Forum - View topicNEWS: U.S. Appeals Court Declines to Hear Dwight Whorley's Case
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
strahl
Posts: 69 |
|
|||||
|
I dont care what freedom of speech law you profess...being a pedoph will land you in jail...
comics and email? to other consenting adults? sorry ,if your tastes suggest children... you're skreweeeed man. |
||||||
|
||||||
kokuryu
 Posts: 915 |
|
|||||
|
Well at least one judge realizes that the key core issue here between actual privacy, whats real and virtual, the definition of obscene and the fact that nobody defines the same two things as obscene, and the rights to free speech and the general impact this all has on the art world is what is at stake here. Hopefully the Supreme Court will take up these specific issues and make rulings on them.
|
||||||
|
||||||
Zipper
 Posts: 133 |
|
|||||
|
Sounds like Roger L. Gregory is the only judge who has some common sense. All the others don't sound like they really give a damn and are happy in their ignorance like strahl.
|
||||||
|
||||||
The Xenos
 Posts: 1519 Location: Boston |
|
|||||
|
Now I don't think that fictional / anime images of sex with children should be prosecuted any more than fictional / anime images of murder or arson or any other crime. Sure, he has a right to have those, I'd say.
Yet this bastard here had real photos of real children. Those photos are evidence of an actual crime, actual children being abused. Plus he pretty much wrote down and sent confessions of his actual abuse of children. Saying that you molested a child is not a freedom of speech. It's a goddamn confession of a horrendous crime. For those cases, I hope they throw the book at the bastard. |
||||||
|
||||||
Joe Mello
 Posts: 2260 Location: Online Terminal |
|
|||||
No, those judges knew that it would be political suicide to hear an appeal of a pornography case when all the evidence was there. Obviously, this is an issue of privacy as well, but the porn issue is the bigger headline. To the average American, Whorley is an owner of child porn, not someone who's rights may have been violated. I do commend Mr. Gregory for what seems like a sincere dissension (instead of just being opportunistic and casting his vote simply to get his two cents across). |
||||||
|
||||||
Bell02
 Posts: 168 |
|
|||||
|
Well, this guy has other non-anime stuff, so case closed I say. But as far as Anime goes, as gross and unappealing as I find it, I'm not sure if it should be prosecuted. Child pornography is banned because there is another person on the otherside that is under legal age to do that kind of work. Its sort of a child abuse. The cartoons would not if the artists don't use a real model.
I don't think people should be prosecuted for obscenities and sexual preferences, and I feel uncomfortable calling them horrible, as the obscene is a term judged person to person, and laws get really horrible when they get into that department. (Because suddenly homosexuality is obscene, interracial marriage could be seen as obscene, tall women could be seen as obscene, anything thing can be obscene; it can get to be madness) |
||||||
|
||||||
SongstressCela
 Posts: 615 Location: Pennsylvania |
|
|||||
|
Sigh. When is this joke of a country going to stop pretending like there's anything remotely resembling free speech?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
BGFUSAB
Posts: 1 |
|
|||||
Its hard for federal appellate judges to commit political suicide because they are appointed for life for that very reason, to remove them from strong political influences. The 4th circuit happens to be one of the most conservative circuits in the nation though, so this decision doesn't' surprise me at all. Note, that this doesn't necessarily mean politically conservative but the 4th circuit tends to generally stick to the law as it is rather than changing the common law. At any rate, since it appears this guy had actual real child pornography his case was lost from the beginning. Furthermore, it easy for thew news to report that he was denied an appeal but none of the details are known. It is the lawyers, with their briefs, who set the agenda for appeals hearings and what topics will be covered. It is quite possible that the lawyers felt the argument raised were very much without merit. It seems the only issue here is the issue of the virtual porn, but that is not going to be outcome determinative, because he possessed actual porn and the court felt that it wasn't worth the time for a formal hearing. I do agree it should be appealed to the supreme court to get a determination on the issue of virtual porn,it doesn't surprise me that the 4th circuit would decline to directly address that issue. Last edited by BGFUSAB on Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Jaymie
Posts: 915 |
|
|||||
|
Some of you are missing the point. He wasn't arrested because of the "Anime porn", that's just icing on the cake. He had actual actual CP, and he deserves to be in jail because of that. If he only had loli/shota, then things would be different.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
ryukage
Posts: 32 |
|
|||||
|
I agree that he should be sent to prison for his crimes that involved actual abuse of actual children, however, he received additional punishment for the fictional depictions of abuse. I feel that he should not be additionally punished for possessing such fictional materials.
|
||||||
|
||||||
CCSYueh
 Posts: 2707 Location: San Diego, CA |
|
|||||
But in court, each count carries a punishment. If this guy can get counts dropped/dismissed/whatever, he might see part of his sentence reduced. Even more, his conviction can be used to convict others, so it's in the interest of free speech anything not specifically criminal in this case be removed or we have a precidence set. This "burn in hell for child porn, perv" is a dangerous, dismissive attitude to have. Allowing this guy to burn because he has actual child porn, who cares about the cartoon/drawings of children who were never, ever real is wrong. As the judge points out, e-mail messages sent to consenting adults is deep water. Ever roleplay? How about lewd jokes? Look at the recent controversy between Letterman & Palin where she, on her high horse, screamed about refs about her 14 yr old daughter being raped . Come on, most people know he meant the 18 yr old & just didn't realize it was the 14 yr old she had in tow. Do people not make comments about females having sex with their underage male students as the boy scoring? See you in jail over it, kiddies. This judge is the only one it seems willing to risk advancing up the totem pole (Supreme Court Justice appointment?) in defense of our freedoms. |
||||||
|
||||||
Hi-Chan
 Posts: 115 Location: Canada |
|
|||||
|
Anyone who thinks the Roberts led supreme court will even agree to hear an appeal are deluding themselves.If his lawyers attempt to appeal to the supremes the most likely outcome will be them refusing to hear the appeal without explanation;and letting the lower courts decision stand.
|
||||||
|
||||||
GeneralArrow
 Posts: 225 Location: United States |
|
|||||
|
Why are there people supporting a man who is clearly a pedophile? I understand about the rights issue but when it comes down to it. He was in possession of pornographic images depicting children, thats the case here. Anime and what not only adds to his sentence.
|
||||||
|
||||||
Mr. sickVisionz
 Posts: 2173 |
|
|||||
This guy had actual real child porn. All of you people saying, "freedom of speech" sound crazy when you try to defend this. The guy is a pedophile. Case closed. I think you guys are crazy out of touch with American values if you think child porn should be protected by law. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
MetatronM
Posts: 281 |
|
|||||
And they add to legal precedent. Which is much much much much much more important than whether this guy serves 20 years or 16 years (or whatever the change would be). There is now legal precedent that TALKING ABOUT sex with a minor should be punishable with jail time. There is now legal precedent that possessing drawings that feature fictitious characters who are intended to be minors engaging in sexual activity should be punishable with jail time (yes, this was law before, but there are lots of laws on record that are not enforced and thus lack legal precedent). I don't think anyone is arguing about the actual child pornography. Those charges and convictions are valid and should stand. But some of the other charges the guy was convicted on are questionable at best if not downright dangerous should law enforcement choose to go further down that slippery slope. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group