Obama Sues Pedophile Over Photos

[ariesgem]

(March 8) - It's enough to make any father lash out in anger. A self-professed pedophile posts photos of your young daughters on his Web site, where he describes them as an "angelic duo."

It happened to Senator Barack Obama whose presidential campaign threatened legal action against Lindsay Ashford, a self-professed pedophile who handicapped the 2008 campaign by judging the "cuteness" of several presidential candidates' underage daughters and granddaughters. Attorneys who specialize in free speech say the campaign's handling of the issues raises some questions about the candidate's stance on civil rights.

"Individuals can make comments about the candidates and the candidates' children without running afoul of the law until someone crosses the line into actual or criminal activity," said Lawrence G. Walters, a lawyer who has handled many cases involving pornography and the Internet. "For better or worse, pedophiles retain their free speech rights. If he's a professed pedophile and if he says, 'Let's try to find these kids,' then it could be in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, then he may be liable."

No matter how distasteful the content of the website, Walters and Jonathan Katz, another First Amendment lawyer, were surprised that the Obama campaign had threatened legal action in this case.

"If Obama knows that his lawyer is doing this, then that's one reason not to vote for him," Katz said. "These are clear free speech issues."

On Feb. 26, Obama's counsel, Robert Bauer, sent a cease-and-desist letter to Ashford, asserting that the use of the photos "is not simply defamatory, but is a criminal act," and that the Illinois senator reserved the right to "pursue civil remedies and criminal referral."

snip.....................

http://news.aol.com/elections/president/story/_a/barack-obama-sues-pedophile-over-photos/20070307164109990001

[lvx35]

1. My ass. This is veiled threat shit.

Nobody has the right to make veiled threats against politician's children.

[Truthiness Inspector]

15. I totally agree

The mere posting of Obama's kids' pictures on a pedophile site is a veiled invitation for other pedophiles to seek them out and harm them.

Just disgusting. :puke:

[SayWhatYo]

43. Is the guy really a pedophile?

There is a whole ?"meme"? thing on the net that uses pedophilia crap to rile people up. The people doing it often times are not serious, but they say things that are meant to get people going. I wonder if this is just a case of /b/ troll gone mad...

[ariesgem]

45. He admits he's pedophile

from his website http://www.puellula.org/AP.html -

Puellula is the latin diminutive of the word for girl (puella). I have chosen this title for my website as it is dedicated to little girls. Here I have attempted to bring together a wide range of resources that show the beauty of girls, both in the arts and in real life.

My interest in little girls comes from the fact that I am a girllover, somebody who is physically and romantically attracted to little girls. I would also refer to myself as a pedophile. To use this word, however, I must stress that there is a major difference between a pedophile and a child molester. Unfortunately, society often blurs this distinction and does not attempt to understand that pedophilia is not an action but a sexual orientation. The second purpose of this site, therefore, is to demonstrate this difference and to explain my ideal of consensual childlove, an emotional and spiritual attraction to young children that transcends a simply physical or sexual attraction to them.



:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[Kerrytravelers]

48. HIs "Mission" is particularly alarming.

My Mission
I possess a great light. I wish to share this light with the world. Due to the forces of fear and irrationality, I was forced to hide my light under a bushel. Now, however, I have uncovered this light and wish to share it with all.

The light I possess is the love I have for little girls. I am certain that this light, as it is put on a stand and begins to illuminate my heart and my mind, will reveal to all around me that my motives are pure and my love is genuine.

If I wished to hurt a little girl, I would seek to do so in the shadows, away from the eyes of the world. Yet what I am asking is to be allowed to love a little girl in full view of all. Give me the opportunity to demonstrate my love and see my light shine forth!





I think this "Mission" speaks for itself. I can't think of one thing I can say that will accentuate what he has already said for himself.

[rocktivity]

56. DING DING DING! Kerrytravelers, you're our grand prize winner!

I think this "Mission" speaks for itself.

If I wished to hurt a little girl, I would seek to do so in the shadows, away from the eyes of the world. Yet what I am asking is to be allowed to love a little girl in full view of all. Give me the opportunity to demonstrate my love and see my light shine forth!

Who does he think he's kidding, deliberately confusing attraction with predation, "girllove" with selfish lust, and sex with "hurting?" And by posting the photos without parental consent, did he not violate his own code of "openess with parents?" At any rate, I see that the photos are gone now. Mission accomplished, Obama!

