"ThePsyko" <thepsyko@itookmyprozac.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9DAAA15D16BF5LifeIsGood@nntp.petitmorte.net...
> On 03 Jul 2010 I stormed the castle called alt.fan.frank.mccoy and heard
> rincewind cry out in
> news:ddddeaaf-753a-4a34-a12f-a927a67381aa@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Jul 2, 10:25 pm, Ultima Thule <PYTH...@THULE.COM> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 18:49:54 -0700 (PDT), rincewind
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >On Jul 2, 11:43 pm, "Oglethorpe" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
>>> >> "Ultima Thule" <PYTH...@THULE.COM> wrote in message
>>>
>>> >>news:83sq26thp8rhgt66pnlho88v61n01kdj2s@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> >> > On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 20:49:34 -0700 (PDT), rincewind
>>> >> > <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >>On Jul 1, 12:32 am, Ultima Thule <PYTH...@THULE.COM> wrote:
>>> >> >>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:53:00 -0700 (PDT), rincewind
>>>
>>> >> >>> <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>> >> >Ultima Thule <PYTH...@THULE.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>You may be the most prominent but you are by no means the
>>> >> >>> >> >>onl
>> y
>>> >> >>> >> >>character involved in , producing and disseminating child
>>> >> >>> >> >>pornography
>>> >> >>> >> >>in alt.callahans.
>>>
>>> >> >>> >> >Um ... Say what?
>>> >> >>> >> >AFAIK, not a single person is "disseminating"
>>> >> >>> >> >child-pornograph
>> y in
>>> >> >>> >> >AC.
>>>
>>> >> >>> >> You misunderstand. Perhaps I phrased it clumsily.
>>>
>>> >> >>> >> I mean you are not the only character subscribed to
>>> >> >>> >> alt.callaha
>> ns who
>>> >> >>> >> disseminates written child pornography in other forums and
>>> >> >>> >> grou
>> ps.
>>>
>>> >> >>> >> Clearer?
>>>
>>> >> >>> >Except for the fact that there doesn't seem to be a concept
>>> >> >>> >of "written child pornography" since in fact no children are
>>> >> >>> >victimi
>> zed
>>> >> >>> >in the production of the written work.
>>>
>>> >> >>> Sure there is.
>>>
>>> >> >>> Even the pedophiles themselves know *that*.
>>>
>>> >> >>> Textual child pornography
>>>
>>> >> >>>http://en.boywiki.org/wiki/Child_pornography
>>>
>>> >> >>> In some countries textual material describing sexual
>>> >> >>> activities involving children is legally classified as child
>>> >> >>> pornography (e.g
>> . in
>>> >> >>> Canada and Norway since 2005) while in other countries, for
>>> >> >>> exampl
>> e
>>> >> >>> the United Kingdom, it is not prohibited in itself, but is
>>> >> >>> caught under general laws controlling indecency and obscenity.
>>> >> >>> The ration
>> ale
>>> >> >>> behind these laws is that textual depictions of sex with
>>> >> >>> children promote child sexual abuse.
>>>
>>> >> >>> In yet other countries, most significantly the United States,
>>> >> >>> it i
>> s
>>> >> >>> legal; written child pornography is legally protected by the
>>> >> >>> US Constitution as long as it is not judged obscene.
>>>
>>> >> >>> As it very difficult to prove obscenity, it is effectively
>>> >> >>> legal.
>> As
>>> >> >>> a result of its general legality in the United States, written
>>> >> >>> chi
>> ld
>>> >> >>> pornography is easily available on the Internet. In addition,
>>> >> >>> the
>> New
>>> >> >>> Zealand Court of Appeals ruled in Moonen v. Film and
>>> >> >>> Literature Bo
>> ard
>>> >> >>> of Review (1999) that erotica stories published by Acolyte
>>> >> >>> Press should not be considered child pornography as they could
>>> >> >>> not see h
>> ow
>>> >> >>> these stories explicitly promote child sexual abuse.
>>>
>>> >> >>> Due to its widespread availability, countries in which it is
>>> >> >>> prohibited have not always actively sought to enforce the
>>> >> >>> legal prohibition against it. In general, people possessing or
>>> >> >>> distribut
>> ing
>>> >> >>> this material are only charged if they come to the attention
>>> >> >>> of la
>> w
>>> >> >>> enforcement, most commonly while being investigated for other
>>> >> >>> crim
>> es
>>> >> >>> (such as possession of visual child pornography, or child
>>> >> >>> sexual abuse, see Robin Sharpe)
>>>
>>> >> >>> The prohibition against written child pornography can extend
>>> >> >>> even
>> to
>>> >> >>> materials produced by pedophiles for their own personal
>>> >> >>> consumptio
>> n
>>> >> >>> and not revealed to anyone, such as diaries or journals in
>>> >> >>> which t
>> hey
>>> >> >>> record their fantasies. Several individuals have been
>>> >> >>> prosecuted f
>> or
>>> >> >>> keeping such diaries (see Brongersma Foundation). Some have
>>> >> >>> argued that this violates their right to freedom of though
>>>
>>> >> >>> >Now if you're going to go after the writers of this work
>>> >> >>> >based on
>> the
>>> >> >>> >actions of people who MAY have read such work, then you have
>>> >> >>> >to g
>> o
>>> >> >>> >after the creators of the lurid horror movies Craig Price was
>>> >> >>> >add
>> icted
>>> >> >>> >to before he went on a killing spree.
