tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post3420704856669089199..comments2024-03-19T01:52:00.810-05:00Comments on Althouse: "I don’t see Judge Weinstein as a judge."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72051568912064024422011-11-13T02:19:07.143-06:002011-11-13T02:19:07.143-06:00Capt. Schmoe said...
I wonder if the good jud...<i>Capt. Schmoe said...<br /><br /> I wonder if the good judge would have the same position on collecting of images of judges being brutalized? I mean, they are only pictures right?</i><br /><br />Right. These pictures are protected. They will be shown in the eventing news. Maybe some sexual organs blanked out. Just as they show terrorist beheadings on prime time News.<br /><br /><br /><i>Fred4Pres said...<br /><br /> I am for life terms for pedeophiles who physically harm children. They are dangerous individuals who should be seperated from society.<br /><br /> I am for treatment and lesser sentances for some guy who apparently did not act on it but collected photographs in his attic for years. I am not for ignoring it or saying it is a harmless diversion. It is not. But it is not the same at the former. </i><br /><br />Good point. One of Weinstein's gripes is that the latter gets higher penalties then the former.<br /><br /><i> Beth -- As someone who has never sought out child pornography, I wonder what we are talking about here. Are we talking about, like, the standard cute little picture of a two-year-old running around the house nude, which I would imagine most people have of themselves or of their children. </i><br /><br />parents get arrested for this, but have a good chance of escaping after financial and professional ruin. <br /><br /><a href="http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/child-porn-baby-bath-pictures" rel="nofollow">Family pictures of nude baby bath: ruinous child porn prosecution</a><br /><br /><i><br />If that gets out, it's sad that some grown man is masturbating to it, but I think we have to admit that it's pretty much a victimless crime. Or are we talking about taking little kids and putting them in sexual situations? That's obviously a terrible, terrible, very victim-ful crime.</i><br /><br />Sadly the law makes no difference. Or almost no difference. <br /><br />The people with the nude bath tub photos only got away because they were the parents. They even got their children back, after a few months.<br /><br />A pervert that only masturbates to these photos and never touches a child would have been imprisoned for 10 years of anal rape by he prison gangs.Human-Stupidity.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01415167814446085472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72692972242409467602011-11-13T02:06:59.578-06:002011-11-13T02:06:59.578-06:00There are entire web sites showing other people...There are entire web sites showing other people's disgrace. Minor children compete to produce the worst jackass movies where adolescents hurt, damage, endanger themselves to gain attention. <br /><br />Finally we are destroying the lives of millions of children. Cute advertising pictures seduce children to eat crappy food that gets them obese and diabetic for life and kills them prematurely. These pictures are legal.<br /><br /><a href="http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/unhealthy-living/food-porn-child-junk-food-advertising-kills-children" rel="nofollow">"Child Food-Porn" (Junk food advertising) makes our children obese & unhealthy</a><br /><br /><br />It is hilarious (and sad): <a href="http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt/lynching-adolescent-video-is-legal-but-nude-adolescent-photos-felony-crime" rel="nofollow">Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV</a><br /><br />As someone said: if the concern really was with abuse of children being promoted by CP then<br /><br />nobody would jail a 35 year old man for privately possessing pictures of himself masturbating when he was 12<br /><br />Nobody would arrest someone who inadvertently has a nude 17 year old thumbnail in his recycling bin<br /><br />There would be no absurd situation that in many places you can legally have sex with a 16 year old, but you cannot photograph her nude. <br /><br />I think the only discussion we should have is about HUGE collections of true porn with true children. This is disgusting, but once more: showing these children being physically abused, mutilated, beaten and more is totally legal.Human-Stupidity.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01415167814446085472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-23647159821570394312011-11-13T01:56:20.213-06:002011-11-13T01:56:20.213-06:00It is interesting that the anti-child porn crusade...It is interesting that the anti-child porn crusaders are ashamed to tell the jury the truth: that a normal guy will go to jail for a decade for possession of a few nude 16 year old photos. This is one of the main issues of judge Weinstein. Tell the jury the truth!<br /><br />We go much further then judge Weinstein:<br /><br />liberating child porn has been PROVEN to reduce sex crimes against children. <br /><a href="http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt/legal-child-pornography-reduces-child-sex-crimes-milton-diamond-hawaii" rel="nofollow">Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)</a> <br /><br /><br />Most of the anti-child porn logic is absurd: <br /><br /> <a href="http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt/watching-child-pornography-victimizes-child-voodoo-science" rel="nofollow">"Watching child porn victimizes the child". The Voodoo science of child pornography laws"Watching child porn victimizes the child".</a>Human-Stupidity.