBigglesworth on February 26, 2007 at 10:52 PM

the clip in question, I’m sure is the one where KP “happens” into the porn palace in second life and starts gawking at the nekkid posters :P

lorien1973 on February 26, 2007 at 10:53 PM

but this simply doesn’t rise to Haggard levels of notoriety.
That’s still eating at my craw…. the raping of little girls and Rust-Tierney pushing the copies like any old video? That’s the death penalty maybe, and if it was my little sister????

infidel4life on February 26, 2007 at 10:39 PM

Maybe KP is puttin’ on a new/old image with the new show and all, it’s back to lefty liberal….makes for better ‘balance’.

shooter on February 26, 2007 at 10:54 PM

Fogw–nobody here is disagreeing with that and I don’t think KP does either. We’re just discussing the degree of media coverage these events deserve. Sadly this crime is all too common, but it’s rarely national news.

see-dubya on February 26, 2007 at 10:55 PM

So you’ll have to content yourself with this screencap of her looking vaguely like Elisabeth Shue.

Elizabeth Shue as KP? I approve!

p.v. cornelius on February 26, 2007 at 11:01 PM

His ACLU connection is a legitimate issue. As Stop the ACLU pointed out, the ACLU has argued for the distribution of this material — criminalizing the production only — as far back as 1982. That is 25 years ago. That is an absurd position in which people profit from the statutory rape (and worse) of children.

I’ll be the contrarian here. In many states, a child between the ages of 16 and 18 has the right to consent to sex.
In Florida a 17-year-old boy and his 16-year-old girlfriend took pictures of each other engaging in ‘sexual behavior’. That behavior under the laws of Florida is not a crime, but the pictures apparently are. They emailed the pictures from her computer to his. They were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, the boy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.

Get that? If someone emails you some kiddie porn, you ‘possess’ it!

Do you see the absurdity of it being illegal for these people to be charged with a crime for taking pictures of themselves? When it is considered beyond the pale to defend something like ‘child pornography’, it becomes impossible to have a rational discussion on the subject. If you try, Bill O’Reilly and Nancy Grace will fry your ass.

As a grandfather, I have zero tolerance for people who abuse kids. But looking at pictures isn’t abuse. And having pictures to look at isn’t abuse. The people who make the pictures, if they are indeed of people too young to have given their consent, are criminals. Beyond that, the people who distribute and view the pictures are engaged in acts which I find disturbing, but I have trouble sending men with badges and guns to stop them solely on that basis.

And yes, I realize that someday it could be my grandkids in those pictures. And if that happened, I would want the people who took the pictures prosecuted for statutory rape, you betcha.

The Monster on February 26, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Yeah, somebody with stones :) please post the KP clip.

JimC on February 26, 2007 at 11:13 PM

The Monster on February 26, 2007 at 11:08 PM

The pornographic material in this case allegedy involves children tied up, screaming and crying while they are being sexually assaulted. So I think this would be, as you put it, “beyond the pale.”

billy on February 26, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Well, that wasn’t long to wait. billy has stepped forward to prove my point. Because this particular material is so reprehensible, the laws criminalizing all depictions of minors that could be considered sexual are unassailable. Anyone who questions the law is either a perv himself, or an apologist for them, who probably is being paid by the kiddie porn industry anyway.

And some poor schlub who was full of beer at Mardi Gras, took a leak in an alley, and got busted for indecent exposure, is now on a list of Registered Sex Offenders, and isn’t allowed to live within a thousand feet of a school. But as long as we can feel better than the pervs, it’s all good.

The Monster on February 26, 2007 at 11:41 PM

KP: That’s nice talk, Allah – keep blogging. Between the stale coffee breath and the occasional bits of drool, some interesting words come out.

[Hands gift-wrapped present to AP]

AP: [opens gift to find DVD box set of '24' Seasons 1-5 -- then tearily responds] Looks like I’m with the right girl.

The Ugly American on February 26, 2007 at 11:43 PM

Poor Kirsten. She takes such heat from Mr O. She’s a great gal for standing up on her opinion like she does. Actually, I’m siding with Kirsten on this – he’s a former employee of the ACLU and this is why it didn’t rise to the same newsworthiness of Ted Haggard. On the other hand, if he were an active employee and this still didn’t get coverage (something that wouldn’t surprise me), THEN, I would side with Bill and Michelle.

thedecider on February 26, 2007 at 11:47 PM

“Whether the right could and should do the same with the ACLU is questionable”

No it is NOT.

