All this talk of how people essentially trip and fall and get branded as a sex offender scares the shit out of me.
I have Ranma 1/2 on DVD, sitting quietly on the bookshelf. There are quite a handful of scenes with them showing a pair of boobs. 16 year old boobs to be exact. Shit, they do it 3 times in the first episode, not to mention there's a nipple shot during the opening credits for Season 2.
Sounds like anybody who owns or even watches this anime can be easily called a pedophile. Scary fucking shit...
The original release of The Guy Game had to be recalled because of underage nudity.
Who needs the Dateline rent-a-house? Just have cops arrest people as they come out of Best Buy.
I don't get that because there's a fair share of movies with teen tits. I guess their parents had to sign off on that?
I can't think of many off hand besides like, Romeo and Juliet.
Romeo and Juliet is probably art, The Guy Game is pornographic in nature. Yeah?
All this talk of how people essentially trip and fall and get branded as a sex offender scares the shit out of me.
I have Ranma 1/2 on DVD, sitting quietly on the bookshelf. There are quite a handful of scenes with them showing a pair of boobs. 16 year old boobs to be exact. Shit, they do it 3 times in the first episode, not to mention there's a nipple shot during the opening credits for Season 2.
Sounds like anybody who owns or even watches this anime can be easily called a pedophile. Scary fucking shit...
The original release of The Guy Game had to be recalled because of underage nudity.
Who needs the Dateline rent-a-house? Just have cops arrest people as they come out of Best Buy.
I don't get that because there's a fair share of movies with teen tits. I guess their parents had to sign off on that?
I can't think of many off hand besides like, Romeo and Juliet.
Romeo and Juliet is probably art, The Guy Game is pornographic in nature. Yeah?
Just flashing I think. It's not like 10x zoom on the vagina with legs spread eagle.
also, has anyone brought up the point of the things like Perverted Justice (aside from their already unsteady status being essentially a vigilante group) are essentially nothing more than putting these guys in jail for thought crimes since there's no actual minor involved?
*facepalm*
Does anyone even read threads anymore?
I've been reading the thread for 3 days, along with others. It's a little hard to remember every single post at times :?
The spirit of the laws is to stop any form of victimisation or anyone being taken advantage of.
Also... From a few posts up - Anime isnt real. Nobody's being taken advantage of/abused... Its a little creepy, but I dont think its illegal.
I'd like to see some real stuff on this. I mean, it makes sense that it wouldn't be illegal, but at the same time...I suppose I just want to see a case either way, with someone either being convicted or walking free for having hentai depicting minors.
And what if it's fanart of a real person? Does the fact that a real person is being taken advantage of by being drawn nude make it illegal, or does the fact that the drawing is a drawing and not a photo make it legal? This could all prove very interesting to see the mindsets behind various rulings.
The police in the UK recently arrested loads of people for child porn offences under Operation Ore. They found the people through the credit cards they used to pay for it. However, the credit card numbers were collected from a payment agency which handles payments for a lot of legal sites so a shitload of people were branded as pedophiles for watching bog-standard porn.
Nice work, guys.
Holy damn. did they get any kind of compensation for the authorities branding them like that unfairly?
Not that I know of - the police weren't openly calling them pedos but dawn raids tend to be noticed by the neighbours. They pretty much just got their lives fucked over for looking at titties.
The spirit of the laws is to stop any form of victimisation or anyone being taken advantage of.
Also... From a few posts up - Anime isnt real. Nobody's being taken advantage of/abused... Its a little creepy, but I dont think its illegal.
I'd like to see some real stuff on this. I mean, it makes sense that it wouldn't be illegal, but at the same time...I suppose I just want to see a case either way, with someone either being convicted or walking free for having hentai depicting minors.
And what if it's fanart of a real person? Does the fact that a real person is being taken advantage of by being drawn nude make it illegal, or does the fact that the drawing is a drawing and not a photo make it legal? This could all prove very interesting to see the mindsets behind various rulings.
There is a case working it's way through right now but the court hasn't decided if they'll hear it yet. (talking about US v. Williams not the Whorley case that is not a good test case)
Hopefully the court will hear the case and rule with the 11th circuit in United States v. Williams that the Protect Act is unconstitutionally vague but 5/4 one way could easily be 5/4 the other way now.
And on Entrapment i find it somehow appropriate that one of the first cases to solidify entrapment as a defense involved government agents soliciting a man to order CP through the mail.
Look up Jacobson v. United States it's an interesting case.
I have a couple of problems with this series. First of all, it does reek of entrapment. I even remember on one episode a guy said to the girl "No, I can't... You're too young." and the decoy responded "What? Are you chicken?" That's too far. He talked himself out of it and they goaded him into continuing on.
