Webmaster Arrested

[wendigo100]

Yes, but doesn't that set a dangerous precedent? If you can stop him enjoying his nasty little trade then great, but does that result then open the way for arresting anyone who has ever visited a porn site? I know that's hyperbole, but you get the general point.

Yes, I see where you are coming from.

[xoggoth]

From what I read in the Metro the site is primarily just an amateur adult pic exchange. Their sources suggest this accusation follows supsiciously close on the heels of something that offended the establishment. Once it's lunchtime I will get it out and check the details. Reading the paper during worktime is a bit too obvious.

[Not So Wise]

Well officially he is being done for the obscene material that does not include the "war material". As we don't know what this material is (could be kiddy porn, beastiality or something that breaks state laws) kinda pointless to comment no?

[hyperD]

Corr, lovely film but the girl with the pony, shocking stuff.

What about the man with the chicken? Almost put me off eggs...

[voron]

If he is being done for showing adult porn then I'll agree with you Voron.

I don't know, but perhaps there isn't a specific law against showing those war images, and they are just trying to get him on something else to stop him showing them.

Yes, but doesn't that set a dangerous precedent? If you can stop him enjoying his nasty little trade then great, but does that result then open the way for arresting anyone who has ever visited a porn site? I know that's hyperbole, but you get the general point.

[wendigo100]

If he is being done for showing adult porn then I'll agree with you Voron.

I don't know, but perhaps there isn't a specific law against showing those war images, and they are just trying to get him on something else to stop him showing them.

[Dundeegeorge]

Animal Farm

Corr, lovely film but the girl with the pony, shocking stuff.

[voron]

But to quote the article:

offering to distribute obscene material and possession of obscene material with intent to distribute -- involve sexual content posted on his Web site, and not graphic war-scene images posted by soldiers.

I agree the pictures of bodies is sick, and trading them for porn is equally twisted. You will get no argument from me on that front.

And as I said earlier, I haven't seen the conent of his website so I can only guess as to it's pornographic nature, but I should imagine it's pretty much the same as the other 2+ million websites offering porn. But when did that become illegal?

I'm not interested in hardcore porn and I'm sure this webmaster is a grotty little man, so why should I be bothered by this story? It troubles me because it is part of a current trend destroying our ability to make informed decisions as to what we choose to indulge in. as the cliche goes, it's the thin end of the wedge. What comes next? We can no longer buy copies of 1984 or Animal Farm because it gives us bad ideas?

[IR35 Avoider]

From what I remember when this site was featured on TV news a while ago, he "paid" for the pictures soldiers supplied by giving them porn.

[wobbegong]

Surely the problem lies with the soldiers supplying him with the photos?

[voron]

Suppose your mum or your son was killed and they put pictures of their remains on the web?

I agree that is sick and should be stopped (it's just a glorified snuff movie). Just as posting videos of beheadings in Iraq is sick.

But from what I have read, he hasn't been arrested for that. He has been arrested for offences relating to porn. And unless he has images involving the abuse of children, what law has he broken?

[wendigo100]

Suppose your mum or your son was killed and they put pictures of their remains on the web?

[voron]

The Article

Authorities have arrested a Lakeland, Fla., man on obscenity charges after investigating his adult Web site, which has gained international attention for allegedly allowing U.S. soldiers to post pictures of war dead on the Internet.
.....
Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said late Friday that the 300 obscenity-related charges against Wilson -- which include counts of distribution of obscene material, offering to distribute obscene material and possession of obscene material with intent to distribute -- involve sexual content posted on his Web site, and not graphic war-scene images posted by soldiers.

I haven't visted this website and I haven't seen the pictures - I have no intention of doing so. I'm sure most of us would agree that posting pictures of the dead for entertainment purposes is pretty twisted. But what exactly has this man done wrong? I know this is America, but I thought porn was perfectly legal.

Is this another example of the Bush-Blair state becoming ever more prescriptive and removing our right to decide what we view. Pretty soon the FBI and MI5 will come knocking on the door of anyone who has ever thumbed through a copy of Playboy.