The ACLU and the left, including some Democrats, FAVOR LEAGALIZING the raping children. We owe it to America to expose the monsters at the ACLU.

O’Reilly is right about the media’s hypocrisy and KP is wrong.

georgej on February 27, 2007 at 12:04 AM

But as long as we can feel better than the pervs, it’s all good.

The Monster on February 26, 2007 at 11:41 PM

Granted, you may have a case that the legal system is too quick to brand individuals with the scarlet O for offender but that hardly seems the case here. How that proves your point is lost on me.

Actually, I’m siding with Kirsten on this – he’s a former employee of the ACLU and this is why it didn’t rise to the same newsworthiness of Ted Haggard
thedecider on February 26, 2007 at 11:47 PM

You can split hairs as to the exact circumstances of the two cases, but the fact remains: Haggard’s scandal was publicized far and wide, Rust-Tierney’s is buried.

The MSM has a bury button that is far more effective than Digg’s

If this a–hole were affliated with any conservative, heck if he had just voted Republican, it would drive Anna Nicole out of the media.
It’s approaching delusional to think otherwise.

billy on February 27, 2007 at 12:04 AM

THAT was fun. The blowback that KP received was completely predictable. Everybody knows that the quickest way to get O’Reilly to yell at you is to somehow appear to pooh-pooh or diminish the crime of pedophilia. I suppose that’s why KP gets paid the BIG bucks, though. Hmmmm. I wonder if Bill pays KP extra so that he can yell at her on national television. Maybe the boss should launch an investigation. She COULD be missing out on a significant source of additional revenue, ya’ know.

CyberCipher on February 27, 2007 at 12:11 AM

billy on February 27, 2007 at 12:04 AM

I slightly disagree. Not to be vague, but if this guy were still a major player in the ACLU, more news agencies would have picked up this story. I’m not saying the left wing media would publish it as prominently as a Ted Haggard story, I’m saying that I agree with Kirsten’s point – as a former employee, he’s not as newsworthy as someone like Haggard who was the active leader of a mega-church, and a driver behind active legislation. There’s a difference here. It’s still media bigotry, but MSM media wh*ore’s tend to go after people of power. This guy was out.

thedecider on February 27, 2007 at 12:20 AM

Dang…she really does kind of look like Elisabeth Shue.

Good screencap, but the hand over the mouth shot is still the best.

Slublog on February 27, 2007 at 12:30 AM

The “sins of omission” is IMHO the most damning thing about the drive-by media. It’s not always what they say that’s so bad but it’s mainly what they DON’T say.

Mojave Mark on February 27, 2007 at 12:54 AM

I was going to splice in another Fox clip of KP from last night that’s had me laughing since I saw it, but she told me she’d kill me if I did and, um, I think she means it. So you’ll have to content yourself with this screencap of her looking vaguely like Elisabeth Shue.

You mean from “It’s Out There” obviously, right? What’s the deal on that? Why no post here or at MM.com about the show?

RightWinged on February 27, 2007 at 1:09 AM

I was going to splice in another Fox clip of KP from last night that’s had me laughing since I saw it, but she told me she’d kill me if I did and, um, I think she means it. So you’ll have to content yourself with this screencap of her looking vaguely like Elisabeth Shue.

Great. Now KP is stiffling our dissent.

A chill wind is blowing in the blogosphere…

EFG on February 27, 2007 at 3:06 AM

See the violence inherent in the (Democratic) system! See the violence inherent in the system!

EFG on February 27, 2007 at 3:08 AM

The pornographic material in this case allegedy involves children tied up, screaming and crying while they are being sexually assaulted

It’s called violent rape of a child!

Don’t ever nuance it with being sexually assaulted, sexually molested, sexually touched in a manor not becoming of decent people……….

Those, and the rest who use that terminology of the “politically correct” “sexually assaulted” crowd makes me sick.

