DL Truth: Distance Learning Truth

Full Version: Kid Porn Law Upheld
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
The US Supreme Court upheld a law that makes it a crime to pander to perverts seeking underage porn, even if the kids in the porn aren't really underage.

Quote:Supreme Court Upholds Child Pornography Law
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: May 20, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the latest Congressional effort to curb the spread of child pornography on the Internet, a 2003 law that makes it a crime to offer or solicit sexually explicit images of children.

The law, known as the Protect Act, applies regardless of whether the material turns out to consist solely of computer-generated images, or digitally altered photographs of adults, or even if the offer is fraudulent and the material does not exist at all.

“Offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the 7-to-2 majority.

The law at issue was a response to a Supreme Court ruling in 2002, a decision that found unconstitutional an earlier law that prohibited simple possession of purported child pornography even if the material turned out not to depict real children. The First Amendment was violated by a law that “prohibits the visual depiction of an idea,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said in the 2002 decision.

Justice Scalia said on Monday that by limiting the crime to the “pandering” of child pornography, the new law represented “a carefully crafted attempt to eliminate the First Amendment problems we identified” in the earlier decision.

The new law and the earlier one, the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, were legislative efforts to deal with the challenge that technology poses to prosecutors if they must prove that material that looks like child pornography was actually produced using real children.

Under the court’s interpretation of the 2003 statute, a person offering material as child pornography can be convicted on either of two grounds: for believing that the material depicts real children, or for intending to convince a would-be recipient that it does.

The statute itself (“Protect” is an acronym for Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today) is open to a considerably broader interpretation, which led the federal appeals court in Atlanta to invalidate it in 2006, the decision that the justices overturned on Monday.

The law applies to “any person who knowingly advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits” the prohibited material, raising concerns about whether mainstream movies or innocent photographs of babies in the bath might invite prosecution.

Justice Scalia dismissed these concerns as “fanciful hypotheticals,” saying that such situations would either not give rise to prosecutions or, if they did, would be protected by the courts. In a concurring opinion, Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer said they, too, were satisfied that the court’s narrow construction of the statute had allayed “any constitutional concerns that might arise.”

In effect, the court accepted the invitation of Solicitor General Paul D. Clement who, when he argued in defense of the statute last Oct. 30, urged the justices to impose “a more restrictive view” of the law’s scope if they thought it reached too far.

The two dissenting justices, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said their concerns had not been answered. In an opinion by Justice Souter, which Justice Ginsburg signed, they said they did not object to making it a crime to mislead others by offering material that did not in fact exist. That was simply fraud, Justice Souter said.

However, he added, possession of pornographic images that do not depict real children is constitutionally protected, and offering them should not be a crime. “If the act can effectively eliminate the real-child requirement when a proposal relates to extant material, a class of protected speech will disappear,” Justice Souter said.

Joan E. Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, which filed a brief arguing that the law was unconstitutional, said the decision failed to offer protection against “over-zealous prosecutors.” In an interview, she said it appeared that “the court was not willing to send the case back to Congress again,” and so “narrowed the statute in order to save it.”

The case, United States v. Williams, No. 06-694, began in 2004 as the prosecution of a Florida man, Michael Williams, who was caught in a federal sting operation offering child pornography in an Internet chat room. He claimed to have “good pics” of his 4-year-old daughter. In fact, he did not have such pictures, but when federal agents executed a search warrant, they found 22 sexually explicit images of real children on his computer hard drives.

His conviction for possessing the images, and his five-year sentence for that crime, were not at issue in the case. He challenged his conviction under the new law for pandering and won a reversal in the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which found the law both overbroad and unconstitutionally vague.
Text: Opinion (United States v. Williams) (pdf)

Let's hope this puts pedophile-pandering pervert and porn peddler Thomas "Chip"" White out of business for good.  Now that the feds have captured Dangerous Dixie and her crew of vicious diploma printers they should have plenty of spare time for prosecuting real criminals.  

Will UIUC physics professor George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) be lending the feds a hand in this investigation too?  Yeah, right.
Herbert Spencer Wrote:The US Supreme Court upheld a law that makes it a crime to pander to perverts seeking underage porn, even if the kids in the porn aren't really underage.

Quote:Supreme Court Upholds Child Pornography Law
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: May 20, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the latest Congressional effort to curb the spread of child pornography on the Internet, a 2003 law that makes it a crime to offer or solicit sexually explicit images of children.