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01415167814446085472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34491244104000592252011-11-13T01:48:42.158-06:002011-11-13T01:48:42.158-06:00We are shocked about all this hate regarding so ca...We are shocked about all this hate regarding so called child pornography. So much we dedicated over 50 posts to the <a href="http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt" rel="nofollow">Child Porn Witch Hunt</a><br /><br />It would be too long to repeat all my reasoning, but let us name a few:<br /><br />The UN manipulatively changed the definition of a child. A 17 year old's photo is "child" porn<br /><br />Fully dressed 15 year olds dancing provocatively is child porn (Knox vs. USA)<br /><br />16 year olds doing soft-core or hard core in the 1970's, legally in Holland. Now video stores in Germany are raided because they inadvertently forgot to pull one of these videos.<br /><br /><a href="http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/child-porn-laws-kill-destroy-lives-judge-jack-b-weinstein" rel="nofollow">Cruel child porn laws kill, "destroying lives unnecessarily” (Judge Jack B. Weinstein)</a>Human-Stupidity.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01415167814446085472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-29524790394327989842010-05-22T19:27:12.595-05:002010-05-22T19:27:12.595-05:00A Federal judge blowing off child porn and protect...A Federal judge blowing off child porn and protecting a holder of the stuff. The NY Times writes a puff piece on him.<br /><br />The Eastern elite mindset couldn't be more fully at work here.Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16880659464711708636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6900931749465926872010-05-22T17:34:38.331-05:002010-05-22T17:34:38.331-05:00Repetitive is one thing. Creepy is another thing. ...Repetitive is one thing. Creepy is another thing. Ham, with this combination of repetitive and creepy, you're starting to bear an alarming resemblance to Jeremy and his many alter egos. Up your game, please.jaedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03328666344764784829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-36556874011781645092010-05-22T16:21:47.015-05:002010-05-22T16:21:47.015-05:002. You spend a little too much time here talking a...2. You spend a little too much time here talking about this alleged minor auto-fellating himself.<br /><br />Ann Althouse never deletes comments ... but she deletes any comments that are derogatory of Judge Kozinski's porn collection.<br /><br />I talk about the child auto-fellating himself because it is the most egregious example of the kind of pornography this federal judge was collecting on his home computer and sharing out to the public.<br /><br />That's why I talk about it. I talk about it because Ann asked for links to demonstrate the veracity of my comment.<br /><br />I predict, in advance, that this judge is protected and that Ann will delete these comments also.<br /><br />Judge Alex Kozinski is untouchable. But he's also the prime example of how some people in our society are free to commit crimes and bring disrepute upon the bench and get away with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-77610700941775874812010-05-22T16:12:37.835-05:002010-05-22T16:12:37.835-05:00Ham --
1. Here is what your own link said: Lookin...Ham --<br /><br />1. Here is what your own link said: <i>Looking at the photos, they're clearly standard-issue viral emails.</i><br /><br />2. You spend a little too much time here talking about this alleged minor <i>auto-fellating himself</i>.<br /><br />3. Do you really believe that a federal judge with a highly politicized job would get to keep that job and not go to jail if he owned a <i>a publicly-available stash of inappropriate pornography</i>?<br /><br />4. You are a delusional moby.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59945281513623477932010-05-22T16:10:36.663-05:002010-05-22T16:10:36.663-05:00Here's Patterico, with links to all the porn s...Here's Patterico, with links to all the porn so you can judge for yourself what it represents:<br /><br />http://patterico.com/2008/06/12/exclusive-kozinskis-porn-images-from-judge-alex-kozinskis-web-site/<br /><br />Note the commenter's reactions to the porn in this thread, who actually watched the child porn video:<br /><br />http://patterico.com/2008/06/12/poll-are-the-kozinski-images-worse-or-better-than-you-imagined-from-their-description/<br /><br />Everyone who has see Judge Kozinski's porn stash, which included the child auto-fellating hiimself, believes it to be child porn.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-648113490340050682010-05-22T16:04:05.305-05:002010-05-22T16:04:05.305-05:00"I am pretty sure you are wrong about what wa..."I am pretty sure you are wrong about what was on Kozinski's website. If you post a link to a news story verifying your assertion, you can make it. For now, I am deleting your comment."<br /><br />Yea, I knew you'd protect Judge Kozinski, Ann. And that you'd censor my comments about this obviously very sick man.<br /><br />Here's Boing Boing on Judge Kozinski's public porn stash (which included a video of an obvious minor sucking his own dick):<br /><br />http://boingboing.net/2008/06/12/judge-alex-kozinskis.html<br /><br />Here's the Wall Street Journal on Judge Kozinski's porn collection, which included a graphic image of what I believe is without a doubt to be a young boy sucking his own dick:<br /><br />http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/06/11/report-judge-alex-kozinski-maintained-porn-on-personal-web-site/<br /><br />I defy you, Ann, to watch the video in question, which Kozinski possessed and was sharing out on his home computer to anyone who wanted to download it, and tell me it is not child porn.