Man Sentenced To 20 Years for Child Porn Convictions

[951-Riverside]

Although this is old news I saw it posted on another site and I'm just surprised he received such a high sentence for cartoon porn.

Richmond, Va. (AP) - A man who used a public computer at state offices to receive child pornography depicted in highly stylized cartoons will spend 20 years in prison.

Dwight Whorley, 52, was sentenced Friday.

He's the first person convicted under a 2003 federal law that criminalizes the production or distribution of drawings or cartoons showing the sexual abuse of children.

A court found Whorley guilty on November 30 of using a computer at a Virginia Employment Commission office in March 2004. Authorities say he received 20 Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted minors engaged in sex with adults.

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0306/309600.html

[noamnety]

1. grrrrrr

my daughter's friend was sexually molested as a child, and the guy (relative) was found guilty, but got no actual jail time.

[CoffeeCat]

2. Grrrrr, too...

I was molested as a child--by my father and his best friend, a police officer. They also took tons of pictures, and I suspect that this was a child pornography ring.

I reported this to Federal Authorities a few years ago. I called the US Postal Inspectors Office, because they prosecute child pornography.

I was told that, since these crimes happened so long ago--AND BECAUSE MY FATHER AND THIS POLICE OFFICER WERE PROMINENT, RESPECTED COMMUNITY MEMBERS--that nothing would be done. I was told, "We have to wait until they molest again and we have a 'fresh case.'

Those bastards weren't even brought in for questioning.

Something is wrong with our system.

[dysfunctional press]

6. there is such a thing as a statute of limitations.

that's how the law works.

[CoffeeCat]

14. Actually, in our state...

...there is not statute of limitations for child pornography.

Additionally, in our state--as in many states--people who are sexually abused as children have x number of years to come forward from the time they realized how devastating the abuse was to their lives.

An eight-year old can't possibly understand the ramifications of sexual abuse. It takes an adult mind--and sometimes years of therapy--to fully understand.

They could have gone after these guys. They chose not to. Their decision--in my opinion, was made because both perps were "prominent." In addition--the decision to move forward/or not--was ultimately made by the police department in my hometown--the same police department that employed the perp who molested me. He was a high-ranking official.

It's not as cut and dry as SOL issues.

[dysfunctional press]

127. was there a statute of limitations when the acts took place?

that's what would matter.

[pitohui]

7. and this is relevant how exactly?

i agree that it is sad and unjust but how does putting a man in jail for viewing cartoons help you, seems to me it would create a climate of terror

do you have no male child you care abt, no male husband or lover, no male friend that you would fear to see accused of a crime because they looked at anime

because this stuff is everywhere and it's all bug-eyed cartoon girls being fucked by octopus beings, so all those people who buy this stuff are child porn possessors and barnes and noble must be a child porn possessor because i've viewed such cartoons with a friend at their store before -- on multiple occasions!

[CoffeeCat]

15. When I said, "Something is wrong with our system"...

I mean that it's a bit outrageous that someone would get decades for looking at cartoons--while serious, dangerous child pornographers don't even get questioned.

I think it's ridiculous that someone would get that amount of time for looking at a cartoon depiction of something.

Clear now?

[pitohui]

30. yes thank you i'm sorry

i'm a bit thick sometimes

got it!

and agree 100 percent!

[Clarkie1]

24. Who is the victim here? This is very disturbing and should be overturned

on appeal. As sick as these cartoons are, they are just cartoons.

There is no victim therefore there is no crime. It is frightening this could happen in America. What's next?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

149. He sinned by thought - it doesn't matter whether an actual victim exists

His crime was against God, not against a real, living person. Welcome to the new Inquisition.

[Pushed To The Left]

154. I suppose the animations are the victims..

This is another case of emotion winning out over logic..which is what the right wing counts on to win elections. :banghead: If witnessing virtual child abuse is a crime, what about all of the virtual murder, rape, assault, etc. that take place in movies and on television?

[pitohui]

3. as opposed to the anime sold at barnes and noble?

which shows japanese minors having sex with things w. tentacles?

i wasn't aware that a cartoon could suffer severe psychological or physical trauma

doesn't this suggest that everyone who possesses anime, which is to say half the nerdy young men and boys in the usa, are potentially convictable of child porn possession if some one in power dislikes them enough?

what am i missing here?

how can you give someone 20 years for looking at cartoons and not consider yourself a tyrant who lives to exert mind control?

[beam me up scottie]

16. Yes.

It does suggest that.

I remember when they passed this law.

I thought it would be challenged and repealed.

People better wake the fuck up and pay attention.

They are preying on people's emotions and using them to pass laws like this.

[progressivebydesign]

36. People who are familiar with that type of "cartoon" posted on this before.

it's NOTHING like what you'd find in a bookstore. I wish they'd post again, because for whatever reason, they knew of those cartoons and said they were beyond sick.. and a way for child pornographers to get around using actual photos, thinking they'd skirt the laws. The point of the laws is not just to protect kids from being used in photos and films, but to try and stop the market for children as sex objects, and the children's sex trade.

Freaks me out that so many here can't see how unbelievably wrong.. not the sentence is.. but the frightening depiction of sex with little children, for entertainment. The law is trying to stop the eventual move into pedophelia. but.. I guess you guys don't get that point.

[Clarkie1]

40. It doesn't matter! No child was abused! They are drawings! n/t

[Clarkie1]

41. By the way...think about changing your screename. You aren't progressive.

[beam me up scottie]

4. Cartoons are illegal?

WTF?

They're not real.

So what happens if I draw a murder being committed?

[dysfunctional press]

5. i'm sorry- but that's just bullshit...

***I'm not saying the story is a lie!***

what i'm saying is that it's ridiculous to an obscene degree that they can convict, or even charge someone under child porn laws for CARTOONS...no matter how stylized or graphic.

[beam me up scottie]

8. I'm with you.

From the article:

Whorley's child pornography conviction was the first under the statute that was NOT based on actual photographs of children.

Talk about thought police.

What's next, the death penalty for fantasizing about clobbering Lil Boots?

[Nutmegger]

9. Careful - the thought police is watching and listening [nt]

[asthmaticeog]

10. Cartoons? Fucking CARTOONS?

Next, I suppose, museum curators will be jailed for posession of Henry Darger paintings.

[Imagevision]

157. RIGHT CARTOONS!! - it stills implants the sicko idea of real life!

[walldude]

11. So the Senators son who sodomized a dozen kids with a broom

gets off with probation and this guy gets 20 years? Mind you child porn is fucked up whether it's cartoons or not but something smells bad here. I know a guy who did 2 years for sending out a nude(no sex just a nude)picture that he recieved from someone else. The girl turned out to be 16. It was a sting operation. The thing is I know this guy and he's no child molester or anything he just assumed the girl was of age. He got 2 years for distribution of child porn. Plus now he's a registered sex offender.

It ain't me
It ain't me
I ain't no Senators son....

[Pryderi]

12. What about those paintings of cherubs? Aren't they nude children?

Art owner will be arrested! Museum curators in chains!

[Jack_DeLeon]

13. 20 years in prison for looking at dirty cartoons?

pretty fucked up in my opinion.

[rpannier]

17. Imagine what they would have done if he had downloaded cartoons of

children being murdered in horrible ways, like gutting, strangulation, etc.