>>>
>>> >> >>> Unlike Karen Fletcher and Frank horror movie authors do not
>>> >> >>> attemp
>> t to
>>> >> >>> normalize the horrors they portray.
>>>
>>> >> >>> This one wriggled out of it by a plea bargain.
>>>
>>> >> >>> Let's hear your justification for her activities.
>>>
>>> >> >>> Pa. woman charged with obscenity for online child-torture
>>> >> >>> stories
>>>
>>> >> >>>http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17458
>>>
>>> >> >>> PITTSBURGH - A woman accused of running a Web site that
>>> >> >>> published graphic fictional stories about the torture and
>>> >> >>> sexual abuse of children was indicted by a federal grand jury
>>> >> >>> on obscenity charges
>> .
>>>
>>> >> >>> Karen Fletcher, 54, of Donora, was indicted Sept. 26, and the
>>> >> >>> char
>> ges
>>> >> >>> were announced yesterday by U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan.
>>>
>>> >> >>> "Use of the Internet to distribute obscene stories like these
>>> >> >>> not
>> only
>>> >> >>> violates federal law, but also emboldens sex offenders who
>>> >> >>> would target children," Buchanan said.
>>>
>>> >> >>> Buchanan is an outspoken proponent of prosecuting Internet
>>> >> >>> obsceni
>> ty.
>>> >> >>> In 2003, she brought charges against two people who run a
>>> >> >>> company
>> that
>>> >> >>> distributes videos simulating rape and murder.
>>>
>>> >> >>> Fletcher's site contained excerpts of stories about child sex,
>>> >> >>> tor
>> ture
>>> >> >>> and murder that were available to all visitors, prosecutors
>>> >> >>> said. Users could pay a fee to read whole stories, such as one
>>> >> >>> that described the torture and sexual molestation of a
>>> >> >>> 2-year-old, prosecutors said.
>>>
>>> >> >>> Fletcher was charged with one count for each of six stories
>>> >> >>> that involved the kidnapping, torture, sexual molestation and
>>> >> >>> murder of children 9 years and younger.
>>>
>>> >> >>But she wasn't specifically charged with "child pornography"
>>> >> >>since n
>> o
>>> >> >>children were utilized in the production.
>>>
>>> >> > True, that's the legal position in the US in the US currently.
>>>
>>> >> > The same for Frank,as far as his textual child pornography
>>> >> > goes,indicted for obscenity charges.
>>>
>>> >> > His thousands of child pornography videos and photographs are a
>>> >> > different matter.
>>>
>>> >> What "thousands"?
>>>
>>> >I was wondering this myself. It's been implied that images were
>>> >found,
>>>
>>> It's not been "implied at all".
>>>
>>> The were found by the High Technology expert from the Department of
>>> Justice Child Exploitation Unit..so wonder no more.
>>>
>>> "Child Pornography Images: Thousands of images and videos of minors
>>> engaged in sexually explicit conduct were identified"
>>>
>>> United States Department of Justice
>>> Criminal Division
>>> Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
>>> High Technology Investigative Unit
>>>
>>> Subject: Forensic Examination Report Frank McCoy
>>>
>>> >but not actionable since the warrant used didn't mention searching
>>> >for images, no images found could be used by prosecutors.
>>>
>>> This is just a crazy idea being floated by pedophiles.
>>> Of course the warrant mentioned it.
>>
>> Then I have to wonder why the entire trial seemed to focus on his
>> written work and not on the images.
>>
>>
>>> "EXAMINATION REQUESTED:
>>> Identify evidence of violations of Title 18, U.S.C. 2252 and 2252A
>>> per search warrant 1:08-MJ-37 (RLH)."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >But I haven't seen any information on how many images were found.
>>>
>>> Then you clearly haven't read the forensic examination report.
>>
>> No I haven't, thank you for clearing that up. If in fact the images
>> are "actionable," then Frank should swing in the breeze. But, if they
>> are actionable, why was he only brought to task for his written work?
>>
>
> So if the statute of limitations has passed, or they weren't found with a
> solid warrant, it's ok that he has them? It's only a bad thing if they
> are "actionable"?
This subject has been beaten to death over the last month or so. All we
can determine is that child porn was found on Frank's computer but as
far as we can determine he was not charged with it and the issue was not
raised at his obscenity trial. Entries in the case timeline show that
unnamed
evidence was suppressed by the court and that there was a motion by the
defense to block the prosecution from amending the grand jury indictment.
I and others speculated that the child porn was thrown out because it was
not listed on the search warrant, but that is only speculation.
Ultima insists there is an on-going investigation but presents no proof.
The answers to these questions can only be provided by Frank and upon
the advice of his attorney he's not discussing his case.
Looks like we'll have to curb our curiousity until Frank can talk about the
case.
> ThePsyko
> Public Enemy #7
>
> **Pissing off the planet, one person at a time**
>
>
>
|
| Follow-ups: | 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 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 |
|