What better definition of entrapment? Why don't we have people hanging out outside of correctional facilities or rehab centers asking people if they would like to buy some drugs?
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the young girls (Or more to the point, their parents) have a stake in the blame. The parents should know what their child is up to and certainly should not be leaving them home unsupervised. Where is the justice for them? They are the enablers to the crime, roughly equivalent to a drug dealer. If any of the actual "victims" act like the decoys on the show, I'm not surprised they're being victimized. Where in the hell are the parents?
I'm certainly not advocating child porn, rape, pedophilia, etc, but are they really using fair methods in this case? Are they really punishing everyone with a stake in the blame?
Was that the episode when he was in the house when he decided that she was too young?
No, I think they all try that line, once they're caught. This guy had it in his chatlogs. He said he couldn't do anything with her because she was too young and she called him a chicken. A little too far, in my opinion.
Admittedly, these guys have a problem and something should be done, but I don't know if this way is entirely legal.
Was that the episode when he was in the house when he decided that she was too young?
No, I think they all try that line, once they're caught. This guy had it in his chatlogs. He said he couldn't do anything with her because she was too young and she called him a chicken. A little too far, in my opinion.
Admittedly, these guys have a problem and something should be done, but I don't know if this way is entirely legal.
One guy actually talked to his lawyer about 'dating' one of the decoys before he went down to the house.
It's not entrapment. And if cops hung out near drug treatment places and offered to sell those people drugs, who then bought drugs, that wouldn't be entrapment either.
As far as the guy saying "I shouldn't be doing this" and the girl replying "what? are you chicken," calling someone chicken isn't locking someone into an action. This isn't Back to the Future. If someone calls chicken, you can still say no. And, I would imagine there was quite a bit of dirty talk before that.
It's not entrapment. And if cops hung out near drug treatment places and offered to sell those people drugs, who then bought drugs, that wouldn't be entrapment either.
As far as the guy saying "I shouldn't be doing this" and the girl replying "what? are you chicken," calling someone chicken isn't locking someone into an action. This isn't Back to the Future. If someone calls chicken, you can still say no. And, I would imagine there was quite a bit of dirty talk before that.
I agree that the people who are going to these homes are absolutely retarded, but if they can prove within a reasonable level that the defendant would not have committed the crime if it had not been for police coercion, wouldn't they have somewhat of a case?
Let's say pervert #1 is chatting with a girl online. He finds out she's underage, and decides to tell her that he can't in good conscience go ahead with this. She proceeds to egg him on in various ways, including things like "you won't get caught, don't worry" or graphically describes what she would do for him, and convinces the dumbass to eventually make the trek over to her. The guy has absolutely no chance using the entrapment defense?
Let's say pervert #1 is chatting with a girl online. He finds out she's underage, and decides to tell her that he can't in good conscience go ahead with this. She proceeds to egg him on in various ways, including things like "you won't get caught, don't worry" or graphically describes what she would do for him, and convinces the dumbass to eventually make the trek over to her. The guy has absolutely no chance using the entrapment defense?
It depends.
Ultimately, the defense of entrapment is a question of fact, which would need to be decided by a jury (or a judge in a non-jury trial). There's no obvious bright line rule or exception. There's probably plenty of case law that both sides could quote, but nothing statutory (correct me if I'm wrong).
In your example, I think the pervert is stuck. He could have ultimately ended the chat if he felt it could lead to illegal activity. As someone said in an above post, the "he called me a chicken" defense is not enough under the law. Even if the decoy/minor baited him with explict chat, he could have walked away.
In my opinion, the only way that the entrapment defense could be absolute in the "perveerted Justice" cases is if the pervert, immediately after learning the decoy is underage, says NO (in no uncertain terms) and refuses to talk about sex. At that point, the pervert has established no intent to have sex with a minor, and as long as he avoids further conversation about sex with the decoy/minor, he's safe. But even that could go either way.
In my opinion, the only way that the entrapment defense could be absolute in the "perveerted Justice" cases is if the pervert, immediately after learning the decoy is underage, says NO (in no uncertain terms) and refuses to talk about sex. At that point, the pervert has established no intent to have sex with a minor, and as long as he avoids further conversation about sex with the decoy/minor, he's safe. But even that could go either way.
Even there, entrapment wouldn't work because entrapment needs the one doing the coercion to be a law enforcement officer. I'm pretty sure I have a good bit of case law saying that it wouldn't apply to non-LEO, even if working at the direction of LEO. OF course, these are state cases.