They'd have done nothing. Why?

Because it's not cartoon sex.

[napi21]

18. It might have been the cartoon that he was convicted for,

but my guess is he wasn't ONLY checking out cartoons! Comeon people, think about it. First of all, the guy was a REAL dumbass for using a STATE computer to do this sh*t! Second, would YOU really spend hours looking at THAT kind of stuff?

Maybe you'd spend hours checking out the current porn sites, and if you want to spend your time doing that, who cares, but I've heard some descriptions of some of the child porn stuff...cartoon or not... that really freaked me out! I admit I'm very naieve on the subject, but I agree with the jail time. You can call it the thought police if you want, but I don't want people around me or my grandkids who are haveing thoughts like that to give them pleasure!

[beam me up scottie]

20. WTF ???

You want people to go to prison for THINKING bad things ???

Jesus fucking Christ.

[napi21]

21. He wan't just THINGING! n/t

[beam me up scottie]

23. Your words:

You can call it the thought police if you want, but I don't want people around me or my grandkids who are haveing thoughts like that to give them pleasure!

[bullimiami]

25. if they had something else they should have prosecuted him for it.

they obviously did NOT.

this xstian-fascist bush world is fucked up.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[napi21]

27. Thanks. Sure glad you're not MY neighbor. n/t

[Clarkie1]

28. I assure you, I am very glad you aren't mine.

Ever fantasized about living in Nazi Germany back in the day?

Edit: By the way, if you admire Howard Dean, you ought to take his picture off your posts. I assure you he would find your views most offensive.

[janx]

106. You are in no position to make such an assertion.

Furthermore, there is not much evidence in the short article to back up your assertions. I find this whole post very curious.

[progressivebydesign]

31. You people who are screaming have NO CLUE what those cartoons are..

do you? The accounts I've read of the so-called cartoons are not just Sailor Moon-look-up-my-dress cartoons. According to people that posted about this a few months ago who are familiar with that type of pornography, the "cartoons" are so sexually explicit and grotesque and child-oriented, that it's no different than photos of the acts. If you think that it's great to exploit images of children that way.. then you need to read up on what the guy was viewing. It wasn't 'comic books' as some people are trying to pass off. And.. to attack a poster who tries to educate you on it, and actually having the nerve to tell them they are 'unAmerican' because of it, that's just over the fucking top.

[Clarkie1]

34. There is no victim here except the defendant.

How disturbing the cartoons are is irrelevant. What is next, banning pictures of Bush with horns?

It is very disturbing this could happen in America, and I hope this is overturned by the Supreme Court.

Anyone who defends this law does not deserve to call themselves an American. They should go join the thought police.

[WinkyDink]

37. Granted, but they are still just DRAWINGS. NO CHILD was abused!!

WTH?

[elehhhhna]

150. no child is abused if ya photshop kidporn either. Is THAT okay?

[noamnety]

38. We're trying to keep it in perspective

The man RECEIVED 20 IMAGES.

received them, that implies someone sent him an email? I dunno. It certainly doesn't imply that he was spending his days searching for them online.
and yes, it is different than photos of the acts - because the photos violate specific living children.

I'm not arguing in favor of pornography at all here, just to be clear.

But the reality is that REAL pedophiles that rape REAL children are getting off with no jail time at all, while this guy got a year of prison for each image viewed.

That's a problem indicative of an underlying flaw in our system. Our nation is more concerned with legislating morality than it is with protecting actual victims. There is no value placed on human life at all, from what I can see.

[beam me up scottie]

42. Yeah, we do. They're CARTOONS.

THey're not REAL.

I don't care HOW bad they are, technically, they're fiction.

IF this doesn't scare you, you're completely ignorant of the implications.

[Imagevision]

158. CARTOON? - and what do the cartoons suggest to the sicko's??

duh!

[pitohui]

59. if you have looked at these cartoons

you are guilty of the same crime as this man and why aren't you in prison for 20 yrs, o because someone in power doesn't happen in to dislike you

that is the definition of fascism my friend

you are good enough to look at these cartoons but we get 20 yrs if we look? fuck that

i don't care abt "accounts i've read"

if you have looked at these cartoons you are just as guilty of this man of looking at 20 cartoons

if you have not looked at the cartoons then you don't know because visual arts can be described in the most slantingly of ways

[readmoreoften]

62. Good point.

Anyone who has even witnessed the evidence ought to get one year in prison if you follow this line of thought.

[readmoreoften]

60. If you think there's no difference between drawings and reality...

If you can't tell the difference between drawings and reality, then you have no understanding of reality. The difference between child pornography and sexually graphic anime is the difference between gruesome photo mementos shared between mass murderers and extremely gory horror flicks passed between teenage boys.

People can still THINK whatever they want, whether you like it or not. They can even have pedophilic thoughts and feelings, just like you can have feelings of murder and rage. Just like freepers can state that they want to watch Saddam Hussein's execution live.

It's a drawing. It's two dimensions. No child is harmed by the fact that this man viewed such an image. Hell, there's not even any evidence that he ENJOYED it. For all we know, he could have been researching anime, found these pages and became fascinated by their depravity. No one knows. And frankly, I don't know why anyone cares.

This judgement is TERRIFYING and I hope it will be swiftly overturned.

[beam me up scottie]

67. Excellent post.

If you can't tell the difference between drawings and reality, then you have no understanding of reality. The difference between child pornography and sexually graphic anime is the difference between gruesome photo mementos shared between mass murderers and extremely gory horror flicks passed between teenage boys.

[WindRavenX]

147. finally, some sense in this thread

For fuck's sake people, no one was hurt in the production of these cartoons OR while he viewed them.

[janx]

108. My point exactly.

I agree with you!

[Occulus]

137. Actually,

over the top is advocating jailing someone for a cartoon. It doesn't fucking matter what the subject matter is; there was no actual child harmed, and therefore, there was no victim. Period.

As much as you as a "progressive" (used here as so many use "christian" or "christer", because it's pretty fucking obvious YOU fall into the same category) would like to have it that way, real patriotic Americans don't jail people for cartoons, no matter the subject. I don't care how gross or deviant it is- it's still only ink on paper.

The only way I would see cause for alarm is if they were drawings of actual children- and even then I'd need more evidence before I actually jailed anyone.

None of us need to "read up" on anything at all, because this should not even be a debate. It was a cartoon, he was jailed, the jailing is wrong, end of fucking story.

Go take your fascism to some other board.

[KAZ]

51. I'm with Clarkie1 on this one.

Don't understand the sentiment. And I'm for protecting kids as much as the next person.

[Clarkie1]

53. Watch out, the thought-police will say you have different "values"

than they, implying you don't put as high a value on stopping the exploitation of children as they do. They've already accused me of not valuing children highly enough on this thread, and it makes me very, very angry. This is how fascists operate.

[Occulus]

138. Just an aside: I don't think we should even be mentioning

"protecting kids" in this context, because no actual children were/are being protected. By even mentioning "protecting kids", we're only reminding people that "molestors are everywhere", and getting them to think of the (usually, but not in this case, justified) need to protect children from them.

It's a cartoon, not a corporation; it has no rights you or I do. One cannot commit a crime against a cartoon.

What we should be hammering is that this is just simply totally over the top, justice gone absolutely batshit insane. Unbelieveable that people here, on this board, support jailing someone FOR A CARTOON.....