:applause:
rocknation

[rebel with a cause]

52. This guy is full of BS.

Anybody that would fall for his fancy latin descriptions of how he is different from a child molester needs to have their head examined, he is a child molester. there are two types of child sexual molesters, the rapist and seducer. He is a seducer. They are perhaps less dangerous in that they don't kill as often as the rapist, but psychologically they are VERY dangerous. This type of person makes me sick to my stomach. I have had to work with them, even with youths who were seducers of younger children. I had empathy for the youths, but were terrified of the damage they would do thoughout their future.

I am sorry, I believe in free speech, but anything that so out right sickly affects children should not be allowed. That picture on the web page was enough for me to feel like he should be persecuted by those in his area. I am sorry, but working with victims of guys like this have made me not very charitable toward them. they better be thankful I am not god, if there is one, because I would rid the world of them with a wave of my hand.

[Kerrytravelers]

59. Mr. kt just made a very good point to me.

The DOJ is cracking down on sites that feature children. I clicked the link earlier to see for myself once the link had been provided. I copied his "Mission" statement and posted it here. When Mr. kt came into the room, I clicked a second time to show him. He advised me not to click the site again. People have been busted for going on sites the DOJ is watching. I'd hate to see any well-meaning DUers have to explain to Agent Mike what they were doing on that site. I also suggest bookmarking and keeping this thread in the event that someday there is a knock on the door. My click was totally innocent and I only saw the homepage. I'm sure other DUers are the same. I'm sure I' being over-precautious but still, just a little warning. As I said further down the thread, Mr. kt use to work for a major Internet provider and tends to know about these things.

[ariesgem]

62. Thanks for the advice

When I first went to the site, I didn't see any pictures or links to graphic child porn so I thought it may be appropriate to post the link. If it's not too late, I'm going to remove it.

on edit- It's too late :(

[pnwmom]

102. Good warning, KT.

Thanks.

[NashVegas]

66. Oh Hell

I just had to go look.

I think I'm going to cry.

[Hekate]

92. "...to explain my ideal of consensual childlove..." Holy Mother of God!

If my little girl was featured there, I'd also have a lawyer write a cease and desist letter in the strongest possible language.

This is not about the First Amendment, is it? I agree that Obama is acting well within his rights as a parent and a citizen in trying to shut this pervert up.

This gives me the shudders.

Hekate

[BlueStorm]

93. OMG... I was fishing around on that site and I found a link to THIS...

http://www.playtoymagazine.com/portal.php

sick... absolutely sick... I can't believe that people get off on this...

(Now that I've been fishing around on there I wonder if I am going to get a visit from Agent Mike. Yikes!!!)

But this is sick... Ugh!!! All I keep picturing is my nieces being in that video. It's absolutely horrifying. :puke: :puke: :puke:

Blue

[Katherine Brengle]

16. Absolutely agreed.

[pnwmom]

2. 99% of people would be MORE likely, not less likely, to vote for

any candidate who fights back when his or her young children are attacked.

[Eurobabe]

3. Set up by the wingers? Swiftboat anyone?

This stuff makes my head explode.

[rebel with a cause]

54. exactly!!!!!!!!!!!

Attacking Barack for having family values. How about the other candidates. I would think they would not want their children up on this site either. Does not Edwards have a young daughter?

[The Magistrate]

4. Mr. Katz, Ma'am, Is An Ass

[EST]

8. Ha! A genuine cat's ass! Imagine that!

You, sir, bear some responsibility for my mental pollution.

[orleans]

5. i wouldn't want my daughter's picture (or any mention of her) on

a website like that either. i think it's some creepy shit. i support obama completely.

[Bombtrack]

6. Times like this are the only time you wish Obama worked like the Bush crime family

have this creep suicided or something.

[dailykoff]

7. The crime family are probably behind it.

Or the criminals behind them.

[gatorboy]

51. It would make sense considering how scared the right is about Obama.

Just like they tried to get the public to think terrorism when they think of Obama, I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans paid this creep to promote Obama just so Obama's name will constantly be connected to a self promoting pedophile.

That this man is so adamant about talking about Obama even when he has told him to stop is what makes this so suspicious.

[Vidar]

9. Obama is right & laudable for defending his children, regardless

of the lawyers' opinions as to the validity of his case.

[xchrom]

10. this is just too creepy.

:scared:

[Warren DeMontague]

11. My ick meter just went off the scale.

Hmmm. I would think that since the kids aren't public figures, they might be entitled to a wider degree of legal privacy.

[cooolandrew]

12. Sounds very much like a smear to me they've tried everything. They not very pleasant 2 say the least

[rebel with a cause]

55. they might be thinking that he will drop out of the race

to protect his chidren. What other candidate has children on the web site, and why hasn't they taken action?