Raggaholic on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited July 2007
It's not legally entrapment, because it's not police doing the entrapping, however,
We do have to wonder if these people would have lead happy, normal lives if they hadn't been actively tempted. If you leave $20 on the sidewalk and bust everyone who tries to pocket it, then you're going to turn a lot of people into convicted theives that would otherwise have just been average joes.
In my opinion, the only way that the entrapment defense could be absolute in the "perveerted Justice" cases is if the pervert, immediately after learning the decoy is underage, says NO (in no uncertain terms) and refuses to talk about sex. At that point, the pervert has established no intent to have sex with a minor, and as long as he avoids further conversation about sex with the decoy/minor, he's safe. But even that could go either way.
Even there, entrapment wouldn't work because entrapment needs the one doing the coercion to be a law enforcement officer. I'm pretty sure I have a good bit of case law saying that it wouldn't apply to non-LEO, even if working at the direction of LEO. OF course, these are state cases.
They're acting as agents of the police. I mean, really, this is pretty much the definition of acting as agents for the police. I would be shocked if entrapment didn't apply, there, regardless of whatever case law you might cite.
Not that what they're doing is entrapment, just that I think they'd be restricted by the same entrapment rules as the police.
Agents of Government working under the direct supervision of the Government for the Government interest are bound by the same regulations and restrictions as the Government itself. Otherwise, the Police would always have non-police Police hanging around to do the dirty work.
They're acting as agents of the police. I mean, really, this is pretty much the definition of acting as agents for the police. I would be shocked if entrapment didn't apply, there, regardless of whatever case law you might cite.
Not that what they're doing is entrapment, just that I think they'd be restricted by the same entrapment rules as the police.
Than, wait til you do Criminal Procedure. You'll see the HUGE distinction made between law enforcement officers and non-law enforcement officers (even those you would say to be "agents" of the police). When you see how these things are applied to the Fourth and Sixth Amendment, then you'll understand why you won't be shocked when the same rules can not (meant as two words) apply to entrapment.
Agents of Government working under the direct supervision of the Government for the Government interest are bound by the same regulations and restrictions as the Government itself. Otherwise, the Police would always have non-police Police hanging around to do the dirty work.
Not always, and I'm wishing I was in Indy so I could grab my book to see the Sixth Amendment case makes the distinction (Exclusion Rule wouldn't apply when statements made to cellmate acting at police direction when it would have applied to police in same scenario).
The spirit of the laws is to stop any form of victimisation or anyone being taken advantage of.
Also... From a few posts up - Anime isnt real. Nobody's being taken advantage of/abused... Its a little creepy, but I dont think its illegal.
Nudity isn't sex, but it can be pornography. You don't need sex for porn, just (according to Miller v CA) an appeal to prurient interests, depiction of sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner, and lack of serious artistic, literary, political or scientific value.
There's certainly a case for The Guy Game to fall under these guidelines. American Beauty is probably exempted by meeting the artistic/literary merit requirement.
There's even a case for an underage equivalent of a Victoria's Secret catalog, which wouldn't even necessarily have nudity.
Agents of Government working under the direct supervision of the Government for the Government interest are bound by the same regulations and restrictions as the Government itself. Otherwise, the Police would always have non-police Police hanging around to do the dirty work.
Not always, and I'm wishing I was in Indy so I could grab my book to see the Sixth Amendment case makes the distinction (Exclusion Rule wouldn't apply when statements made to cellmate acting at police direction when it would have applied to police in same scenario).
There's a huge difference between what Perverted Justice does, and a conversation one has in prison.
There's a huge difference between what Perverted Justice does, and a conversation one has in prison.
I know that, but I'm speaking specifically on whether the law imposed on police will automatically attach to agents of the police. I think that's applicable in both cases. Of course, I can see this framed as PJ not actually acting as agents of the police, but in conjunction with the police, and the entire issue changing on that simple framing.
Not always, and I'm wishing I was in Indy so I could grab my book to see the Sixth Amendment case makes the distinction (Exclusion Rule wouldn't apply when statements made to cellmate acting at police direction when it would have applied to police in same scenario).
You're right rage, but the key phrase is "direct supervision." I don't want to take the thread off-topic with a debate about Constitutional law, but the relationship between law enforcement & Perverted Justice could be interpreted any number of ways.
CoJoeTheLawyer on
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
Here's something I've been wondering for a while...
What would they do if someone ordered a pizza to be delivered to one of those rigged houses? What if the UPS guy came a knockin'?
I'm personally surprised that no one has come into one of those houses with a concealed weapon, though that seems inevitable.