[pitohui]

33. napi i honestly don't understand your post

if they had evidence the man had viewed or possessed actual child pornography, instead of cartoons, you can bet your arse the DA would have used that instead of some frickin cartoons

think abt it

boys will be boys and some of them spend hours looking at porno and some spend hours looking at anime

what if it was your son, because i guarantee your son looks at porno, what if it were your husband, what if it were your dad, because whether they share this info w. you or not, your dad and your husband have viewed some porno!

there has got to be a way we can be fair to victims w.out being the thought police

[Pryderi]

19. I'm glad I don't own a copy of "Pretty Baby"

[readmoreoften]

63. Yeah right?

What a difference a couple of decades makes.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. This Literally Is Making Me Sick To My Stomach.

I'm nauseous from it. Just like I get when I read another 3 strikes law type story. Robbing this man of 20 years of his life is disgraceful and brings a tear to my eye. We all can sit here and type away how horrible this is, but we have no idea the reality that this poor man is facing by knowing he will be locked away in prison for 20 fucking years for something like this. I want to cry for him and puke at the same damn time.

[progressivebydesign]

32. No. The exploitation of children should be more nauseating. n/t

[Clarkie1]

35. It's not a question of what is more nauseating.

Both are nauseating. It's a question of justice!

THERE IS NO VICTIM HERE EXCEPT THE DEFENDANT!

[progressivebydesign]

39. Sorry. the defendent isn't a victim.

As a parent, I'd have to be pretty okay with the thought that someone who found viewing extremely graphic depictions of sex with little children is now behind bars. Think someone like that would stop with just viewing hard core "cartoon" porn of children? Think anyone despereate enuff to risk everything to view it is going to be low risk? I don't. I have zero problem with them criminizing the sexual exploitation of children, even if it's done without actual children. But.. everyone has their own values, I guess. And what is important to you, is not as important to me, and vice versa. And.. we'll agree to disagree, how's that?

[Clarkie1]

43. No it's not a matter of simple disagreement.

The defendant is the ONLY victim in this case!

This law is fascist and Un-American to the very core.

If you believe this, you ought to change your name to regressivebydesign. Seriously. Go to Free-Republic if this is what you believe.

Edit: And don't you DARE say or even IMPLY again that I don't value stopping the exploitation of children as much as you, ever!

[beam me up scottie]

46. You can't imprison people for what they MIGHT do.

Christ, we lambaste the chimp for doing that to illegal combatants and now you're advocating doing it to citizens?

[incapsulated]

50. No. Have you read "Lolita"?

Seen the film? Seen the movie "Pretty Baby"?

Then you should be in jail with this guy.

In real child pornography, there are real children being abused.

Who is the victim here, the paper and pens? Are we going to lock people up for thought crimes, now, based on what they read or the art they view?

[Nutmegger]

55. Thank you, I was just going to mention Lolita

I can't believe this is happening in Amurika.

[incapsulated]

57. I say that every week...

What are we coming to?

:(

[janx]

110. Have you seen the cartoons in question?

If so (or if not), can you reasonably make the comparison?

[incapsulated]

114. Because ANY cartoon...

Isn't a real child. End of story. End of my point.

A fictional character isn't a real person, either.

Nor is a thought in my head.

I would not convict anyone for looking at a drawing of a crime, would you?

[janx]

121. I understand that and respect it more than you know.

But sometimes propaganda can reach real people, and I haven't seen the drawings in question. I know, and in one case am related to, some artists who have had work removed because it was not popular. So I am always wary of the popular versus the legal, and also of the literary versus the popular.

There are some cases within my published stories in which there are characters who do awful things, so I may be able to understand the context, but the situation of this is missing from the referenced article.

[blogslut]

58. Don't visit Japan

I'm just sayin...

[readmoreoften]

69. I hope you never serve on a jury.

As a survivor of child sexual abuse, I resent that you use the pain of children to censor peoples thoughts and ideas. You have no idea why this man was looking at this material. You have zero evidence as to this man's intent. You admit to having seen it yourself. By your own estimation you should get at least one year in prison for viewing one of these images yourself.

You have trivialized child rape by comparing real children to images and rushed to judgement about someone over viewing 20 drawings. Is he an artist? Is he an academic? Is he an anti-porn activist. Did he just find the images strange? You have no idea.

People who think like you are the stuff of nightmares as far as I'm concerned.

[Clarkie1]

84. Thank you so much for that post readmoreoften.

:patriot:

[janx]

122. You just turned your own argument on its head.

But I like you anyway.

[madmusic]

135. I'm a parent....

... so flush the Constitution, nanner-nanner. Who care if they don't have any Bill of Rights left when they grow up.

[mongo]

140. So then do you think that watching some mass murder horror flick

causes people to go out and become mass murderers?

Why is it if a sexual component is involved in any work, suddenly it becomes an instuction manual?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

54. And Rightfully So He Resorted To Cartoons For His Sick Fetish Rather Than

actual children who are hurt buy it. No way in hell he deserves a day in jail for this, let alone 20 years. I cry for this guy.

[Clarkie1]

56. I cry for him and our country. n/t

[Marie26]

134. Not me.

Based on his prior conviction for sex offenses, & the 54 other criminal convictions here for distributing real photos & sending obscene emails to a child, this guy was a habitual offender who needs to be off the streets. I agree that to the extent he was convicted for the cartoons alone, that particular conviction ought to be overturned.

[Karenca]

74. no children were exploited.....

ok, a child cartoon character was exploited.:wtf:

[beam me up scottie]

120. Yeah.

I did one of these too:

[mongo]

139. No children were exploited

in the making of a cartoon.

I've seen a bit of these. I know what they're about. I don't watch them.

I don't watch slasher flicks either. But I don't think that people who do are potential mass murderers.

[WindRavenX]

148. how are children exploited by cartoons?

:shrug:

[Clarkie1]

29. HOW CAN WE ORGANIZE A PROTEST AGAINST THIS???

This is so unjust. How sick the cartoons are has nothing to do with it. THERE IS NO VICTIM HERE!

This is America, for God's sake!

[beam me up scottie]

44. I've started a thread in Civil Liberties forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=226x4567

Hopefully we won't get many "OHMYGODITSDIRTYBANITNOW" posts and can find out more about the implications.

[Clarkie1]

47. I am sure the ACLU is all over this.

It's motivated me to look at renewing my membership!

It is absolutely HORRIFYING to me that this could happen in America. What's next?

[beam me up scottie]

52. What's next?

When he gets out, he'll no doubt be on the sexual predator list.

And some people don't have a problem with this???

[Pushed To The Left]

155. I'm considering increasing my monthly donation

based on lots of things going on in this country today.

[incapsulated]

45. I've looked at lots of toon's on the internets...

Some of it sexual, some of it gross, some of it sick. Am I going to jail next?

This is insane.

I'm all for going after and locking up anyone who purchases REAL child pornography involving REAL children. Children were victimized in it's creation and those who purchase it are paying for that abuse.

But when we send people away for looking at cartoons, no matter how distasteful, we are all in serious trouble.

By this rationale, anyone who has read Lolita is a pedophile.

[beam me up scottie]

48. Precisely.

When do they start rounding up people for having disturbing fiction in their possession?

