John Grisham's twisted views

I don't think he was saying looking a pictures of boys was in anyway different to looking at pictures of girls - it is 50/50 and he chose one Why not '10 yr old child/children/kid" etc?

?#?ItisnotchildpornItischildabuse?

Yes, stressing... I said on another thread that that part (about it not being boys) really f'd me off.

From what I (unfortunately) learned from friend's "d"h being caught doing this sort of thing, you really have to go looking for this stuff. One doesn't just accidentally click on it, whilst innocently googling something else.

The police categorically told my friend not to ever look for it - even in the name of research, ie. if she ever felt she wanted to understand what her husband had been watching/doing. To do so, even in the name of research, is a crime. Quite rightly, obviously.

Most men get caught because they enter their credit card details, but my friend's "h" (now ex-h) was traced via his IP address - because they rightly suspected he was also grooming children irl. Via private chatrooms and the like.

And said friend downloaded the images, unlike Brighton's "wah, he just clicked, leave the poor guy alone" angle.

xpost with yonic.

You have to be 18+ to legally do porn. I think we should remember that 16yr old can be very vulnerable - and it is, on the whole, vulnerable girls that "choose" to go into porn.

But anyway, men that get caught for these crimes (online images of child abuse) always, always minimise their crimes. They only admit to what they were caught doing - and actually - these crimes are so prevalent now, that I think you have to be looking at some pretty heinous stuff to get the FBI knocking on your door.

Couch, who cares if they looked 30 if they were in fact 16 and he was searching for sexual images of 16 year olds (seems US limits appearance in porn to 18 year olds and over)?

And who knows what search term the friend put in that led him to that site - I assume the FBI know.

16-year-old wannabee hookers or something like that' - and it said '16-year-old girls',"

So maybe h was disappointed that they looked older...but he clicked on it hoping to find teenagers. Teenagers who can not work in "porn" and are so hideously at risk in that industry especially as if they were actual 16 year olds this would be totally unregulated

I didn't read the whole interview so I'm not sure but I do think that looking at 16 year olds who look 30 consenting to being invovled in a photoshoot is different to looking at children who look like children being abused. I'm not too sure if i believe that they looked 30 though.

I also don't condone assault.

Yes you do - you think it's absolutely fine. Own it, brother.

Brighton's views aren't particularly appropriate on a parenting website either.

Thankfully Brighton, your views don't hold much truck in law.

These are the sorts of men that Brighton thinks shouldn't go to jail

*"Anyone who harms a child for profit or pleasure, or who in any way participates in child pornography—online or otherwise—should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

My comments made two days ago during an interview with the British newspaper The Telegraph were in no way intended to show sympathy for those convicted of sex crimes, especially the sexual molestation of children. I can think of nothing more despicable.

I regret having made these comments, and apologize to all."* www.jgrisham.com/a-statement-from-john-grisham-2/

From.m another thread.

Thoughts, Brighton.

aww shucks

Just seen Puffins post on another thread

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2207975-An-MRA-describes-his-debate-technique

FOF - not really. That argument doesn't hold water. I don't think a first offence for assault should mean incarceration either, I also don't condone assault. Sorry to have to point this out!

Do you identify as a libertarian, Brighton?

You were right the first time brighton. It does diminish understanding.

Isn't it time to polish those hooves?

Prisons are where we as a society put people when we think they have done something very bad

If you think wanting to look at pictures of children being raped is not worthy of prison... it certainly implies you don't see it as a bad thing.

I don't understand why you would use inaccurate language for things, brighton.
Oh, wait. Yes I do.

Doesn't diminish.. doh!

Interesting how advocating not jailing, becomes actively supporting of the offence in the minds of some people!

Sabrina, I agree - but we all use inaccurate language for things, it does diminish our understanding. Hoover, drone..

I know MRAs have agendas, but is defending pedophiles really on the agenda now?
Yes.
www.reddit.com/r/againstmensrights/comments/2jf3xu/mras_defending_the_viewing_of_child_rape_porn_say/