The law, known as the Protect Act, applies regardless of whether the material turns out to consist solely of computer-generated images, or digitally altered photographs of adults, or even if the offer is fraudulent and the material does not exist at all.

“Offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the 7-to-2 majority.

The law at issue was a response to a Supreme Court ruling in 2002, a decision that found unconstitutional an earlier law that prohibited simple possession of purported child pornography even if the material turned out not to depict real children. The First Amendment was violated by a law that “prohibits the visual depiction of an idea,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said in the 2002 decision.

Justice Scalia said on Monday that by limiting the crime to the “pandering” of child pornography, the new law represented “a carefully crafted attempt to eliminate the First Amendment problems we identified” in the earlier decision.

The new law and the earlier one, the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, were legislative efforts to deal with the challenge that technology poses to prosecutors if they must prove that material that looks like child pornography was actually produced using real children.

Under the court’s interpretation of the 2003 statute, a person offering material as child pornography can be convicted on either of two grounds: for believing that the material depicts real children, or for intending to convince a would-be recipient that it does.

The statute itself (“Protect” is an acronym for Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today) is open to a considerably broader interpretation, which led the federal appeals court in Atlanta to invalidate it in 2006, the decision that the justices overturned on Monday.

The law applies to “any person who knowingly advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits” the prohibited material, raising concerns about whether mainstream movies or innocent photographs of babies in the bath might invite prosecution.

Justice Scalia dismissed these concerns as “fanciful hypotheticals,” saying that such situations would either not give rise to prosecutions or, if they did, would be protected by the courts. In a concurring opinion, Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer said they, too, were satisfied that the court’s narrow construction of the statute had allayed “any constitutional concerns that might arise.”

In effect, the court accepted the invitation of Solicitor General Paul D. Clement who, when he argued in defense of the statute last Oct. 30, urged the justices to impose “a more restrictive view” of the law’s scope if they thought it reached too far.

The two dissenting justices, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said their concerns had not been answered. In an opinion by Justice Souter, which Justice Ginsburg signed, they said they did not object to making it a crime to mislead others by offering material that did not in fact exist. That was simply fraud, Justice Souter said.

However, he added, possession of pornographic images that do not depict real children is constitutionally protected, and offering them should not be a crime. “If the act can effectively eliminate the real-child requirement when a proposal relates to extant material, a class of protected speech will disappear,” Justice Souter said.

Joan E. Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, which filed a brief arguing that the law was unconstitutional, said the decision failed to offer protection against “over-zealous prosecutors.” In an interview, she said it appeared that “the court was not willing to send the case back to Congress again,” and so “narrowed the statute in order to save it.”

The case, United States v. Williams, No. 06-694, began in 2004 as the prosecution of a Florida man, Michael Williams, who was caught in a federal sting operation offering child pornography in an Internet chat room. He claimed to have “good pics” of his 4-year-old daughter. In fact, he did not have such pictures, but when federal agents executed a search warrant, they found 22 sexually explicit images of real children on his computer hard drives.

His conviction for possessing the images, and his five-year sentence for that crime, were not at issue in the case. He challenged his conviction under the new law for pandering and won a reversal in the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which found the law both overbroad and unconstitutionally vague.
Text: Opinion (United States v. Williams) (pdf)

Let's hope this puts pedophile-pandering pervert and porn peddler Thomas "Chip"" White out of business for good.  Now that the feds have captured Dangerous Dixie and her crew of vicious diploma printers they should have plenty of spare time for prosecuting real criminals.  

Will UIUC physics professor George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) be lending the feds a hand in this investigation too?  Yeah, right.

UIUC physics professor George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) has still not officially resigned from www.degreeinfo.com nor damned any where in print that he is against that type of child pandering pedophile behavior. This leads one to belive that he too advocates such deviate behavior by posting on that we site and supporting it with over 3,000 postings.

So UIUC physics professor George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin), what's the deal?
Brian Crawford Wrote:UIUC physics professor George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) has still not officially resigned from www.degreeinfo.com nor damned any where in print that he is against that type of child pandering pedophile behavior. This leads one to belive that he too advocates such deviate behavior by posting on that we site and supporting it with over 3,000 postings.

So UIUC physics professor George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin), what's the deal?

As a university professor George Gollin can't afford to denounce perverts, or he would offend about 90% of the university faculty and administration in the country.

Likewise, as the father of a lesbian and husband of a hyphenated papist-hating wife who wears men's clothes to work, he just might piss off his entire deviant family as well.