[Clarkie1]

49. This is a very, very scary slope. The defendant is the only victim here.

[Marie26]

61. Some facts here

OK, I hate to stop the outrage here with some facts, but here goes:

- Whorley was not convicted just for the 20 cartoons, but for over 74 counts of child pornography & obscenity. He was supposedly using the Va. Employment Commission computers to look for a job, but actually used the state's computer to download & email pornographic images instead. Some of these images were cartoons, but some were actual photographs of children. He also emailed these images to a minor child & wrote numerous explicit emails about sexual abuse of children.

- He had been convicted before on federal child pornography charges & is a registered sex offender. After serving his sentence for these prior convictions, he was released on probation, & promptly re-arrested 3 months later for these new charges. This incident occured within the first 3 months after he was released from prison.

- One of the laws he was convicted under, the PROTECT Act, has already been struck down by the Supreme Court as overbroad & unconsitututional. Therefore, this conviction stands a very good chance of being overturned on appeal.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march06/obscenity031006.htm

[blogslut]

64. sounds about right

Another sensationalist headline. Fucking MSM

[noamnety]

126. I agree with that

fuck the media

[Clarkie1]

65. Thanks for the facts.

"One of the laws he was convicted under, the PROTECT Act, has already been struck down by the Supreme Court as overbroad & unconsitututional. Therefore, this conviction stands a very good chance of being overturned on appeal."

Regardless of any real crimes the defendant committed, charging him for viewing cartoons sets a very scary precedent. That he comitted real crimes does not change the nature of the issue, and I certainly hope the counts against him for viewing the cartoons will be overturned on appeal.

:hi:

[Marie26]

73. It should be

The PROTECT Act was the law that criminalized any "cartoon" or "virtual" images of child pornography, even if actual children were not involved. That law was struck down by the SC as an unconstitutional violation of free speech. (I linked the SC case above if anyone wants to read it). So, Worley's conviction under that particular law should be overturned; but his convictions under general obscenity laws will probably remain (as they should).

[beam me up scottie]

80. The 2003 law is still on the books.

It hasn't been declared unconstitutional.

[blogslut]

83. aren't you confusing the Protect Act

...with the Child Pornography Prevention Act? Isn't the Protect Act about showing any kind of porn, simulated or not, to a child?

[incapsulated]

85. Now I'm confused....

Reading it again, her link was a 1996 law, this was a 2003 federal act.

I don't know the actual name of it to google.

[blogslut]

89. I understand

I have to write about these laws for a living and I can't keep them straight. CPPA, COPA, COPPA...

[incapsulated]

91. Look at my post at the bottom of the thread... n/t

[beam me up scottie]

88. From the USDOJ release:

Paul J. McNulty, Acting Deputy Attorney General and United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, announced the sentencing of Dwight Whorley, age 52, of Richmond, Virginia, on child pornography charges. United States District Judge Henry E. Hudson sentenced Whorley to 240 months’ imprisonment.

Whorley was convicted on November 30, 2005, after a four-day jury trial, of using a public computer at a Virginia Employment Commission ("VEC") office on March 30, 2004, to receive twenty obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males. Whorley was convicted under a new federal statute enacted in 2003 that criminalizes the production, distribution, or receipt of, or the possession with intent to distribute obscene drawings, cartoons, sculptures, paintings, or any other obscene visual representation of the sexual abuse of children. Whorley’s conviction for receiving cartoons is the first conviction under the statute that was not based on actual photographs of children.

The jury also convicted Whorley of receiving fourteen digital photographs of real children engaging in sexually explicit conduct and of sending and receiving twenty obscene E-mails which graphically described, among other things, parents sexually molesting their own children.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/Press%20Releases/EDVA%20Whorley%20sentencing%20PR_031006.pdf

He was convicted of *both*.

[Marie26]

129. Yes,

I'm sorry, they are two different laws (that say the exact same thing). The Child Pornography Prevention Act defined child pornography as any "visual depiction" of sexual abuse of children (including cartoons, etc.) This provision was struck down by the SC as overbroad & unconstitutional; & the opinion held that drawings, etc. (where no children are involved) are protected by the First Amendment. The Bush Ad. motto is: if at first you don't suceed, try, try again. Immediately after the SC struck down this law, Congress passed a new law, the PROTECT Act, which includes exactly the same provision. In Sec. 504 -"in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that ... depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.") The PROTECT Act also improves the Amber Alert program, & enforcement. But that particular section seems to be exactly the same as the CPPA provision that the SC just struck down. Worley is the first person ever convicted under this new & improved version, so the court hasn't had a chance to rule on the constitutionality of this particular provision. But since it's exactly the same as the law the SC overturned, Worley's conviction on this particular charge should be overturned on appeal.

[charlie]

143. I don't believe that's so

SC blocked enforcement of COPA, saying its criminalization of cartoon and generated imagery was likely unconstitutional. But it hasn't accepted a challenge to PROTECT yet, as far as I know. A federal circuit court has held it to be unconstitutional though, so an SC ruling may not be long in coming.

[incapsulated]

66. Well, thanks, that is a relief!

The article linked above did not give any of those details. This guy obviously has a history and did a lot more than just look at some toons.

[blogslut]

68. why sure it did

Didn't you see that highly informative last sentence at the bottom?

"Whorley was convicted on 74 counts."

That explains everything! :sarcasm:

[incapsulated]

72. You know, it's late...

And it really SHOULD have been a red flag but I'm tired, lol.

Maybe it was a count for each pixel. :silly:

[beam me up scottie]

70. Wait a minute.

Where does it say he was jailed for photos?

PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN
Virginia Man Sentenced in Landmark Obscenity Case

03/10/06
Two years ago, Dwight Whorley went to a local office of the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) in Richmond, ostensibly to look for jobs online. Instead, he used the state’s computer to download and send Japanese “anime” cartoons showing graphic acts of child pornography.

Because of a 2003 federal obscenity law, that’s illegal . The law, designed to help protect children from sexual exploitation, makes it a federal crime to produce or distribute obscene drawings, cartoons, paintings, or any other visual representations involving the sexual abuse of children.

On December 1, Whorley—who had spent time in jail on previous federal child pornography charges—became the first person in the U.S. to be convicted under the 2003 law. On Friday (March 10), he was sentenced to 20 years in prison and fined $7,400.

How’d he get caught? Alert employees at the VEC saw Whorley print the images, and they told a supervisor. The supervisor called the police, who contacted us. Our computer experts in Richmond and from the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the U.S. Department of Justice extracted evidence from the computer, and a Japanese linguist at FBI headquarters translated the text of the cartoons to provide further proof of the cartoons’ content.

FBI Agent Gerald Kim, who led our investigation in Richmond, said the cartoons were extremely graphic. “There was no doubt about what was being depicted,” Kim said.

The Japanese anime was just part of the case against Whorley. Our cyber experts found digital photographs of child porn on the same VEC computer. Whorley had also used it to send explicit e-mails to a young girl and for other e-mails describing the sexual abuse of children—further violations of federal obscenity laws. In the end, we were able to link Whorley to the pornography, e-mails and other evidence on the computer. He was convicted of a total of 74 counts of obscenity and child pornography.

“We worked on this day and night to verify that he was the person using that specific computer at certain times,” Kim said.

