Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-28-2007, 12:18 AM
 
9,763 posts, read 10,527,281 times
Reputation: 2052

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
Yup... not to mention, a priest should be held to a higher & different standard. Big difference between someone who runs a non-profit agency, and a man who claims to serve God (and remain celibate).
Since a link wasn't offered, we have no details on the arrest, but I'm betting the man was charged with possession of child porn.

If so, there is also a big difference between looking at statutory rape and participating in it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-28-2007, 12:20 AM
 
9,763 posts, read 10,527,281 times
Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by beth ann View Post
If they're both guilty of the same crime, then I say lock them up....and throw away the key...no matter who they are!
You need to clear that up for us. If they are both guilty of the same crime, why is the man being charged with child porn? Is he being charged with possession or creation of child porn? The crime committed by priests is child molestation, not child porn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2007, 12:28 AM
 
743 posts, read 2,234,201 times
Reputation: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
You need to clear that up for us. If they are both guilty of the same crime, why is the man being charged with child porn? Is he being charged with possession or creation of child porn? The crime committed by priests is child molestation, not child porn.
My comment about the "same crime deserving the same punishment" was referring to a priest being charged w/ child porn and this ACLU Pres being charged w/ child porn... I am not sure whether it was "possession" or "creation" of it, honestly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2007, 12:42 AM
 
9,763 posts, read 10,527,281 times
Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by beth ann View Post
My comment about the "same crime deserving the same punishment" was referring to a priest being charged w/ child porn and this ACLU Pres being charged w/ child porn...
But your original reference was to the child molestation by priests, which is what gizmo was referring to.
Quote:
I am not sure whether it was "possession" or "creation" of it, honestly.
He was indicted on one count of receiving and one count of possession. Ex-Youth Sports Coach Indicted on Child Pornography Charges - washingtonpost.com

As I stated, there's a difference between viewing sex with minors and having sex with minors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2007, 01:11 AM
 
743 posts, read 2,234,201 times
Reputation: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
But your original reference was to the child molestation by priests, which is what gizmo was referring to.

He was indicted on one count of receiving and one count of possession. Ex-Youth Sports Coach Indicted on Child Pornography Charges - washingtonpost.com

As I stated, there's a difference between viewing sex with minors and having sex with minors.
You both need to go back and read my OP. I never referenced any molestation by priests. I was stating that the ACLU Pres had child porn charges and said "if this were a priest"...meaning with the SAME charges of child porn ONLY...the media coverage would be different. That's all I said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2007, 01:21 AM
 
9,763 posts, read 10,527,281 times
Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by beth ann View Post
You both need to go back and read my OP. I never referenced any molestation by priests. I was stating that the ACLU Pres had child porn charges and said "if this were a priest"...meaning with the SAME charges of child porn ONLY...the media coverage would be different. That's all I said.
Yes, my apologies. I jumped to conclusions (which, considering the Church's problems, I hope you understand).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2007, 01:22 AM
 
743 posts, read 2,234,201 times
Reputation: 241
I just saw that ABC news did cover the story (I googled the topic and saw the story...I actually don't know how to post a link...lol...)

This guy had actually fought to have unrestricted internet access in our Virginia public libraries, according to this story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2007, 06:14 AM
 
7,784 posts, read 14,887,943 times
Reputation: 3478
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
As I stated, there's a difference between viewing sex with minors and having sex with minors.
That's a pretty scary statement. And I totally disagree with it.

But it'd come in pretty handy as a defense in a paid-hit trial, I guess.

"Well you honor, there's a difference between paying someone to kill and actually killing them".

Uh....yeah....OOOOK....lemme know how that works out for ya!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2007, 07:00 AM
 
13,640 posts, read 24,509,987 times
Reputation: 18602
IMO,a pervert is a pervert is a child abuser is a child abuser. No if, ands or buts, or whys. The only thing they deserve is a quick trial and hard time locked up. Let the other prisoners dole out justice..Anyone who gets a jolt from child pornography is probably(IMO IMO NO arguement) just one step from visiting the local Kmart mens room to expose himself to little boys I know, I have seen this. Yes, hurry and get them off the street since they may wind up in the back row of your church ogling the little boys, because someone said he claimed he "backslid", and we should love him
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2007, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Nashville, Tn
7,915 posts, read 18,624,668 times
Reputation: 5524
No matter who engages in this kind of behavior they are the lowest kind of human being in my opinion. I do recall that there was a court ruling several years ago that said it was ok for someone to view material of children if they are digital creations, in other words they're not actual photos of real people but they're digital images that look real. I disagree with that ruling and I don't think we should cut them any slack. Websites or individuals that promote this type of thing are attempting to make a profit from deranged people who like to fantasize about hurting children. I think that investigations of the internet have become more effective and more and more of these people are getting caught.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:49 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top