“Assaulted”, I can spit in your face, and punch you hearing your ribs break into your lungs, put my thumbs in your eyes, tear the fabric of your face off,…………… that is “Assault”, “raming a foreign object in a 12 year olds virgin vagina is more than “assault”. It is brutal “Rape”. Soul tearing, tissue tearing, life changing, never ending pain and memory of the Human Soul…….. pure, Damage!

It is not a “car accident”, “oooppps, I spilled”, “sorry, I stepped on your foot”……

Don’t let “words” get in the way!

PinkyBigglesworth on February 27, 2007 at 3:23 AM

In Florida a 17-year-old boy and his 16-year-old girlfriend took pictures of each other engaging in ’sexual behavior’. That behavior under the laws of Florida is not a crime, but the pictures apparently are. They emailed the pictures from her computer to his. They were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, the boy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.

Get that? If someone emails you some kiddie porn, you ‘possess’ it!

I think you’re taking a huge leap here. If one of your friends e-mails you a bunch of kiddie porn, and you immediately call the cops, the likelihood of you being charged with the possession of kiddie porn approaches zero.

Furthermore, the problems that arise from NOT charging these two are immense if you give it some thought. The child pornographers could simply pay underage performers to make “home videos” and no one would be criminally liable (assuming that possession and consumption are legal, which you seem to advocate).

One also has to look at how the current laws protect the victims of child pornography. Allowing possession and consumption forces victims of this heinous crime to relive a disgusting event in their childhood over and over again.

All things being equal I personally don’t think these kids should be charged with anything. I would leave it up to their parents to smack them in the head and tell them what morons they are. Unfortunately, if they’re not charged it opens up a nasty can of worms. Even without legalizing possession of child porn outright, I think it would become difficult to charge those that possess it while not prosecuting those who produce it (assuming those producing it are under 18 and are only taking pictures and videos of themselves).

Shivv on February 27, 2007 at 4:39 AM

I don’t see where Bill’s leap is. A(n alleged) pedophile led part of an organization that works to protect pedophiles.

Savage on February 27, 2007 at 7:39 AM

KP dominated. Former employee of a local chapter. He’s a local nobody. O’Reilly is only jumping on this because he doesn’t like the ACLU.

Mark Jaquith on February 27, 2007 at 7:54 AM

I think you’re taking a huge leap here. If one of your friends e-mails you a bunch of kiddie porn, and you immediately call the cops, the likelihood of you being charged with the possession of kiddie porn approaches zero

Why? I’d technically be in violation of ‘possession’ laws. You’re assuming that the police and prosecutors would exercise some discretion, and not charge someone who is clearly in violation of the plain wording of the law. And that is precisely what they have not done in this Romeo-Juliet case.

Does granting politically-motivated prosecutors such power not send chills up your spine?

The child pornographers could simply pay underage performers to make “home videos” and no one would be criminally liable (assuming that possession and consumption are legal, which you seem to advocate).

In the case I’m talking about the ‘underage performers’ are not under the age to legally do these sex acts, only the age to legally have those acts recorded. If the law says that 16-year-olds are able to consent to sexual behavior, then it isn’t logically possible for them to be victimized by being paid for that consent.

The justification for making ‘kiddie porn’ illegal is that’ people profit off statutory rape and worse’. I’m pointing out that such a description applies to some of the things covered by that term, but not all, and attacking the current laws is not the same thing as saying that it’s OK to molest children. There is a huge difference between sexual desire toward girls who are physically mature, but have not yet attained the magic age of 18 and that same desire toward those who are not. (I remember being a teenager. In my early twenties, I particularly remember a girl who did not look 14, who seemed awfully disappointed to find out I was married. There, but for the Grace of God go I….) The JonBenet story sickens me, above all because her own parents tarted her up like a prototype for the Whorez dolls on display in stores today.

Allowing possession and consumption forces victims of this heinous crime to relive a disgusting event in their childhood over and over again.

Do we criminalize ‘possession and consumption’ of the videotape of Rodney King being beaten by cops? Of still photography that chronicles others victimized by crime? Do we prosecute a has-been comedian for using the N-word and evoking the violent imagery of lynchings, even when no credible threat of him personally perpetrating such violence can be found?