<br /><br /><b>Wall Street Journal:</b> <i>"Some of the material was inappropriate, he conceded, although he defended other sexually explicit content as “funny.”</i><br /><br />Why are you protecting this corrupt judge, Ann?<br /><br />Here is the L.A. Times covering the fact that a trial had to be stopped because Judge Kozinski's porn stash was uncovered:<br /><br />http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/12/local/me-kozinski12<br /><br />It is trivial to produce compelling evidence that Judge Kozinski maintained a publicly-available stash of inappropriate pornography, including at least one video of a child auto-fellating himself and this judge has never even been admonished by the bar, much less arrested for his crimes.<br /><br />I also predict that you'll delete this post in order to protect Judge Kozinski.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59446555598075258532010-05-22T13:41:10.832-05:002010-05-22T13:41:10.832-05:00As harsh as this judge may think the mandatory min...As harsh as this judge may think the mandatory minimums are, it's minor compared to what most people in the community would do to him, if we could. The law needs to reflect the values of the community, generally, or there will be no reason for us to restrain ourselves from taking care of scum like these.<br /><br />The judge is arrogant (ok, he's a federal judge, occupational hazard) and thinks he's better than the riff-raff who passed the laws. Screw him.PatHMVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15542719040606654134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-71224585561922819172010-05-22T13:12:39.984-05:002010-05-22T13:12:39.984-05:00@Ham I am pretty sure you are wrong about what was...@Ham I am pretty sure you are wrong about what was on Kozinski's website. If you post a link to a news story verifying your assertion, you can make it. For now, I am deleting your comment.Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-64249285965215896562010-05-22T12:08:16.404-05:002010-05-22T12:08:16.404-05:00The possession of child pornography does not in a ...The possession of child pornography does not in a vacuum. If you own these images, you have essentially paid someone to abuse a child.knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13231876226573540476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72458457717492125452010-05-22T11:01:17.974-05:002010-05-22T11:01:17.974-05:00Shockingly, I am in agreement with Seven Machos fo...Shockingly, I am in agreement with Seven Machos for once: jury nullification is a powerful tool to combat bad law, and it's too bad more jurors--more citizens--don't know about it. Of course, this is because the authorities don't want us to know about it as it would allow jurors to have the power we were intended to have--to determine not merely the facts of a case as to whether a defendant is or is not proven guilty of the charges against him, but also whether the law he is charged with violating is itself a just or unjust law, or whether the sentence for the crime is just or unjust.<br /><br />"Child pornography" is too much a hot key term; most here are focusing on that aspect of this story. In the larger sense, the crime itself is irrelevant to the principle: juries should be informed of the required sentences that will pertain if they convict a defendant of the charges against him.<br /><br />Some laws are unjust, and they shouldn't be on the books at all. More typically, laws may themselves be "just," or have a basis to exist, but the mandatory sentences for them are often too harshly disproportionate to the crime.<br /><br />Judges <i>should</i> have more leeway in making sentencing decisions; that's why they're <i>judges</i>...to make <i>judgement</i> as to what punishment best fits the crime according to the facts of each unique case and defendant. <br /><br />If citizens want to stupidly strip judges of this discretionary power, then citizens themselves--we who sit as jurors--should claim that right for ourselves. If we know that a defendant will receive a minimum sentence of 10 years to life, say, for a crime that we would consider should carry a much less severe punishment--say 2 to 5, or even probation in the case of a first time or non-violent offender--then we can determine whether we prefer to acquit the defendant--even if we accept that the facts in evidence prove his guilt--than to condemn him to an unjust punishment.Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-36580175588026977592010-05-22T10:28:50.306-05:002010-05-22T10:28:50.306-05:00"I am for life terms for pedeophiles who phys...<i>"I am for life terms for pedeophiles who physically harm children."</i><br /><br />I am for life terms for judges who intervene to protect pedophiles and child porn collectors, instead of doing their job ... which is to sentence these people to the terms the Legislature demands.<br /><br />The Judiciary cannot be allowed to usurp powers granted the Legislative Branch.<br /><br />These activist judges working to aid the pedophiles should be stripped of their jobs, arrested, tried and then imprisoned. So, clearly, we need some new laws targeting these rogue judges.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59315454161127092032010-05-22T10:25:37.111-05:002010-05-22T10:25:37.111-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-86767562908284521012010-05-22T09:53:58.647-05:002010-05-22T09:53:58.647-05:00Just below there is a posting about Daniel Earl Br...Just below there is a posting about Daniel Earl Bradford. Bradford raped an eight year old girl, cut her throat, and left her to die. Bradford was a paroled rapist when he did this. He had served three years for that previous rape before being released on parole....Bradford thus got less time for an actual rape than is proposed for this crime. My guess is that a record of an actual rape is a greater predictor of future crimes than possession of child pornography.... I think people who possess child pornography participate in something evil and should be punished. Nonetheless, I'm with the judge on this. There's somethig self indulgent in the condemnation of this evil while much greater crimes are shrugged off. It seems to me that a convicted rapist who walks after three years is a greater cause for outrage than this man and his shabbly little crime.