[mmonk]

13. Someone's right to sue is not negated by anyone's right to free speech.

[Solo_in_MD]

14. You can sue for any reason in this country and many do

But this makes Obama look bad and stupid. Then again it may gain him some votes amongst the dim and the kneejeck..

Pedophiles, even convicted ones, do not lose their free speech rights.

[tammywammy]

17. Really? You think this makes Obama look bad?

I don't see that at all. I see a parent that doesn't want pictures of his underaged children on a website of an admitted pedophile. Mitt Romney could do the same thing as Obama and I wouldn't think less of him either (and I detest the idea of Romney as president).

[Solo_in_MD]

23. With thinking people who understand free speech rights it does

I don't expect that is the case with Mitt supporters.

[pnwmom]

26. Show me a parent who would defend the right of this pedophile to put

the parent's own identified children up on the web site, and I'll show you a parent who shouldn't be one.

[tammywammy]

41. Okay, well

If agreeing with Obama's cease and desist letter makes me soft on free speech, then so be it.

Any parent should have the right to tell an admitted pedophile to remove their children's pictures.

[Solo_in_MD]

65. But they don't

The law does not make a distinction between his site and the New York Times site, even he was convicted of child molestation.

[pnwmom]

70. Who says? The Supreme Court has ruled that there ARE

limits to self-expression. Litigation would show whether limits applied in this particular case.

[Solo_in_MD]

72. but its a universal limitation, no one can yell fire in a crowded theather

you are advocating different standards for different people/orgnizations. That is the real issue and its dangerously close to free speech for me, but not for thee, and right out of the repuke playbook.

[mmonk]

106. Does what?

[GoneOffShore]

18. Apparently more than a few people would like them to

I blame Dick Wolf for that Law & Order SVU mentality that immediately calls for a suspension of the Constitution where sex crimes are involved.

Now I'm going to have some :popcorn:.

Want some? It's fresh.

[pnwmom]

20. So it's okay to post pictures of YOUR children on a pedophile's

web site? I hope you don't have any, if that's the kind of parent you would be.

That creep's "freedom of speech" ends where the threat to Obama's children begins.

[GoneOffShore]

24. Has an actual crime been committed?

Is there intention to commit a crime? Has this guy threatened his kids?

And did I say or imply that it would be alright?

What I did say was that where sex and children come into play, a great many people are willing to suspend the Constitution. And I'm a firm believer in due process. The law should protect everyone, even those who are repugnant to us. That's why we have them. If you're willing to interpret the First Amendment to say that everyone has free speech, except pedophiles, well, go ahead. But ask yourself where that leads.

Are you willing to do that?

I hold no brief for this guy or his predilections. But last time I checked 'thought crime' was not yet prosecutable.

Sure, it's creepy, sure you defend your kids, but I do have some itch at the back of my mind that is telling me that Obama's actions are possibly not the best way to deal with this.

Your mileage may vary.

[pnwmom]

25. Obama was exercising his own right to free speech, through his lawyer.

Look at it that way.

[Truthiness Inspector]

32. I think an argument could be made

for incitement to commit a crime. It's not cut and dried in this instance, but nonetheless, a valid argument could be made.

Inciting another/others to commit a crime is a crime itself. Showing pictures of children to an audience of pedophiles and saying how "cute" the kids are is at the very least veiled incitement.

I am glad Obama is taking a stand on this.

[Telly Savalas]

49. It's a slippery slope though

If this pedophile can't post pictures of Obama's children, then the next thing you know he won't be allowed to stand outside Obama's house at 3 AM shouting racial epithets through a megaphone. Free speech rights are absolute!

[rebel with a cause]

58. OMG!

You work for awhile with sexually abused children and then come talk to me about Law & Order mentality. You work with children that have been socialized to be sexual abusers themselves and have already at the age of 10 sexually abused toddlers for years, then come talk to me about this. Until then, eat your popcorn and enjoy your ignorance.

[pnwmom]

19. Overall, he won't lose votes for defending his young children from attack.

If anything, he will gain sympathy.

[Hekate]

95. No kidding. He's doing what's RIGHT as well as what's legally right to protect his kids.

I think this one's a no-brainer.

Hekate

[Kerrytravelers]

22. So, then, you're cool with it if a known pedophile posts pictures of your young children?

Obama has put himself in the media spotlight. He is fair game. his wife is fair game. His associates are fair game. His young children? They are not fair game. The bush twins are adults. Chelsea is now an adult. But young children? They're not public figures.

A person's rights ends at the tip of their nose. When this pedophile took pictures of young girls and put them up on his site as a known pedophile, he has now gone past the tip of his nose. Even if Obama had allowed pictures of his daughters in the media, he, as their parent, has some right to the setting and context of the pictures. I'd feel the same if it were bush and his twins were the age of Obama's chidren. I'd feel the same if it were falwell, dobsen or any of the others in their dabal.