Porn is a target because of the convergence of interests between the religious conservatives who think that sex is bad (and apparently have never read the Song of Solomon) and the feminists who consider all heterosexual relations to be rape, whether the victim knows it or not. The topic isn’t amenable to intelligent discussion, because it’s always derailed by appeals to emotion.

Again, I raise these issues not to ‘defend kiddie porn’, but to question the limits of the power we grant to the government to send Men with Badges and Guns to punish those who transgress our laws. There are many businesses I find distasteful, but I don’t see where that justifies using the coercive machinery of the state to punish those who engage in them.

It is precisely in areas such as this that BOR loses me. He puts his brain in neutral and refuses to think beyond certain talking points, and those who want to talk about whether the law is a bit aggressive are just ‘pinheads’.

The Monster on February 27, 2007 at 8:12 AM

Does anyone REALLY believe that this guy is completely disconnected from the ACLU?!?!?!? He’s a former president of a chapter. Do you really think he just walked away and has nothing to do with the ACLU anymore???

PUHLEEEEZE!

Talon on February 27, 2007 at 8:51 AM

I’d take my chances with the clip…or what’s behind Door #3 over being compared to Elizabeth Shueeewwwwww……. ANY day.

And twice on days ending with “Y”.

Eeeewwww….

seejanemom on February 27, 2007 at 9:21 AM

Oh…and the KOOL-AID that WADE mentioned..

glugluglugluglug…

And GREAT POINT MICHELLE ABOUT THE OMISSION OF RACE in crime articles….and HOW DO YOU KEEP FROM STRANGLING HER off camera????

seejanemom on February 27, 2007 at 9:29 AM

Whether the right could and should do the same with the ACLU is questionable, but we’re at least on firmer ground than they are.

posted at 10:05 pm on February 26, 2007 by Allahpundit

Indeed. As long as we don’t just give them a pass on this.

What Haggard did is mostly stupid.

What Rust-Tierney did is mostly despicable.

Lawrence on February 27, 2007 at 9:34 AM

I’ll say this much. I don’t believe impropper conduct of a former chapter president (had he been the president of the whole thing, it would be different) should warrant the coverage Haggart got.

That said, I do believe it should get more coverage than it has received.

As a grandfather, I have zero tolerance for people who abuse kids. But looking at pictures isn’t abuse. And having pictures to look at isn’t abuse. The people who make the pictures, if they are indeed of people too young to have given their consent, are criminals. Beyond that, the people who distribute and view the pictures are engaged in acts which I find disturbing, but I have trouble sending men with badges and guns to stop them solely on that basis.

Now see, there’s a problem here. In your world of right and wrong, it would not be illegal to own or sell kiddie porn. Furthermore, it would not be illegal for teens to make videos or pictures of themselves engaged in sexual activity.

So in your world, kiddie porn can be legal so long as it’s the kids who are exploiting themselves. I fail to see how any of this makes sense.

And yes, I realize that someday it could be my grandkids in those pictures. And if that happened, I would want the people who took the pictures prosecuted for statutory rape, you betcha.

What if it’s your grandchild or your grandchild’s significant other who took the picture?

You’re blurring the lines so much that I don’t see how you can fault anyone for anything related to kiddie porn. Clearly your two teenagers in Florida wanted to be photographed. Would it make a difference to you if someone else had taken the pictures that they wanted taken?

Thinking about this logically, how do you find the perv with the camera in the first place? If you see your grandchild in kiddie porn, how would you expect to be able to find the perv who took that picture? Wouldn’t you go after the people who distributed the pictures?

Esthier on February 27, 2007 at 9:38 AM

Interesting that Michelle parlayed this Hot Air gig into a Fox News web-watch show (and sitting in on the Factor).

Someone trying to get a recurring reporting role on Fox News? I report, you decide.

Neo on February 26, 2007 at 10:49 PM

I’m confused. Are you trying to imply that Michelle used Hot Air so that she could get on Fox News? She was a regular there before Hot Air.

Esthier on February 27, 2007 at 9:40 AM

For one thing, like Powers says, Rust-Tierney’s an ex-president, not a sitting officeholder;

Kirsten’s apologetics regarding Rust-Tierney and the ACLU are really weak.

The ACLU us supposedly about protecting our rights, not preying on the innocence of children. It very much is (should be) national news when an ex-ACLU president is arrested for child pornography.