But our work didn’t stop there. By examining the computer Whorley used, our agents were able to identify and track down other peddlers of child pornography, leading to a recent arrest by agents from our St. Joseph, Michigan, office near Detroit. Other cases are in motion.

How can you help protect your children from becoming victims of sexual exploitation? Check out A Parent’s Guide to Internet Safety and other resources on our Online Child Pornography Program webpage, our Crimes Against Children webpage, and the Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section webpage.

It reads "The Japanese anime was just part of the case against Whorley.", not that he was convicted of anything else.

Did they use his previous record to help convict him?

If so, that's still means they are prosecuting people for cartoons.

[incapsulated]

77. There were 74 counts against him

Obviously the anime could only make up a small part of it:

"Our cyber experts found digital photographs of child porn on the same VEC computer. Whorley had also used it to send explicit e-mails to a young girl and for other e-mails describing the sexual abuse of children—further violations of federal obscenity laws. In the end, we were able to link Whorley to the pornography, e-mails and other evidence on the computer. He was convicted of a total of 74 counts of obscenity and child pornography."

[beam me up scottie]

78. Read my other post.

He was convicted under this new law, just like anybody else who reads cartoons could be.

[incapsulated]

82. Then it will be thrown out and he will be convicted all over again

For the real child porn photographs and the emails he sent to a minor. I'm not crying over this creep, the prosecutor was an idiot for using a law already struck down as unconstitutional when he had a solid case.

[beam me up scottie]

86. Did you read the info?

He was NOT convicted for a law that had already been struck down.

[Marie26]

93. It's the same thing

Bush & Gonzales just re-enacted it, so the Supreme Court can strike it down again. Maybe they were hoping that O'Conner's retirement would give them that extra vote. But it's the same law, as far as I can tell. But I'll try to research this new version more closely & post later about what the differences (if any) are. He was convicted under many different laws, the PROTECT law was only one of them. I don't know why the prosecutor would bother using such a constitutionally shaky law when he could've just relied on the other legal violations here.

[beam me up scottie]

97. They want to set precedence.

And considering who is on the SCOTUS now, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to overturn this one.

This is why they wanted to pack the courts.

[Marie26]

128. They'll lose

Ashcroft v. FSC definitively struck down convictions based on "any visual depictions of children." (cartoons, etc.) In that sweeping opinion, the SC court said that child pornography is criminalized only when actual children are depicted. Because, it is the harm to that child that makes the image illegal - drawings or "virtual images" do not affect a real child, & so are protected images under the First Amendment. Under that theory, cartoons or drawings of children (where no child is involved) cannot be criminalized, because they are an expression of free speech. That opinion had overwhelming support from the Supreme Court - the majority Opinion was written by Kennedy, Stevens, Suoter, Ginsburg, Breyer, & Thomas. O'Connor wrote a concurrence, & the dissent was written by Renquist, w/only Scalia joining. So, that's 6 votes to overturn that law, & only 2 justices dissenting. ALL of the 6 justices who struck down this law are still on the court. So, for purposes of this law, the recent changes on the SC are moot. Even if Roberts & Alito go for the DOJ, that's only going to add 2 dissenting votes, & isn't enough to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling on this case. Besides which, the SC does have respect for precedence, and it is beyond arrogant to try to ask them to overturn their own ruling a few years later. The SC are not idiots, & they're aware of the earlier, sweeping ruling in the FSC case. In addition, they usually don't like it when a party tries to skirt their previous rulings. I see no reason why they'd suddenly change their minds here.

Worley is the first person charged under this particular section of the new law, so it hasn't had a chance to be overturned again. But I see no reason why this conviction would not be, unless the SC suddenly decided to change their minds on this (doubtful, given the strength of the original opinion.) These type of cartoons fall exactly into the definition of "virtual depictions" that the SC has already upheld on free speech grounds. And, other provisions of the (new) PROTECT Act have already been struck down by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals as overbroad & unconstitutional. In US v. Williams, the court ruled that people cannot be convicted for simply "pandering" or peddling these sorts of cartoons or images, because that is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. (the court left stand the convictions for actual posession of photographic images). The judge mentioned the earlier FSC decision by name, & struck down this law for impermissible vagueness. I stand by my position that this conviction will probably be appealed & eventually overturned.

[Occulus]

141. See, THAT is fine with me

He also had real photos of real children, and THAT is what he should be convicted for having.

There is a seriously sick mindset, call it the hyperparent, who wants to be able to jail people for cartoons. Personally, I'd rather they were tossing one off to drawings and digital computer models rather than diddling actual children, but that, it appears, is a problem I have... at least, according to the hyperparents.

:eyes:

[Marie26]

79. He was also convicted for obscenity violations

About the photographs - "Our cyber experts found digital photographs of child porn on the same VEC computer."

[beam me up scottie]

81. That's a statement from the FBI's website touting their "victory".

Read my other post, he was convicted under this new law.

THey CAN use this to prosecute people for viewing cartoons.

[Marie26]

100. So what:? It's still true.

He was convicted under the PROTECT Act (whatever the status of this law is), and for obscenity charges (for sending those emails to a minor). And possibly other laws as well, I don't know. But it wasn't just this new law.

[beam me up scottie]

102. It's spin.

They purposely made it look like he was convicted for having real images while leaving out the fact that he was convicted separately for downloading cartoons.

[Marie26]

130. He was convicted for real images

He was convicted for posessing actual images, as well. According to the DOJ news release, Whorley was convicted for:

- 20 counts of receiving obscene materials
- 20 counts of obscene visual representations (this seems like the cartoons)
- 14 counts of receiving child pornography (actual photographs)
- 20 counts of sending & receiving obscene emails

It states:
"Whorley also used a VEC computer on March 11, 2004 and March 12, 2004, to receive
digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Between February 6,
2004 and April 2, 2004, he also sent and received twenty obscene E-mails graphically describing,
among other things, parents sexually molesting their own children."

In your post, you disagreed w/my point that he was convicted for photographs as well, and asked "where does it say that he was convicted for actual photos?" It's clear that he was convicted for having actual photos (& the emails), not just these cartoons. There was plenty to convict this person under traditional child porn & obscenity laws. The Protect Act charge is just one of many, & even if those particular convictions are overturned (as I believe they will be), there are more than enough other crimes here to send this guy to jail for a long time. That headline that he was given 20 years for "receiving cartoons" is patently false. That whole news article was written (and posted here), in the most inflammatory way possible, to make us feel outraged & sorry for this poor man. Sorry, I'm not shedding a tear for him. I believe that, if the cartoons were among the evidence leading to this conviction, that particular conviction should & will be overturned on appeal. But there were numerous other criminal violations here & he should be sent to jail for a long time.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:GW7V2rhuMggJ:www.usdoj.gov/usao/vae/ArchivePress/DecemberPDFArchive/05/20051201whorleynr.pdf+Dwight+Whorley&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9

[beam me up scottie]

99. That's a different law.

He was also convicted for having cartoons.

[Marie26]

103. He was convicted under different laws

That's what I was saying. Under the Protect Act (dubious, maybe) & these other obscenity charges (which are perfectly valid laws). I don't know if he was convicted under the Protect Act for cartoons, or the actual photos, and the link you posted says that that isn't clear, either. Since actual photographs of children were also found, we don't really know what evidence the prosecutor used for this charge. It's late & I shouldn't have tried to post a legal argument tired & a bit drunk. But the thing that surprises me is that no one else tried to look into this at all.