You're right rage, but the key phrase is "direct supervision." I don't want to take the thread off-topic with a debate about Constitutional law, but the relationship between law enforcement & Perverted Justice could be interpreted any number of ways.
Yeah, that's why I talked about framing (direction of police vs. in conjunction with police) in my last post, but you're right, we shouldn't sidetrack this.
This is not entrapment, though. The standard for entrapment is a difficult one to reach, but people throw that term around like it's a common thing. It's just a thing that always gets to me.
Here's something I've been wondering for a while...
What would they do if someone ordered a pizza to be delivered to one of those rigged houses? What if the UPS guy came a knockin'?
I'm personally surprised that no one has come into one of those houses with a concealed weapon, though that seems inevitable.
They would detain the dude and question him. Once they realized he was harmless they'd let him go, maybe look into who sent the call and question that person. Some of the dudes have showed up armed, but they left their guns and knives in their cars. I'm guessing they don't expect a child/young teen to put up much of a fight.
Have they ever done a parody with Predator, the alien from the Arnold Schwartzenneger film? It seems so obvious that it must have been done at some point.
Have they ever done a parody with Predator, the alien from the Arnold Schwartzenneger film? It seems so obvious that it must have been done at some point.
well, the new season of Robot Chicken hasn't started yet, so we can hope.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Here's something I've been wondering for a while...
What would they do if someone ordered a pizza to be delivered to one of those rigged houses? What if the UPS guy came a knockin'?
I'm personally surprised that no one has come into one of those houses with a concealed weapon, though that seems inevitable.
Yeah that's one of the things that gets me about all this.
Everyone has heard of these kinds of setups at this point right? So if your Mr. Pedo, why not send a pizza to the house and see who answers the door?
And seriously, if one of these guys was carrying a concealed weapon, unless that announcer dude is some kind of Ex-commando he's gonna get a knife to the gut.
Have they ever done a parody with Predator, the alien from the Arnold Schwartzenneger film? It seems so obvious that it must have been done at some point.
Not yet, but it's a good idea. Conan O'Brien has done a few parodies of it on late night, and I think he did one when he was hosting an award show.
Posts
I can't think of many off hand besides like, Romeo and Juliet.
Romeo and Juliet is probably art, The Guy Game is pornographic in nature. Yeah?
I've been reading the thread for 3 days, along with others. It's a little hard to remember every single post at times :?
Mena Suvari was 18-19 when it came out, and Thora Birch turned 18 early in '99 the year it was released). I think we're safe, there.
Doesn't matter how old they were when it was released, the important part is how old they were when filmed.
Which is why that one porn star's movies who started at age 15 with a fake ID are illegal to own or sell.
Ayliana Moonwhisper Ecksus Cerazal
Context matters in american porn/obscenity laws.
I host a podcast about movies.
The spirit of the laws is to stop any form of victimisation or anyone being taken advantage of.
Also... From a few posts up - Anime isnt real. Nobody's being taken advantage of/abused... Its a little creepy, but I dont think its illegal.
I'd like to see some real stuff on this. I mean, it makes sense that it wouldn't be illegal, but at the same time...I suppose I just want to see a case either way, with someone either being convicted or walking free for having hentai depicting minors.
And what if it's fanart of a real person? Does the fact that a real person is being taken advantage of by being drawn nude make it illegal, or does the fact that the drawing is a drawing and not a photo make it legal? This could all prove very interesting to see the mindsets behind various rulings.
Any links for this?
Are you after permission to look at kiddie porn?
...because... No.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/21/child_porn_suicide_shame/
http://www.crime-research.org/analytics/1453/
Those two sites report 32 and 33 suicides from Dec 04 and Aug 05. I can't find the 39 claim at the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Legal_status_in_the_United_States
There is a case working it's way through right now but the court hasn't decided if they'll hear it yet. (talking about US v. Williams not the Whorley case that is not a good test case)
Hopefully the court will hear the case and rule with the 11th circuit in United States v. Williams that the Protect Act is unconstitutionally vague but 5/4 one way could easily be 5/4 the other way now.
And on Entrapment i find it somehow appropriate that one of the first cases to solidify entrapment as a defense involved government agents soliciting a man to order CP through the mail.
Look up Jacobson v. United States it's an interesting case.
What better definition of entrapment? Why don't we have people hanging out outside of correctional facilities or rehab centers asking people if they would like to buy some drugs?
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the young girls (Or more to the point, their parents) have a stake in the blame. The parents should know what their child is up to and certainly should not be leaving them home unsupervised. Where is the justice for them? They are the enablers to the crime, roughly equivalent to a drug dealer. If any of the actual "victims" act like the decoys on the show, I'm not surprised they're being victimized. Where in the hell are the parents?