The media and punditry are seriously negligent in their favorably apologetic coverage of this story.

Lawrence on February 27, 2007 at 9:46 AM

The one BIG difference between Haggard and Rust-Tierney is that the National Association of Evangelicals won’t be letting Haggard back in the club. Rust-Tierney will welcomed back to the ACLU with open arms and a 10 year old to molest.

TwinkietheKid on February 27, 2007 at 9:47 AM

But looking at pictures isn’t abuse.

You’re blurring the lines so much that I don’t see how you can fault anyone for anything related to kiddie porn.

The Monster on February 26, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Okay, Monster, I find your position on this more than just a little bit creepy.

It is true that simply looking at the pictures is not specifically abuse. However, as Ethier explains, it very much is exploitation.

You agree that people taking the pictures are abusing the children, yet you abet this abuse by providing them a market by which to exploit those pictures.

There are to blurry lines here.

Lawrence on February 27, 2007 at 9:55 AM

Interesting that Michelle parlayed this Hot Air gig into a Fox News web-watch show (and sitting in on the Factor).

Someone trying to get a recurring reporting role on Fox News? I report, you decide.

Neo on February 26, 2007 at 10:49 PM

You should learn some facts before making a stupid statement. She was a syndicated columnist long before this internet stuff (long compared to how quick blogging took off), she was on Fox well before any internet gigs. She was branded a danger to the left far before HA or her site. Her columns put a knife in many liberals bleeding heart, you should have learned to read before 2005.
Syndicated Columnist
News Analyst
Internet Blogger
The ultimate triple threat, I don’t think anyone is as successful at all three as Michelle.

Oh one more…professional liberal nose tweaker. That is the best.

right2bright on February 27, 2007 at 9:56 AM

But looking at pictures isn’t abuse.

You’re blurring the lines so much that I don’t see how you can fault anyone for anything related to kiddie porn.

The Monster on February 26, 2007 at 11:08 PM

How about drooling? would that bother you?

If you had a child you would feel quite safe leaving your young beautiful daughter with this guy for a weekend? You could loan him your camera…bet he would love to have his computer filled with shots of your daughter…kind of turns you on doesn’t it…yeah, he was just looking, no harm. His friends would have those pictures…that kind of turns you on…late at night, looking at your daughter, her dress being pulled up, panties down…look at your daughter, 8 years old, she looks kind of sexy…hey, there’s a great picture with that guy on top of her…where’s his hand going…you like that, and so did he…he was just looking, like you would like to look.

He was just looking, no harm.

right2bright on February 27, 2007 at 10:06 AM

Does anyone know if this sicko was involved in this while president of his chapter?

Bill O spanked KP pretty hard on last night show. Is anyone surprised at AP’s support of KP’s position in this thread? hahaha J/K AP!

csdeven on February 27, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Good screencap, but the hand over the mouth shot is still the best.

Slublog on February 27, 2007 at 12:30 AM

It’s a true classic. Chill wind, indeed.

Readymade on February 27, 2007 at 11:52 AM

KP’s at least 80% right regarding the former ACLU chair, in that it’s a weak parallel to be drawn between him and somebody currently sitting in a more prominent and public position, like the folks O’Reilly brings up. He’s genuinely overstretching–which is a shame, because he doesn’t have to. Where’s Kirsten’s wrong is that, given a more sound parallel–for instance, if it had been a former head of a Virginia branch of the Young Republicans or somesuch–I believe the story still would have received significantly more media attention than this ACLU guy has.

And speaking of over-stretched analogies….Elisabeth Shue???

Blacklake on February 27, 2007 at 11:54 AM

You agree that people taking the pictures are abusing the children, yet you abet this abuse by providing them a market by which to exploit those pictures.

I agree that people taking pictures of those who are not competent to grant consent to the acts being depicted, nor the pictures thereof, are abusing them.

I ‘provide’ nothing of the sort. Why is it so hard to understand that my unwillingness to send armed state agents to stop something doesn’t connote support for that thing, nor ‘provide a market’ for it. I don’t buy their products, so I’m not abetting any abuse.