[beam me up scottie]

107. According to the DOJ release,

he was convicted for both, separately.

The 2003 law stands and they're prosecuting people under it.


You're right, people should be screaming bloody murder.


But I guarantee you, nobody will take this up because he IS a convicted peddler of real child porn.

In an election year, it would be political suicide.

The bastards have this figured out, don't they?

[Marie26]

131. I don't think so.

It was tricky of them to re-enact the law the SC had just overturned & it shows their basic contempt for the judicial process. But I highly, highly, doubt that the courts will go along w/this. The new 2003 law stands right now only because no one has ever been convicted under it before. And as I mentioned in another post, another section of this law was just struck down this month. (This section involved "peddling" these virtual images (cartoons, etc). The court struck down the provision as overbroad & unconstitutional. If the section on peddling these images was struck down, the section on posessing them won't be far behind.) I'm sure somebody will take up this case - the Free Speech Coalition took the original case to the SC, & that also involved a peddler of real pornography. Free speech advocates look at the general principle, not the individual circumstances. And they don't have to worry about elections.

[readmoreoften]

71. Well, that's good news!

If he's been arrested on charges of child pornography (you know, pictures of REAL CHILDREN) then lock him up. The pictures of cartoons shouldn't factor into this in any way unless he sent them to intimidate a REAL CHILD.

[beam me up scottie]

76. That's not clear.

Read my posts, there is a current law that has not been declared unconstitutional.

[Marie26]

132. That's how I feel too.

Lock him up for all the real photos he sent, & the real emails he sent to a child. The cartoons shouldn't be factored in unless he also sent those images to a child. This man was convicted for much more than simply possessing cartoons.

[beam me up scottie]

75. Uh, some more facts:

Dwight Whorley
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dwight E. Whorley (51 years old) is the first person to be charged under the PROTECT Act of 2003 for ownership of lolicon (drawn, simulated) pornography.<1>

In 1996, the U.S. passed an act entitled the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, which expanded the definition of child pornography to include images where no children were ever involved. This is a break from previous child pornography laws in that there is no way to claim that this law is to protect children from abuse by making illegal photos of that abuse; rather this prohibits purely computer-produced or hand-illustrated images of sexual conduct with children. In 2002, the Supreme Court found that this law was unconstitutional due to its infringements on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In 2003, Congress passed a law including a slightly revised form of the virtual child pornography prohibition. The definition in this law is: "'hild pornography' means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where…such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

This law has not been deemed unconstitutional. It is unclear whether Whorley was convicted for possessing "virtual child porn" (computer drawn) or "real child porn" (digital photographs of children). If he was convicted for possessing real child pornography, his case would not represent a departure from pre-1996 child pornography laws.

A jury convicted him on 74 counts of child pornography charges. He was sentenced on March 10, 2006 to 20 years in prison and a fine of $7,400.<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_Whorley

[Marie26]

87. Sneaky!

It's almost exactly the same as the 2002 law that the SC overturned. They just re-wrote it. I'm sorry, I should have known by now to look for Bush sneakiness whenever one of their policies is overturned. This new 2003 version can't be overturned yet, because Worley was the first person charged - but I don't see why it wouldn't be. That'll have to be appealed. The one distinction I can see between the old law & the new law is this - the old law also covered "cartoon" or "visual representations", but this new law is limited to "computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." As in, a digital image that is indistinguishable from a photo - there's no way that could cover cartoons.

Based on what you posted, it's not clear if Worley was charged for the cartoons, or the actual photographs. It looks like, if this law was used, it's because he had virtually created "photographs". And he was also convicted for obscenity law violations as well. I should'nt have posted at all about it, but I felt like the outrage for this guy was a little out of hand given these charges. I'll try to learn a little more about this case & see what the legal status is of these laws.

[beam me up scottie]

92. I just found the DOJ release,

he was convicted of both, meaning they are prosecuting people for cartoons and drawings.

I posted part of the release in my post above, but here's the link:

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/Press%20Releases/EDVA%20Whorley%20sentencing%20PR_031006.pdf

[incapsulated]

90. Alright, I found the actual Federal Act used in this case!!

The Supreme Court has held: "Transmitting obscenity and child pornography, whether via the Internet or other means, is... illegal under federal law for both adults and juveniles." Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, at 878 n. 44 (1998).

Federal law prohibits the distribution of obscenity through the facilities of interstate or foreign commerce. More specifically, it is a crime to use the mail to send or receive obscene materials, to import obscenity, to ship or receive obscenity by a common carrier, or to transport obscene materials across state lines for sale or distribution, including by computer. See 18 U.S.C. sections 1461, 1462, and 1465. It is also illegal to broadcast obscene materials, or engage in the business of selling obscene materials that have traveled through interstate or foreign commerce. See 18 U.S.C. sections 1464, 1466. If on federal property, a military base, or on in Indian Country, it is a crime to sell or possess obscenity with the intent to sell. See 18 U.S.C. section 1460. (While even the mere possession of child pornography is a crime, private possession of obscenity is not, although the act of receiving obscenity could violate the statutes prohibiting use of the mails, carriers, or interactive computer services for the purpose of transporting such material.)

There are also federal laws making it a serious crime to distribute obscenity toward minors. Federal law prohibits a person from using the mail, or any of the means of interstate commerce, including a computer, to knowingly transfer obscene materials to someone the person knows is under 16 years of age. See 18 U.S.C. section 1470. For example, it would be a crime to knowingly email an obscene picture to a 15 year-old. Two other statutes for online child protection prohibit knowingly using an interactive computer service to display obscenity or child pornography in a manner that makes it available to a person under 18 (see 47 U.S.C. section 223(d) –Communications Decency Act of 1996, as amended by the PROTECT Act of 2003) and knowingly making a commercial communication via the Internet that includes obscenity and is available to any minor under age 17 (see 47 U.S.C. section 231 –Child Online Protection Act of 1998). In addition, a new law also prohibits the use of Internet domain names with the intent to mislead a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors, or mislead any person into viewing obscenity. See 18 U.S.C. section 2252B. For example, a pornographic Website cannot use a domain name suggestive of a cartoon character or children's television show with intent to mislead a minor into viewing harmful material.

The U.S. Supreme Court established the test that judges and juries use to determine whether material is obscene. The test was developed in three major cases: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 300-02, 309 (1977); and Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987). The resulting three-pronged test to adjudicate obscenity is as follows:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion); and

Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and

Whether a reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Any material meeting this definition may be found to violate the laws of the United States and anyone convicted of distributing such material may be prosecuted and punished by fines and a term of imprisonment.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/OPTF/optfLinks/citizens_guide.html

[beam me up scottie]

94. That's a DIFFERENT law !!!

U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Eastern District of Virginia
Main Street Centre 804/819-5400 600 E. Main Street Fax [phone] Richmond, Virginia 23219-2447


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Further Information Contact Richmond, Virginia Sue Vick 804-819-5400 March 10, 2006

Paul J. McNulty, Acting Deputy Attorney General and United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, announced the sentencing of Dwight Whorley, age 52, of Richmond, Virginia, on child pornography charges. United States District Judge Henry E. Hudson sentenced Whorley to 240 months’ imprisonment.