I'm certainly not advocating child porn, rape, pedophilia, etc, but are they really using fair methods in this case? Are they really punishing everyone with a stake in the blame?
No, I think they all try that line, once they're caught. This guy had it in his chatlogs. He said he couldn't do anything with her because she was too young and she called him a chicken. A little too far, in my opinion.
Admittedly, these guys have a problem and something should be done, but I don't know if this way is entirely legal.
One guy actually talked to his lawyer about 'dating' one of the decoys before he went down to the house.
As far as the guy saying "I shouldn't be doing this" and the girl replying "what? are you chicken," calling someone chicken isn't locking someone into an action. This isn't Back to the Future. If someone calls chicken, you can still say no. And, I would imagine there was quite a bit of dirty talk before that.
I bet if you talked to his lawyer, the lawyer would have a totally different story for how that conversation went.
I agree that the people who are going to these homes are absolutely retarded, but if they can prove within a reasonable level that the defendant would not have committed the crime if it had not been for police coercion, wouldn't they have somewhat of a case?
Let's say pervert #1 is chatting with a girl online. He finds out she's underage, and decides to tell her that he can't in good conscience go ahead with this. She proceeds to egg him on in various ways, including things like "you won't get caught, don't worry" or graphically describes what she would do for him, and convinces the dumbass to eventually make the trek over to her. The guy has absolutely no chance using the entrapment defense?
It depends.
Ultimately, the defense of entrapment is a question of fact, which would need to be decided by a jury (or a judge in a non-jury trial). There's no obvious bright line rule or exception. There's probably plenty of case law that both sides could quote, but nothing statutory (correct me if I'm wrong).
In your example, I think the pervert is stuck. He could have ultimately ended the chat if he felt it could lead to illegal activity. As someone said in an above post, the "he called me a chicken" defense is not enough under the law. Even if the decoy/minor baited him with explict chat, he could have walked away.
In my opinion, the only way that the entrapment defense could be absolute in the "perveerted Justice" cases is if the pervert, immediately after learning the decoy is underage, says NO (in no uncertain terms) and refuses to talk about sex. At that point, the pervert has established no intent to have sex with a minor, and as long as he avoids further conversation about sex with the decoy/minor, he's safe. But even that could go either way.
We do have to wonder if these people would have lead happy, normal lives if they hadn't been actively tempted. If you leave $20 on the sidewalk and bust everyone who tries to pocket it, then you're going to turn a lot of people into convicted theives that would otherwise have just been average joes.
Generally we want to deter crime, not create it.
Not that what they're doing is entrapment, just that I think they'd be restricted by the same entrapment rules as the police.
Not always, and I'm wishing I was in Indy so I could grab my book to see the Sixth Amendment case makes the distinction (Exclusion Rule wouldn't apply when statements made to cellmate acting at police direction when it would have applied to police in same scenario).
Nudity isn't sex, but it can be pornography. You don't need sex for porn, just (according to Miller v CA) an appeal to prurient interests, depiction of sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner, and lack of serious artistic, literary, political or scientific value.
There's certainly a case for The Guy Game to fall under these guidelines. American Beauty is probably exempted by meeting the artistic/literary merit requirement.
There's even a case for an underage equivalent of a Victoria's Secret catalog, which wouldn't even necessarily have nudity.
You're right rage, but the key phrase is "direct supervision." I don't want to take the thread off-topic with a debate about Constitutional law, but the relationship between law enforcement & Perverted Justice could be interpreted any number of ways.
What would they do if someone ordered a pizza to be delivered to one of those rigged houses? What if the UPS guy came a knockin'?
I'm personally surprised that no one has come into one of those houses with a concealed weapon, though that seems inevitable.
This is not entrapment, though. The standard for entrapment is a difficult one to reach, but people throw that term around like it's a common thing. It's just a thing that always gets to me.
They would detain the dude and question him. Once they realized he was harmless they'd let him go, maybe look into who sent the call and question that person. Some of the dudes have showed up armed, but they left their guns and knives in their cars. I'm guessing they don't expect a child/young teen to put up much of a fight.
well, the new season of Robot Chicken hasn't started yet, so we can hope.
Yeah that's one of the things that gets me about all this.
Everyone has heard of these kinds of setups at this point right? So if your Mr. Pedo, why not send a pizza to the house and see who answers the door?
And seriously, if one of these guys was carrying a concealed weapon, unless that announcer dude is some kind of Ex-commando he's gonna get a knife to the gut.
Not yet, but it's a good idea. Conan O'Brien has done a few parodies of it on late night, and I think he did one when he was hosting an award show.