If you had a child you would feel quite safe leaving your young beautiful daughter with this guy for a weekend? You could loan him your camera…bet he would love to have his computer filled with shots of your daughter…kind of turns you on doesn’t it

Another volunteer steps up to the plate to prove my point. There are many things that are completely legal that I don’t allow my daughter to do (like having Whorez dolls, although she was thankfully old enough to not want dolls by the time they came out). It’s called ‘being a parent’. I don’t expect the government to do my job for me. If you haven’t raised your kids to exercise good judgement when it comes to sex by the time they’re 16, I doubt that any law could do the job for you.

Since I question some aspects of the laws about ‘kiddie porn’, you accuse me of being a paedophile who is turned on by sexually-suggestive photos of my own daughter. That is a personal attack that is completely unwarranted.

And Lawrence calls me ‘creepy’ because I think cops have better things to do than arrest teenagers for emailing pictures of what they are legally entitled to do.

We will never be able to have a civilized, sane discussion of this subject, because people descend to name-calling at the drop of a hat.

The Monster on February 27, 2007 at 12:02 PM

And Lawrence calls me ‘creepy’ because I think cops have better things to do than arrest teenagers for emailing pictures of what they are legally entitled to do.

The Monster on February 27, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Actually, teenagers under tha age of 18 are not legally able to view porn anyway. So your point here still doesn’t work.

Legally, teens under the age of 16 can have sex with each other. Legally, they can also pose naked if they want to.

So what’s your argument here, that if they can legally have sex they should be able to legally create their own porn? That’s a side-note in a discussion on kiddie porn.

But let’s say that this happens, that teens who can legally have sex, can legally make their own pornos. Do you believe they should be able to distribute their own work to others, maybe even make a profit off of it?

You never addressed any of this, and I never insulted you.

And raise your child however you will, but you cannot be around them all of the time. Not every child who is molested has bad parents. And not every child who has been molested ever tells his/her parents.

Often, children are molested by their peers, children who don’t even understand the sexual acts they’re performing.

And last, how do you prove who took the pictures? If those teens took the pics themselves, then that’s a shame, but legally, they cannot be in porn, and if someone else took those pictures, it’s illegal.

If what you wish became true, any perv can claim the inviduals took the pictures themselves and that he/she just stubbled upon the pictures afterwards.

Esthier on February 27, 2007 at 12:13 PM

I ‘provide’ nothing of the sort. Why is it so hard to understand that my unwillingness to send armed state agents to stop something doesn’t connote support for that thing, nor ‘provide a market’ for it. I don’t buy their products, so I’m not abetting any abuse.

And what? Are you trying to say that those who buy and sell kiddie porn aren’t supporting kiddie porn?

Esthier on February 27, 2007 at 12:17 PM

She does look a little like Sera

Drtuddle on February 27, 2007 at 1:28 PM

The Monster on February 27, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Interesting how you stopped my quote before the 8 year old remark. 16, maybe knows better, ask any pedophile and he can nail any 6 or 8yr old, all day, every day of the week. You think being a good parent keeps your child out of trouble? Walk on down to your local police dept. ask to speak to a person that is an expert, and ask him/her how many good, caring, loving, concerned parents have lost their child to a professional pedophile. Than ask if any of those pedophiles had pictures of children in the most disgusting situations.

Get your head out of the sand. The foundation of pedophile is pictures that stimulate. Or do you already know that?

right2bright on February 27, 2007 at 2:13 PM

The two posts are disgusting that I posted. This is what parents of children who have suffered endure. You feel indignant, how about the children that are forced into this “trade”. How do they grow up. Or how about the parents who trust someone, and the child falls prey. Which is so easy for a practiced pedophile. The parents are called names, people assume they are not “good” parents. Like you being upset that I infer that you are one of these people, that shows what just a post can do. Think about what a group of pictures would do. Get it? You are upset because of some strange random post, try looking at pics of your daughter, or your neighbors daughter.
If you are angry because I caused you grief…talk to a parent who has a real reason to be angry.

If you feel these posts raised some anger and indignation in you. Then you now know , that pictures on a computer can cause real damage.

right2bright on February 27, 2007 at 2:21 PM

Interesting how you stopped my quote before the 8 year old remark

That’s because I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the original statement:

That is an absurd position in which people profit from the statutory rape (and worse) of children.