If it were my kids, you're right I would do exactly the same thing. But, I guess I"m just part of the dim and knee-jerk. And proudly so.

I work in education. In particular, I am often given students who have been very abused. I have had third grade girls who have been pimped out by their mother's for drugs and passed around the family like a sexual toy. I personally have no softness in my heart of a pedophile who wants to use his First Amendment rights to professes his "interest" in children. I guess I'm just kind of fascist in this way.

[Solo_in_MD]

27. No, I think its horrific, but the 1st amendment matters, even when its distasteful

The policy that a politicians children are off limits is only loosly followed by the MSM, and is not codified. There are well defined rules about taking pictures in public. If they were followed, there is no legal standing for suit. The C&D letter is a throwaway. There are several backdoor approaches that might work including getting the ISP to dump his account.

[Kerrytravelers]

29. I will echo pnwmom and say Obama was exercising his own right to free speech, through his lawyer.

And his children's safety. I would put a child's safety above the Free Speech of a pedophile.

And all speech isn't protected. I don't agree with hounding people and posting fliers all over town once they've done their time and are trying to get on with their lives. However, this guy is bringing attention onto himself and goading people. I would think less of Obama- or any parent- who didn't respond accordingly.

[Solo_in_MD]

31. Actually he is using is wealth to hire a lawyer to supress protected speech

Most people at DU find such things abhorent. Its easy to support free speech you agree with, its harder when its abhorent to you. This guy is on the order of Coulter and Farakan. If they get to speak, he does to.

The right way to address this is to get the site off the net, force him remove the pictures if he did not take them, etc. Otherwise censorship wins.

[pnwmom]

33. Coulter and Farakan aren't putting anyone's children at risk.

They're not in the same category at all.

[Solo_in_MD]

35. Neither is this site...consider if it was done by a legitimate childrens

magazine or website. Would that be different. If so, parse the difference legally.

[pnwmom]

38. The difference is that these pictures were posted

for the purposes of sexual titillation. It isn't just any website.

It is encouraging sickos to go after these children. We have enough problems getting good candidates for public office as it is.

If this kind of thing is allowed to occur -- if their young children are considered "fair game" -- then responsible parents will be less likely to run for political office.

[NYCGirl]

39. Of course the legitimate children's magazine or website wouldn't say the following:

Evidently Mr. Ashford has no qualms about his pedophile tendencies. His creepy website clearly states on the front page "a celebration of the splendor of little girls". His website, registered in Panama, goes on to state, "I have been bestowed with the gift of girl love. I have chosen to unmask here because I have a very strong conviction that I should not be forced to hide my sexual orientation".

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/167538/barack_obama_threatens_legal_action.html

[Kerrytravelers]

36. I have no problem supporting free speech I abhor.

Free Republic, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbah, all this is free speech I abhor. I hate the Minutemen, the "Pro-Birth" people, the Fundy fruitcakes who plaster shit all over their car about how I'm an evil baby-killer and the dreg of society. I hate seeing it, but I know it gives me the right to have my Amnesty International and my Oxfam sticker. I hat ethe fact that the KKK is allowed to spew their hatred, but I know that the opposing view also has the right to counter-act all that hate with reason. It is important to note that when the KKK's speech directly indicates an act of violence, they are held responsible for that speech. The Southern Poverty Law Center has honed in on this and has been able to shut down the violent speech to a degree that is still Constitutional. However, I don't see this pedophile's website as the same thing at all. Seems to me that Obama is exercising his rights and protecting those of his daughters. Not all speech is protected.

[Solon]

74. The 1st Amendment isn't absolute though...

Particularly in cases of children. Plus, it makes no difference if it was a politician's children or a layman's children whose pictures are posted on a pedophile's site. Given the CONTEXT within the site, this is an implied threat, the fact of the matter is that he is pushing the legal envelop for both child pornography and child endangerment. He should be glad that a C&D letter is the most he'll get out of this.

If this were a non-pedophile website talking about Obama's family life, in general, or even specific terms, both good and bad, then there wouldn't be a problem. This guy may be operating within the letter of the law, but its a fine line that was just a few words away from being crossed.

[Solo_in_MD]

77. Indeed, though it appears that it is indeed just inside the letter of the law

though which law is applicable is a fair question. Apparently he is no in the US (per the address of the C&D letter). Copyright issues seem to have resolved it for now.

Someone emailed me with an interesing point...how much ad revenue did the guy get from this troll. I had not considered it that way...it could have all been a giant troll.