Whorley was convicted on November 30, 2005, after a four-day jury trial, of using a public computer at a Virginia Employment Commission ("VEC") office on March 30, 2004, to receive twenty obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males. Whorley was convicted under a new federal statute enacted in 2003 that criminalizes the production, distribution, or receipt of, or the possession with intent to distribute obscene drawings, cartoons, sculptures, paintings, or any other obscene visual representation of the sexual abuse of children. Whorley’s conviction for receiving cartoons is the first conviction under the statute that was not based on actual photographs of children.

The jury also convicted Whorley of receiving fourteen digital photographs of real children engaging in sexually explicit conduct and of sending and receiving twenty obscene E-mails which graphically described, among other things, parents sexually molesting their own children.
At the time of his arrest in this case, Whorley was a registered sex offender who was convicted in March 1999, on a federal charge of receiving child pornography and was sentenced to 46 months’ incarceration. In January 2003, after serving that sentence and while on supervised release for his earlier conviction, Whorley was re-arrested for violating the conditions of his probation. Whorley subsequently pled guilty to violating the conditions of his release and was sentenced to an additional 12 months of incarceration to be followed by 12 months of supervision by the United States Probation Office. He was arrested on the present charges on April 5, 2005, just three months after being released from incarceration, when United States Probation Officers learned that Whorley had received child pornography by using a computer at the VEC.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/Press%20Releases/EDVA%20Whorley%20sentencing%20PR_031006.pdf

[incapsulated]

96. you're right, see below...

Doh.

[incapsulated]

95. No, wait! THIS is it, lol:

FACT SHEET
PROTECT ACT

The “PROTECT Act of 2003” is an historic milestone for our nation's children. The Justice Department will dedicate the full force of our nation’s resources against those who victimize our nation’s youth. Important coordinated law enforcement information, fast law enforcement response, and swift and sure penalties can work to protect our children. The PROTECT Act comprehensively strengthens law enforcement’s ability to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish violent crimes committed against children.

Problem #1: Law Enforcement Had Inadequate Tools to Help Locate Missing Children and Prosecute Offenders.

Solution #1: The Act Establishes the AMBER Alert Program, and Provides Significant New Investigative Tools. AMBER Alert programs are a proven tool to help recover abducted children.

·Establishing a national AMBER Alert Program. Building on the steps already taken by the Bush Administration to support AMBER Alert programs, this bill allows for national coordination of state and local AMBER Alert programs, including the appointment of a national AMBER Alert Coordinator and the development of guidance for issuance and dissemination of AMBER Alerts.

.On October 2, 2002, the Attorney General designated Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs Deborah Daniels to serve as coordinator.

·Support for state AMBER programs. The bill provides $25 million in FY 2004 for states to support AMBER Alert communication systems and plans.

·Enhanced tools to protect children:

.This bill allows law enforcement to use existing legal tools for the full range of serious sexual crimes against children. Under prior law, wiretaps are authorized for a range of crimes, but not for many of the various crimes associated with using the internet to lure children for purposes of sexual abuse and sex trafficking.

.This bill makes clear there is no statute of limitations for crimes involving the abduction or physical or sexual abuse of a child, in virtually all cases. Under previous law, the statute of limitations expired when the child turned 25, potentially allowing child rapists to go free if law enforcement could not solve the crime in time.

.Under current law, defendants who commit crimes against children are often released on bail. The bill makes it more difficult for defendants accused of serious crimes against children to obtain bail. This is similar to other existing provisions for some drug, firearms, and violent crimes.

.The bill strengthens laws punishing offenders who travel abroad to prey on children (“sex tourism”).

·AMBER Alert system galvanizes entire communities to assist law enforcement in the time-sensitive search for and safe return of child victims, and there is no doubt the AMBER Alert system saves lives:

.AMBER alerts have already recovered over 50 children.

·The Justice Department is quickly implementing AMBER Alerts nationwide:

.89 AMBER plans are already in effect throughout the country.

.41 programs exist statewide.

.The Justice Department has a National Amber Alert Coordinator who has been working since last year to develop a seamless nationwide child protection system in EVERY state.

.The Justice Department mailed a report in March to all 50 Governors detailing steps to create statewide AMBER programs.

Problem #2: Federal Law Did Not Ensure Adequate or Consistent Punishment for Those Who Committed Crimes Against Children.

Solution #2: The PROTECT Act Provides Appropriately Severe Penalties for Those Who Would Harm Children.

·Increased penalties for non-family member child abduction: the minimum prison sentence is now 20 years.

·Increased penalties for sexual exploitation of children and child pornography: a first offense of using a child to produce child pornography is now 15 to 30 years.

·“Two Strikes” provision that requires life imprisonment for offenders who commit two serious sexual abuse offenses against a child.

·Provisions to address the rates of “downward departures” - when judges sentence criminal defendants to less time in jail than the Sentencing Guidelines state.

.For years, downward departures in child pornography possession cases have ranged between 25% and 29% nationwide.

§One judge, for example, granted a 50% downward departure to a 5'11", 190-lb. child pornography defendant - who had accessed over 1,300 child pornography pictures and begun an Internet correspondence with a 15-year-old girl in another state - in part due to his concern that the defendant would be “unusually susceptible to abuse in prison.” United States v. Parish, 308 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2002) (rejecting Government’s appeal and affirming the sentence).

.The bill provides the judiciary with less authority to give reduced prison sentences, by eliminating much-abused grounds of departure such as “diminished capacity,” aberrant behavior,” and “family and community ties.”

§In one recent child pornography case, a judge departed downward in part on the ground that the defendant had a “diminished capacity” due to the fact that he “was extremely addicted to child pornography.” The bill ensures that pedophiles will not be able to get reduced sentences just because they are pedophiles.

•Prior to this Act, the length of post-release supervision of sex offenders was capped at five years, which is plainly inadequate in light of the high rate of recidivism for such offenders. The Act would allow a term of supervised release of any terms of years or for life.

Problem #3: Past Legal Obstacles Have Made Prosecuting Child Pornography Cases Very Difficult. Last year, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a federal law that criminalized the possession of “virtual” child pornography, i.e., materials whose production may not have involved the use of real children. This decision has made it immeasurably more difficult to eliminate the traffic in real child pornography.

·Child pornography takes place largely over the internet, so most of the child pornography cases that are brought involve computer files of images. Defendants now routinely seek to escape conviction by claiming that there is a “reasonable doubt” as to whether the computer image is that of a real child.

·As computer imaging advances, this problem will worsen. Some experts already claim that it is impossible to tell whether a particular image was made using a real child. Future prosecutions will become battles of experts that will confuse juries and harm our ability to protect our nation’s children.

Solution #3: Strengthen the Laws Against Child Pornography in Ways that Can Survive Constitutional Review. Among other provisions, the bill will:

·Revise and strengthen the prohibition on ‘virtual’ child pornography.

·Prohibit any obscene materials that depict children, and provided tougher penalties compared to existing obscenity law.

·Encourage greater voluntary reporting of suspected child pornography found by internet service providers on their systems.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/April/03_ag_266.htm

[incapsulated]

98. Here is a wiki on it with a link to a pdf of the text...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

[beam me up scottie]

101. That's a DIFFERENT law.

Jeez, read the information in my posts.

He was convicted for downloading cartoons.