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07837540030934495651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-36527502183665439112010-05-22T09:38:23.371-05:002010-05-22T09:38:23.371-05:00I am for life terms for pedeophiles who physically...I am for life terms for pedeophiles who physically harm children. They are dangerous individuals who should be seperated from society. <br /><br />I am for treatment and lesser sentances for some guy who apparently did not act on it but collected photographs in his attic for years. I am not for ignoring it or saying it is a harmless diversion. It is not. But it is not the same at the former. <br /><br />And while I understand the frustration of a judge who is too lienent, the potential injustice of overly harsh sentancing guidelines is not necessarily better.Fred4Preshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01574159710712259945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-16528778456823823322010-05-22T09:36:45.135-05:002010-05-22T09:36:45.135-05:005 years seems about right to me.5 years seems about right to me.bagoh20https://www.blogger.com/profile/10915174575358413637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-89960209565880426892010-05-22T08:33:37.024-05:002010-05-22T08:33:37.024-05:00I agree with the judge. He does not seem to be sa...I agree with the judge. He does not seem to be saying that this behavior is not criminal. He is not saying that viewers of child pornography are not criminally liable.<br /><br />He is pointing out that the sentences for looking at pictures, many of which eclipse those handed out for <i>actual abuse of children</i>, are too severe for the crime committed. And he's right.Salamandyrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11583377305614434681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-36735370401958363332010-05-22T08:24:58.168-05:002010-05-22T08:24:58.168-05:00@paul a'barge...another succint and completely...@paul a'barge...another succint and completely drug induced conclusion about a topic that when your "knee-jerk" facist spasm rattled your brain..well fill in the rest.<br /><br />Sentencing guidelines are not a deterrent to crime. They are not know in advance of conviction and interviews with the i think parole officers or someone who makes a recommendation to the attorneys who then haggle it out and forward a sentencing recommendation to the judge. How can a potential criminal have any idea whatsoever as to what the sentence would be if he committed a crime and it ran its course through the courts.<br /><br />Weinstein has long been opposed to guidelines as they tie his hands one way or the other - too loose or too tight - and that makes the judge a robot. That's his point Paul...but you can't read and think and synthesize anything other than oatmeal.Opus One Mediahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04041788083619471630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-16308447894995610412010-05-22T08:16:20.142-05:002010-05-22T08:16:20.142-05:00Weinstein is a creep ...
creep the creepy creep o...Weinstein is a creep ...<br /><br />creep the creepy creep of creepy feet, creeping about the court room trying to let creepy child predators creep about, stealing their innocence.<br /><br />Weinstein is a creep ...paul a'bargehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08854004347728185047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-83856218969437582612010-05-22T08:06:21.933-05:002010-05-22T08:06:21.933-05:00Nauseating.
The internet has created a huge marke...Nauseating.<br /><br />The internet has created a huge market for child pornography. How can anyone think that the buyers haven't increased the demand, and therefore, the suffering?<br /><br /><i>They contract out their sexual violence.<br /><br /></i>Exactly.<br /><br />Adding insult to injury is the judge's ridiculous admonition that: "At the most, they should be receiving treatment and supervision." <i>At the most.</i><br /><br />If the whole country adopted this attitude, we would be telling people "Go for it. You can possess these images and face virtually no consequences. PLUS we will help you to define yourself as person suffering from a condition that needs treatment, instead of the sadistic fuck that you are.<br /><br />Unbelievable.knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13231876226573540476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-52995998667407277162010-05-22T07:46:24.428-05:002010-05-22T07:46:24.428-05:00I wonder if the good judge would have the same pos...I wonder if the good judge would have the same position on collecting of images of judges being brutalized? I mean, they are only pictures right?<br /><br />What an idiot.Capt. Schmoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02394460305247627610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7997976837655588222010-05-22T07:09:23.494-05:002010-05-22T07:09:23.494-05:00“I don’t approve of child pornography, obviously,”...“I don’t approve of child pornography, obviously,”<br /><br />It's not so obvious to me, but let's assume he doesn't, his indifference to it is just as appalling.TWMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06114010593299066911noreply@blogger.com