[Solon]

87. I'm glad I'm not curious enough to visit the shithole's site...

I'm not in the mood to throw up just yet, even that description further up the thread caused a little something to come up my throat. Not a pleasant experience.

Besides the copyright issue there is the fact that, if what you say is true, the First Amendment doesn't apply. Depending on country of origin, some have much stricter definitions of what protected speech actually is, in some countries, its illegal to use a child's image for "lewd" purposes, even if the image itself is "innocent", or fully clothed.

[pnwmom]

28. Yeah, me too KerryTravelers. If being appalled by this makes

me weak on free speech, then so be it.

Something tells me that none of these knee-jerk free speech proponents have any children of their own.

[Kerrytravelers]

30. I'm thinking the same thing.

There is no way I would want my kid's picture on a pedophile's website. Can't imagine any responsible parents who would. I can't believe I'm reading that a pedophile has the free speech right to put up a website with pictures of prominent people's young children. Wow.

[Solo_in_MD]

34. So prominent peoples childern should get special protection?

That is what you are arguing for. There are rules about taking pictures, expectations of privacy, and copyrights. All can be used here, hopefully with some effect. But if the pictures were legitimately taken/used, there is no legal argurment.

Try this: Assume it was a legitimate children's magazine/website not a pedophile. Would there be any outrage? If not, describe why there is a legal difference.

I take a picture of kids in a parade, at the park, other public place. I post them on a website. I make comments about what is in the pictures. Should the parents be able to demand I take them down? What if they are of a marching band competition that my children are in and my comments are about the guard uniforms. Does that make a difference?

There are times being a free speech advocate can be very uncomfortable, this is one of them. However, the price to do otherwise is too high.

[pnwmom]

37. The difference is that the pictures are not being "legitimately used."

Using children's photographs on a website for the purposes of sexual titillation should be a crime, if it isn't already.

[Kerrytravelers]

40. Are you a pedophile? If your website is clearly sexual in nature, then you should be stopped.

I don't think that is the case. I am not arguing for prominent people, but in this case, we are talking about someone who is prominent. Any person who has a website that is clearly sexual in nature and involves children should lose that particular website. In fact, major Internet providers have an editorial department that monitors all sites using their services. Mr, kt worked in such a position. He had to shut down website with children and sexual references. Some of the photographed children were from famous people, others were not.

There is a huge difference between a children's magazine and a pedophile's website. I know you know the difference. All free speech isn't protected. Children, however, should be protected.

[KingFlorez]

44. He has every right to ask that his children's pictures not be posted on this man's site

He reacted the way any parent would. This isn't a violation of free speech at all.

[pnwmom]

103. That's right. The right to free speech means no prior censorship by

government. It doesn't mean that people can't sue for damages and it doesn't protect criminal behavior or child endangerment.

[NYCGirl]

21. The headline is misleading. No one was sued — a "cease and desist" letter

was sent.

Personally, I think this website is distasteful in the extreme. No one's underage children are running for office.

[SayWhatYo]

42. Sounds like an internet troll gone "big time"

This guy is probably loving the attention.

[gollygee]

46. People don't have a right to use photos of underage kids without permission

No matter why they're using the photos. At least in my newspaper days, if I was taking photos, I had to have permission to take photos of kids. In every circumstance.

I'd sue if they had a photo of my daughter too.

[murielm99]

105. That still applies.

When I had to put together a teaching portfolio, I could use pictures and names of children only with parental permission.

I could use copies of their essays if their names were blocked out.

I could not use any videos of children unless I had permission from every single parent.

Surely there are laws that apply to the use of children's names and images that we are not taking into consideration. Maybe we have no knowledge of those laws.

[Solo_in_MD]

108. Pictures taken in public where there is no expectation of privacy are not restricted by the age of

the subject. That is a common misperception here.

[Ikonoklast]

47. If pictures of my daughter were posted on the website

of a self-professed pedophile, I don't think that I could bring myself to file suit.
Just the thought of using the justice system of our country to suppress free speech is rather distasteful to me.

I would, however, use a more, shall we say, 'direct' approach. I would politely ask the offending person, face-to-face, to please remove the pictures at my request.

Sometimes my sterling personality and powers of persuasion can work wonders with the recalcitrant.











That and a sack full of doorknobs.

[flashlighter]

53. where does one find a sackfull of doorknobs?

[Solo_in_MD]

67. I just got rid of a box full of old doorknobs, next time I will save them for you

Seriously...helped a friend move into a home formerly occuipied by a elderly woman and her care provider. None of the interior door knobs worked. Every external one was different and several were broken. End result was a large collection of old door knobs and a fresh set through out the house. Took us most of the day.