[incapsulated]

104. He was convicted under the 2003 Protect Act

Which is what I've linked to. Which is, if you read it, going after "virtual child pornography".

Read the parts I've bolded in the post that has the "Fact Sheet".

[beam me up scottie]

105. So we're talking about the same law.

People can, and no doubt will be prosecuted for downloading cartoons.

Dammit.

I was hoping I was wrong.

[incapsulated]

109. But...

Given the fact that the SCOTUS knocked down a similar law, they may throw it out on appeal, or at least that part of the 74 counts. He has plenty of other shit they can convict him on with well established laws on the books.

That they were trying to test the waters with this by using the Protect Act is disturbing, especially since it worked.

[beam me up scottie]

111. I just posted something similar in my other thread.

He was convicted under the 2003 law which has NOT been declared unconstitutional.

They are prosecuting people for downloading cartoons.

Nobody will touch this because he's also guilty of possessing real child porn.

They are trying to set precedence, and during an election year, they will probably succeed.

What politician would possibly even consider taking this up?

And with the SCOTUS packed, I doubt whether it would be overturned if it ever got that far.

[incapsulated]

112. They probably used this as a test case because...

He had more than just the toons, and had prior history, so no one was going to question the conviction.

I don't know if this will make it to the SCOTUS since he has more than just the cartoons going against him and he knows he is going to jail without them, but if they try the next case on "virtual images" alone, it will definitely go there.

[beam me up scottie]

113. I don't think they'll test it again

until after the election.

They know nobody will do anything about this jerk, so it's a safe bet they will set precedence.

They know exactly what they're doing.

I'm going to look into this a little more tomorrow and maybe post it in my blog.

Can you let me know if you find out anything else?

I will do the same for you if you like.

I'm very upset about this whole thing.

They have gotten away with so much more than I ever thought would have been possible six years ago.

At the risk of sounding paranoid, I put nothing past them.

[incapsulated]

115. It's the SCOTUS that upsets me...

Because they will allow them to get away with shredding the constitution, hell, they will condone it as perfectly legal.

I'll do some more googling tomorrow when I'm awake.

[beam me up scottie]

116. Hey, thanks.

It was nice working with a fellow smart ass! :D

[incapsulated]

117. Heh...

Same here! :hi:

[readmoreoften]

118. What a nice nail in the coffin.

Dismantling the internet
Setting the stage for criminalizing art and fiction.
Preparing to invade Iran with bombers already practicing their flight paths (even according to MSM).
No real elections.
Halliburton setting up detention centers for "illegal aliens."

Well, it looks like we can expect a "precipitating event" at any minute. I wonder what it will be this time. I don't believe all this is set into motion for NOTHING at all.

It's already happening. Duck and cover.

[beam me up scottie]

119. I'm not worried about an actual attack on US citizens.

Or that they're anything like Hitler's SS.

But I am worried about thought police.

More subtle, but more dangerous as well because of it.

[madmusic]

142. History repeats itself

Even with the real pictures and emails, 20 years is too much. The punishment should fit the crime and should be related to the actual harm done. He didn't harm any child himself and it is just as un-American to say he should get 20 years because he might in the future or because someone else actually took kiddie porn pictures and directly harmed the child in the process. The law blames this man for what he MIGHT do and blames him for what the kiddie-porn picture taker actually did. Should he get some time? Sure, but the punishment should fit the actual crime in relation to the harm he did, not to what someone else did or what he might do. The Feds should concentrate on who did the actual filming if they want to bust kiddie porn.

Sending the emails is another story. He actually created those, if he did. Still, how much actual harm was there? 20 years in prison worth? It is hard to believe that the child he sent them to was harmed more than if he/she was accidently murdered or maimed, since murder/maim often carries a lower sentence. Or for the sake of argument, let's say the child was harmed by the emails. Was the harm worse than getting regularly beaten by his/her father? Why shouldn't that father get 20 years if not?

These laws are not really for the protection of children, because a lot of other more harmful acts are not treated as severely. It's all about sex, and all through American history, the tyranny of the majority rears its ugly head when it comes to sex. In the Progressive Era, it was the women who were to blame. Over 60,000 people were sterilized and most of them were "promiscuous" women. How long before women are again included in the witch hunt? The "crack whore" epidemic almost brought it back. The Conservatives were paying crack addicts to get sterilized, but it fizzled (or might still be going on). They will keep trying. The public loves to get outraged and jump on some prey, any prey will do.

Keep in mind how long a every year in jail is. It's a long time. Imagine spending in year in jail. I'm not sure what a fair sentence for this guy would be, but 20 years is too much.

Can't blame the Repugs though. This is all they have going from them and they've always fought for a "tough on crime" policy, so it is not hypocritical. The Bill of Rights always gets in the way of some good fascist policy, not to mention those damn "activist judges." So they tried to stack the Supreme Court. Bet that doesn't work though. To many on the SC kind of like the Bill of Rights.

[OneBlueSky]

123. if they can convict for cartoons, they can convict for writing . . .

the next step will be prosecuting someone for writing something that involves children and sex . . .

tossing the First Amendment out the window is about as scary as it gets . . .

[beam me up scottie]

124. Yes!

Exactly!

Even though this creep was busted for having real child porn, letting him get prosecuted under this specific statute for downloading cartoons is a really bad idea.

For all of us.

[WinkyDink]

146. THEY CAN START WITH SCOOTER LIBBY.

[elehhhhna]

151. does Scooter Libby's creepy book count?

[Pushed To The Left]

125. Didn't the Supreme Court knock out laws involving

"virtual child pornography"?

[Marie26]

133. Yep. Ashcroft v. FSC struck down those laws

And to the extent that this conviction is for possession of "virtual child pornography," it should also be overturned.

[ecstatic]

136. I really hate pedophiles, but this man looked at drawings

and does not deserve 20 years in prison. And I'm someone who has no problem putting a 100% proven pedophile to death (although I'm against the DP in most other cases). I just wish our justice system wasn't so arbitrary.

[brophat]

144. Child Porn laws are in place because there is a child victim

In the case of drawings there is no child victim!

Therefore there is no crime.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

145. Welcome to DU, brophat!!

:hi:

[elehhhhna]

152. YOU WILL BE JAILED if you look at the pic in my sig line

.

[Strangefire]

153. Is the artist in jail, too?

How dare someone create these innocent, helpless cartoons for such deviant purposes!! Heck, give the artist a year in prison for each of these cartoons that he/she willingly drew! Ah,the eeeeevil that flows from a depraved artist's pen and pencil set. Don't worry-- Big Brother will protect us all.


*sigh*

I was always under the impression that for a crime to be committed, there needs to be a victim. Somehow, I just can't find myself shedding tears of sympathy for this poor violated cartoon. I do, however, find myself feeling like crying over the fact that people can now be imprisoned for viewing cartoons.

[Pushed To The Left]

156. Lots of so-called "crimes" with no victims in America

Drug laws, prostitution laws, gambling laws, adult pornography laws, laws against sex toys....there were "sodomy laws" here until the Supreme Court rightfully struck them down in 2003. The right wing also wants to criminalize the "desecration" of the American flag!

[brophat]

159. Child victim was the explanation for why the child porn law was in place

That is how they explained the reason for the law in the first place for the case when the pics where real.

[Pushed To The Left]

160. I think all of us support laws against real child pornography n/t