I gave a very specific example of consensual sex between teenagers old enough that the act was not statutory rape, but that their having taken pictures of it was criminal. I’ve asked for some sense of proportionality, of logic, and reason.

In return, I’m called ‘creepy’ and accused of paedophilia.

If you are angry because I caused you grief…talk to a parent who has a real reason to be angry.

If you feel these posts raised some anger and indignation in you. Then you now know , that pictures on a computer can cause real damage.

That your words cause me some emotional state or other does not justify me beating the crap out of you, nor hiring men with badges and guns to punish you on my behalf. (Out of respect to Michelle and her staff, I’ve even refrained from responding in kind to the personal attacks against me.) What is so damn hard to understand about that? When you defend a law, you approve of the application of violence against those who break it. Any of it, not just the cases you want to talk about.

No matter how disgusted I am at the words directed against me here, I have no moral right to respond violently. Nor do I have the right to do so in the specific example I gave, where the pictures were made with the consent of people old enough to give that consent.

Are you seriously trying to say that it’s OK to actually have consensual sex with someone over the age of consent, but under 18, but somehow worse to take a picture of it? Bear in mind that the abortion industry says that even girls under that age of consent have the absolute right to terminate pregnancy, and neither their parents nor the state has authority to stop them, nor even to be informed. So “Juliet” is old enough to decide to engage in sexual activity, and to abort any fetae she conceives, but she can’t take a picture of any of it?

I might as well be defending witchcraft suspects in Salem.

The Monster on February 27, 2007 at 3:09 PM

KP kicked O’Reilly’s butt…

CCRWM on February 27, 2007 at 3:27 PM

Monster, I understand what you’re saying regarding the Florida case. Logically it makes no sense to set the age of consent at 16 yet have pictures of the resulting acts considered child pornography. I would say that the problem there is more with the consent age rather than with the child pornography laws, but that’s just me.

Shivv on February 27, 2007 at 3:54 PM

The Monster on February 27, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Like I said, spend some time with people who have had experience with this stuff, and you would change your mind. Right now no one is going to change your mind, it is closed.
You should join the ACLU, they believe in much the same as you. NAMBLA must be ok with you also, they only look at pictures.

right2bright on February 27, 2007 at 4:15 PM

It’s called a civilized society. People don’t get off on watching (or engaging in) children being sexually abused, but it is a fact and it is going to happen.

Here’s the danger….
Watching this stuff creates a demand.
Demand creates a market.
The larger the market, the more room there is for more adults to provide the product.
The more adults involved, the more the product is provided, and more children are abused to provide the product.

The amount of children that are abused in third world countries is a direct reflection on the increase of adults wanting to engage in that behavior. Ask Daryl Hanna.

Now can anyone claim that MORE child abuse is good?

Whoever is arguing this point and isn’t a sick pervert…..you need to re-think your position using the concept I have just provided. I wont bother telling the pervert as he/she isn’t listening anyway.

csdeven on February 27, 2007 at 5:13 PM

She turned me into a newt!

The Monster on February 27, 2007 at 6:21 PM

I got better…

The Monster on February 27, 2007 at 6:34 PM

I don’t know the various timeframes, but will it make a difference to KP if it turns out the pictures were downloaded onto his computer during his tenure at the ACLU?

eeyore on February 27, 2007 at 6:55 PM

Comparing the relative sizes of factions doesn’t even come into play here. It might mean something, if the ACLU weren’t mostly comprised of attorneys arguing before judges that the vote of the people ought to be set aside for this or that expert chain of reasoning. Each and every single one of those lawyers has way more say than a straggling evangelical who subscribes to, say, a newsletter from Haggard.

Powers’ assumption that as long as Haggard’s church is “big” it can somehow be connected to the political arena, but as long as we can say “former” president, it means nothing. Apparently one can pick up one’s sexual predilection pretty quickly.

Also the part about “not drawing lines”. These are liberals. As long as you have an invasion of Iraq and a threat to someone’s daddy by the ruler of Iraq, they are connected. They don’t draw conclusions?

See it’s not so much about what conclusions we should draw as the manifest aversion to drawing certain types of conclusions, or publishing the news in such a way that promotes innuendo–if the subject is not conservative.

That’s what the Haggard thing was about: innuendo.

kas on March 4, 2007 at 12:55 PM