[rocktivity]

50. "Obama's counsel...sent a cease-and-desist letter...asserting that the use of the photos

'is not simply defamatory, but is a criminal act,' and that the Illinois senator reserved the right to 'pursue civil remedies and criminal referral.'"

And he's absolutely right. Ashford is free to say what he wants. But he is not free to advocate sexual relationships with children (he calls it "attraction" and "girllove," but he's not fooling me) by posting photos of them without parental knowledge or consent. He IS acting illegally.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Solo_in_MD]

64. There was more to that letter and other parts of that site than many seem to realize

- The photos were lifted from an Obama site. Should be a slam dunk for a DMCA letter except for one minor problem
- Claim that the site was illegal is specious due to the same minor problem
- Civil actions can always be filed, but there is that minor problem

Minor Problem: The person running the site appears not to reside in the US (see address on the letter). US law does not apply though arguably the Berne convention would for the copyright on the photos. International civil actions are a major PITA, just ask the US spammers going after Spamhaus. There is a total lack of jurisdiction for criminal action. Finaly, defamation of a presidential candidate is not possible, just ask John Kerry.

This ignores all the 1st amendment issues, which trump most of the claims being made here.

I did find the link on the site to report them to a whole host of law enforcement agencies cheeky and amusing. They clearly know the law and are going just up to it. Looks a lot like a hetro version of NAMBLA, another group with a lot of noteriety.

As for those who claim that photos of children can not be published without parental permission need to read up on what is and is not legal to take pictures of. Post 911 the rent-a-cops have gotten very nasty about it without proper legal backup. Checkout http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf for more information.

As a parent who has been through some *interesting* website/Internet issues in the past, this is a hard one. Still I have to come down on the side of the 1st Amendment.

[CarbonDate]

107. Okay, but I'll come down on the side of the sack of doorknobs.

Just my opinion. I'm not a parent, but I've dated a single mom. I know the sentiment.

[pnwmom]

57. No wonder Obama's wife was worried about him running.

She knew the creeps would come out of the woodwork.

I can't believe people here are defending pedophilia on the grounds of free speech.

[rebel with a cause]

60. You and me too.

Makes me about as sick as I was when I had to set and talk with a pedophile parent and pretend they were not what they were.

[pnwmom]

61. That must have been awful.

Was it part of a job or something?

[rebel with a cause]

63. Yes, I worked with Illinois DCFS for a short while

and then for a children's home where many of the children that came through were victims of child abuse. The last year I worked there was mainly with children who were themselves sexual predators. One boy had been sold as a toddler by his crackhead mother to two pedophiles who had used him from the time they got him until the state took him at around age nine. Others had been abused and socialized by family members who were pedophiles, and these were the people I had to meet with in the preparation to send the children back home to them. These people, who were not high on the social ladder, would sit and look down their noses at you, because you had to act like you: did not know what they did/did not pass judgment for what they did/didn't want to tell them that they were the scum of the earth who shouldn't be allowed to have children. The hardest part of the job was to send these kids back home to be victimized and to victimize others, or to welcome them back after they had sexually assaulted a smaller child. The stories that I, and others like me, could tell are many and most people would not want to hear them.

[pnwmom]

68. The stress of that kind of job must be unbelievable.

Crazy-making.

[rebel with a cause]

94. Lots of burn out in the field!

you take long work hours and bad working conditions (unsupportive administration), and it drains your energy until you are totally exhausted. that is what happened to me and others at my agency. I was diagnosed with total exhaustion, mentally, physically and emotionally. I loved this type of work, just not where I did it. I was not able to continue in the field after that. They now say I have post tramic stress syndrome from my time there. Yeah, crazy-making.

[pnwmom]

101. I'll bet you do.

Hugs to you, Rebel!

:hug:

[murielm99]

109. I understand.

One of my friends did that work for ten years, before she transferred to something that did not consume her so much.

She was mentally and physically exhausted. She ended up as thin as a rail, with a thyroid dysfunction. I swore she was going to have a nervous breakdown.

She told me her boss drank. I wonder why.

She loved her job and was sorry to leave it. I respect anyone who can do it.

[Zhade]

69. It sounds like Obama may be wrong on this one.

Will have to read more, but Walters is right about even scumbags having free speech rights.

[pnwmom]

71. The Supreme Court has ruled in a number of other cases that

there ARE some limits. Only litigation would show whether they apply in this case.

[Solo_in_MD]

75. There is no precedent of the type you are inferring

Under similar circumstances, if its legal for person/orginazation A to publish something, then it would be legal for person/organization B to publish the same thing. Equality under the law is a basic concept of justice. The law should not distingusing between persons, though it has been under repuke rule.