But after watching his fag-posing, nose-picking, ass-scratching, pocket-pool-playing video, I bet George Gollin still doesn't understand exactly why people think that grown men diddling little boys is sick, disgusting, perverted, or even a little weird.  Compared to what he sees in the mirror every day it doesn't seem too strange at all.
Thomas "Chip" White, proprietor of numerous perverted child-exploiting pedophile-pandering internet websites, read it and weep.  You are going to jail, you worthless pervert!

Quote:The statute does not require the actual existence of child pornography....Rather than targeting the underlying material, this statute bans the collateral speech that introduces such material into the child-pornography distribution network. Thus, an Internet user who solicits child pornography from an undercover agent violates the statute, even if the officer possesses no child pornography. Likewise, a person who advertises virtual child pornography as depicting actual children also falls within the reach of the statute....

In sum, we hold that offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment....

Child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of our citizens. Both the State and Federal Governments have sought to suppress it for many years, only to find it proliferating through the new medium of the Internet. This Court held unconstitutional Congress's previous attempt to meet this new threat, and Congress responded with a carefully crafted attempt to eliminate the First Amendment problems we identified. As far as the provision at issue in this case is concerned, that effort was successful.

Williams got 5 years concurrent on two counts.  Despite the law and this decision upholding it, Thomas "Chip" White continues to pander to pedophile perverts.  How many decades will Thomas "Chip" White spend behind bars?
Albert Hidel Wrote:
Brian Crawford Wrote:UIUC physics professor George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) has still not officially resigned from www.degreeinfo.com nor damned any where in print that he is against that type of child pandering pedophile behavior. This leads one to belive that he too advocates such deviate behavior by posting on that we site and supporting it with over 3,000 postings.

So UIUC physics professor George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin), what's the deal?

As a university professor George Gollin can't afford to denounce perverts, or he would offend about 90% of the university faculty and administration in the country.

Likewise, as the father of a lesbian and husband of a hyphenated papist-hating wife who wears men's clothes to work, he just might piss off his entire deviant family as well.

But after watching his fag-posing, nose-picking, ass-scratching, pocket-pool-playing video, I bet George Gollin still doesn't understand exactly why people think that grown men diddling little boys is sick, disgusting, perverted, or even a little weird.  Compared to what he sees in the mirror every day it doesn't seem too strange at all.

John Bear left www.dereeinfo.com publically a couple of days after it was made public that the web site was sponcering child pedophile activity, although he was one of the sponcers by advertising his books there. Bruce Tait, the MA police officer and head of their union, made the statement that everyone should just relax and have a cup of coffee, it is no big deal. He is still there and never left. George Gollin (George D. Gollin AKA George Dana Gollin) just stopped posting there unless it's under a new alias. of course, that was only after submitting more than 6,000 posts on www.degreeinfo.com which are still there.

George Gollin (George D. Gollin AKA George Dana Gollin) wofe doesn't hyphenate her name, she never uses Gollin as her last name. Once can assume it is because she is a vice provost and George Gollin is just a little university professor.

Lets not forget, George Gollin (George D. Gollin AKA George Dana Gollin) began his crusade against non-traditional edication at the end of 2003 when he said he was too stupid to block pop-ups on his computers at the university. Amazingly, within months he delared on national TV and as many newspapers who would listen to him that he was an expert in the field.
Brian Crawford Wrote:Lets not forget, George Gollin (George D. Gollin AKA George Dana Gollin) began his crusade against non-traditional edication at the end of 2003 when he said he was too stupid to block pop-ups on his computers at the university. Amazingly, within months he delared on national TV and as many newspapers who would listen to him that he was an expert in the field.

Big Grin Yeah, a spam blocker was just too complicated for Dr. Physics to figure out.

Isn't an "expert" supposed to actually know something about his field of expertise?   All he knows anything about is being a parent of a gay child.   He would be Exhibit A for the proposition that lesbians are the product of inattentive, unsupportive fathers.

Quote:II. Development of “Classic” Lesbianism

Damaged Family Relationships

Mother-Daughter Relationships
1. Dispassionate Mother: Emotionally distant and “numb”.

2. Doormat Mother: Perceived as downtrodden, weak, and ineffective.

3. Manipulative Mother: Unable to express herself openly and honestly

4. Domineering Mother: She is dogmatic, determined and very opinionated.

5. My-Best-Friend Mother: She lets her own needs control the relationship, looking to daughter for encouragement

6. Self-Consumed Mother: Often young and immature and still in need of nurturing herself.

Daughters need mothers who are a healthy role model of what it means to be a woman.