[pnwmom]

78. There have been cases related to pornography. If this case would

be precedent setting, however, that's no obstacle.

The Internet is still new enough that there is bound to be precedent-setting law in connection with it.

[Solo_in_MD]

79. This is not a porn case, and existing precedent is clear

not to mention the jurisdiction issue. If the paper can publish a picture they took of someone, so can another, even if its disturbing.

[pnwmom]

85. Porn cases show that the Courts have long recognized limits to

free speech and free expression. So do libel and slander laws. That is the connection I was making. And if they decide that this site is inciting others to commit crimes against children, the Justices could limit this speech, too.

The jurisdiction issue is real. Obama may have to go after the service providers, and this letter may be the first step in the process.

[Withywindle]

76. Yes - it's a matter of law, let the law decide.

We'll see what happens when this case goes to court, if it does.

I do NOT fathom how anybody could fault Obama for this. What parent wouldn't go a little bit postal seeing pictures of his kids (they're 5 and 8, for heaven's sake) on a site like that? Public figures or not--frankly I think he'd lose a lot more public trust if he had any reaction other than that. I think he handled it well--cloaking in impeccable legalese only a faint suggestion of what must be his visceral desire to kill.

[pnwmom]

80. I agree, Withywindle. Remember when Governor What's-his-Name of

Massachusetts had a wishy washy answer when he was asked how he would react if someone had raped his wife? He was crucified for his dispassionate response, and probably lost the Presidential contest right there.

Obama's doing exactly the right thing, both as a father and as a Presidential candidate.

[Withywindle]

84. Dukakis, yeah. It was a terrible question to be asked in the first place...

...and his response did him no favors. Like it or not, voters DO like to see some humanity in their candidates.

Look at John McCain's non-reaction when Rove's boys spread racist rumors about his adopted child--man, how can anyone look him in the eye after he wouldn't stand up for his own family?

[pnwmom]

86. Thanks, yes, it was Dukakis. (I knew you would know.)

And you're right. "Like it or not, voters DO like to see some humanity in their candidates." Actually, I think that's why Nader never had a chance. He comes across as so cold.

[Solo_in_MD]

81. Law is clear...outside of copyright, the C&D is nonsense

[pnwmom]

83. Not necessarily. He might need to do that before he can follow up

with the big internet providers. They're the ones that should be policing things like this.

[Solo_in_MD]

90. Again, not true

1) The picture was lifted from one of the Obama sites. DMCA is US only, but the Berne Convention is recognized world wide. That got THAT picture pulled. If the webmaster used one he owned, it would be nothing that could be done legitimately under US law

2) The ISP route is workable since they do not have to supply space or bandwidth. However, if the ISP refuses, there is nothing that can be done legitimately under US law. The ISP are not the internet police or net nannies and have no obligation to do either, and are specifiaclly exempted from policing content, its black letter law.

3) Threat is an interesting theory. However, seeing how careful the webmaster was everywhere else, I doubt that section was any different. One could always find a compliant judge, but it would not hold up on appeal

4) That is upsets Obama or others horribly is not relevant.


I've had some personal experience in this area...and learned what was legal the hard way. Its possible Obama could buy better justice than I could afford, but that is not how the system is supposed to work

[pnwmom]

96. You just don't get it.

Anyone who ran for President who took the kind of position you're taking -- with regard to his own 5 and 7 year old daughters -- would be crucified. Just as Dukakis was, when he reacted dispassionately to a question about his wife being raped.

It doesn't matter whether Obama wins this, or whether he has a legal leg to stand on, actually. But he has to fight this, and fight hard, both for his daughter's sake and for the sake of his candidacy.

Only a tiny fraction of Americans would criticize him for not supporting free speech. The rest would wonder what was wrong with him if he didn't do all he could to protect his little girls.

As to your last point, I'm sorry if you got burned on something like this. Unfortunately, the justice system is affected by money, just like everything else. People who can afford the best lawyers often get better results.

[Solo_in_MD]

97. Actually if campaign had not released the information on this it would never have been known

it has been in many ways a PR stunt.


Consider this statement instead, given only when asked:

"A self professed pedophile copied some posted pictures of our daughters for his website. We had those taken down. Beyond that there is little that can be done, since the site is international and is just inside line of what is allowable. Furthermore, I strongly support the First Amendment, even when its personally horrific, as it is in this case."

The Dukakis gaffe was one of many...hopefully Obama is better than that

[pnwmom]

100. "We had those taken down." How do you think he would have

accomplished that, without the threat of legal action?