Father-Daughter Relationships
1. Unprotecting Father: Does not give a sense of security and safekeeping’

2. Inattentive Father: Unable to affirm his daughter’s feminine identity.

3. Unadoring Father: Does not give adoration and honor for her femininity.

4. Unsupportive Father: Does not give support or validation.


A father should be showing his daughter how to properly relate with men. Sometimes because of their own issues fathers are fearful of being to close to their daughter-especially when the daughter is going into puberty. However, this is the time that daughters need closeness with their father.



Husband-Wife Relationships
1. Indifferent Couple: They fail to love and show affection between one another.

2. Critical Wife: She disrespects and demeans her husband

3. Selfish Husband: He places his needs before his wife’s.

4. Minimizing Husband: He communicates a message that degrades and devalues women or femininity.

A daughter needs to see a healthy relationship between a mother and father so that she accepts womanhood and does not hate men.



Summary of Family Relationships

A.     Daughter sees her mother as critical, domineering, detached, or weak. She sees her father as detached, critical, passive, or abusive.

B.     The breakdown in the emotional bonding between mother and daughter creates a same-sex love deficit in the daughter.

C.     At puberty, this same-sex love deficit becomes sexualized. Attempt to restore what was missing earlier in life.

D.     The lack of affirmation from the father creates in the daughter a lack of confidence in her feminine identity.

Dickie Billericay Wrote:
Brian Crawford Wrote:Lets not forget, George Gollin (George D. Gollin AKA George Dana Gollin) began his crusade against non-traditional edication at the end of 2003 when he said he was too stupid to block pop-ups on his computers at the university. Amazingly, within months he delared on national TV and as many newspapers who would listen to him that he was an expert in the field.

Big Grin Yeah, a spam blocker was just too complicated for Dr. Physics to figure out.

Isn't an "expert" supposed to actually know something about his field of expertise?   All he knows anything about is being a parent of a gay child.   He would be Exhibit A for the proposition that lesbians are the product of inattentive, unsupportive fathers.

Quote:II. Development of “Classic” Lesbianism

Damaged Family Relationships

Mother-Daughter Relationships
1. Dispassionate Mother: Emotionally distant and “numb”.

2. Doormat Mother: Perceived as downtrodden, weak, and ineffective.

3. Manipulative Mother: Unable to express herself openly and honestly

4. Domineering Mother: She is dogmatic, determined and very opinionated.

5. My-Best-Friend Mother: She lets her own needs control the relationship, looking to daughter for encouragement

6. Self-Consumed Mother: Often young and immature and still in need of nurturing herself.

Daughters need mothers who are a healthy role model of what it means to be a woman.



Father-Daughter Relationships
1. Unprotecting Father: Does not give a sense of security and safekeeping’

2. Inattentive Father: Unable to affirm his daughter’s feminine identity.

3. Unadoring Father: Does not give adoration and honor for her femininity.

4. Unsupportive Father: Does not give support or validation.


A father should be showing his daughter how to properly relate with men. Sometimes because of their own issues fathers are fearful of being to close to their daughter-especially when the daughter is going into puberty. However, this is the time that daughters need closeness with their father.



Husband-Wife Relationships
1. Indifferent Couple: They fail to love and show affection between one another.

2. Critical Wife: She disrespects and demeans her husband

3. Selfish Husband: He places his needs before his wife’s.

4. Minimizing Husband: He communicates a message that degrades and devalues women or femininity.

A daughter needs to see a healthy relationship between a mother and father so that she accepts womanhood and does not hate men.



Summary of Family Relationships

A.     Daughter sees her mother as critical, domineering, detached, or weak. She sees her father as detached, critical, passive, or abusive.

B.     The breakdown in the emotional bonding between mother and daughter creates a same-sex love deficit in the daughter.

C.     At puberty, this same-sex love deficit becomes sexualized. Attempt to restore what was missing earlier in life.

D.     The lack of affirmation from the father creates in the daughter a lack of confidence in her feminine identity.



Another contributing factor which makes George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) want to be successful outside of his family is that his woman is a real university administrator as the associate provost. Where George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) is a mere university professor who reports to a department chair.

The lesbian daughter sees that mom is very sucessful professionally and the only role model dad provides is someone aspiring to be someone some day.

Mom wearing men's clothing probably doesn't help the daughter to identify her sexuality.