But as for the rest of the statement, i still think it is way too measured a response for a father to make. "Even when it's personally horrific." Sounds way too Dukakis-y. Most people want a President they think has a heart -- not a guy who would put some universal, unbendable principle about free speech above the safety of his own little girls.

He would have been better off talking about doorknobs.

[Solo_in_MD]

73. He is, though the response is quite understandable

[pnwmom]

82. Imagine if Obama had said: 'As much as I don't like it, that pedophile's

right to free speech means he can keep my daughter's pictures on his site. All I can do is ask him to take them down."

Obama would be CRUCIFIED. People would say that he's inhuman, a robot, a disgrace to fatherhood everywhere. That would be the end of his campaign, IMO.

[Laurier]

88. Agreed.

Bottom line is that if the pedophile had photos of MY daughters on his site, I'd threaten him with legal action, too, the pedo's first amendment rights be damned. I think that most people would do the same thing and can easily see that such a reaction is human, properly protective, and justified.

[BlueStorm]

89. I don't see how pedophiles always feel like they are victimized by the law

and that what they are doing should be a right given to them. I don't understand that.

As for Obama, I stand by him... I would react the same way were it my children. I don't think that this restricting free speech, the man is an admitted pedophile and is posting pics of, yes, a public figure in a way that may be alluring or even hint at other pedophiles to degrade them in such a way. Mr. Obama doesn't want that as any real father would.

Blue

[blogslut]

98. It's part of their schtick

Pedos never think they're guilty. They honestly believe what they are doing is right.

It was C&D people. Obama did all that was legally possible. It's not like he sent in the Feds to raid the place. Hell, anyone can whip up a C&D. One doesn't need buckets of money. I think the letter was a brilliant move on Obama's part. The man took the images down.

Let the creep fight it in court and spend all his money. I hope he remembers that thanks to the Adam Walsh law, he is now custodian of records for every single site - and the images on those sites - that he links to. Maybe for once TITLE 18:2257 & 4472, can actually be used for their intended purposes, instead of as a club to smash adult content providers.

[MrSlayer]

91. Why isn't this self professed pedophile in jail or dead?

It would be a public service for someone to just blow this scumbag's head off. At the very least he should be locked up forever just on his admission.

[Occulus]

99. I won't go to the link.

That said, having read excerpts here in this thread, I can't honestly conclude this guy really is a pedophile. The language he uses is flowery prose in places (from what was posted here), and it all seems to go far too far in order to convince the reader it's genuine. Remember,



Cartoon by Peter Steiner. The New Yorker, July 5, 1993 issue (Vol.69 (LXIX) no. 20) page 61

As to what he could possibly hope to gain from this, I haven't the slightest clue, unless it's in hope of smearing Obama with the stain of "being anti-freedom of speech." Note my quote marks! They're intentionally placed.

How much would it cost to get a rabid reichwinger to falsely claim they're a pedo on some web page (without actually committing a crime) in order to smear a "filthy dumbocrat" as being anti freedom of speech? I'm thinking, depending on where you look, it might be pretty cheap... especially if no actual crime against the kids is committed; we all already know Republican lawyers weasel out of their various shitpits with disturbing regularity.

A few of the people on the right would, sadly, be all too glad to play this dirty and this devious, and Obama scares the life out of republicans (as does Clinton, for different reasons). They're one-percenters, but they're there.

All of that said, it might actually be a pedophile that's actually imagining he has something good to offer little kids. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...

[darmok167]

110. I think the wrong terms are being used.

The guy is a self professed pedophile. This does not mean he has ever molested a child. Pedophilia is the attraction to children. If he has molested a child then he should be tried and convicted. If he hasn't, he has committed no crime.

Now if you want to argue that he should locked up or killed because of his attraction to young children, that would be another story.

[symbolman]

104. Let's see how long Bush's kids

would be on that site and publicized as such..

I'd like to have a conversation with this self proclaimed pedophile, in a dark alley with, gripping my baseball bat,and wearing a black nylon over my head.

You KNOW what happens to guys like these when they toss them in the can? Prisoners, and I mean people who murder and rape, are DISGUSTED by these kinds of people, and tear them to pieces. Seen one of these guys thrown into a cell with old timers, and he SHRIEKED as they drug him below the window he scratched at..

If Rapists and Murderers don't like you, and want to literaly tear you apart, I'd say you are on a very low rung in the ladder of civilization. :)

POS.

You GO Obama, PROTECT those little angels as any MORAL Father would do, don't listen to assholes who have been married almost as many times as Elizabeth Taylor. Family values, my ass, the right wing is FILLED with PERVS just like this MOLESTER. You don't even have to commit the act to be a MOLESTER, invading the space of a child is close enough.