On Monday, a US federal appeals court sided against a former Philadelphia police officer who has been in jail 17 months because he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. He had refused to comply with a court order commanding him to unlock two hard drives the authorities say contain child porn.
The 3-0 decision (PDF) by the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals means that the suspect, Francis Rawls, likely will remain jailed indefinitely or until the order (PDF) finding him in contempt of court is lifted or overturned. However, he still can comply with the order and unlock two FileVault encrypted drives connected to his Apple Mac Pro. Using a warrant, authorities seized those drives from his residence in 2015. While Rawls could get out from under the contempt order by unlocking those drives, doing so might expose him to other legal troubles.
In deciding against Rawls, the court of appeals found that the constitutional rights against being compelled to testify against oneself were not being breached. That's because the appeals court, like the police, agreed that the presence of child porn on his drives was a "foregone conclusion." The Fifth Amendment, at its most basic level, protects suspects from being forced to disclose incriminating evidence. In this instance, however, the authorities said they already know there's child porn on the drives, so Rawls' constitutional rights aren't compromised.
[...] The suspect's attorney, Federal Public Defender Keith Donoghue, was disappointed by the ruling.
"The fact remains that the government has not brought charges," Donoghue said in a telephone interview. "Our client has now been in custody for almost 18 months based on his assertion of his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination."
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @08:38AM (11 children)
I'm not sure about the laws in the US:
if you have a safe with a key, can they force you to turn over the key?
if you have a safe with a combination, can they force you to turn over the combination?
In principle this is no different from the "safe with a combination" situation.
Somewhat related note to self: these people don't have access to a quantum computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Wednesday March 22 2017, @08:56AM
Or they have, but don't want to reveal that fact.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday March 22 2017, @09:21AM (5 children)
This is a particularly bizarre case, for a couple of reasons.
- First, it makes use of the "All Writs Act", which is a frightening (and surely unconstitutional) law that lets the government demand that a person or company take some action that the government wants, without any compensation or reimbursement.
- Second, the action demanded is one that would have him provide the government with evidence, so that the government can prosecute him. That's got to be at least borderline on the "self-incrimination" side of things.
- Third, in this appeal, the government convinced the court that it already knows what is on the hard drives. Hence, the guy will not be incriminating himself by doing what the government demands. But, if they already have proof of what's on the disks, then they don't need him to unencrypt them, do they? IANAL, but it's really weird that the court accepted this argument.
- Fourth: Why doesn't the guy just say he has forgotten the password after all this time? And what, exactly, would the government do in that case?
This looks to be a case where some prosecutor has his pride on the line. Ethics and justice be damned, pull out all the stops.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Informative) by romlok on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:34AM (2 children)
I came to write the same thing. If they truly know, then they must already have evidence, and can use that evidence to secure a conviction in court. If they don't have evidence, then all they have is suspicion, not knowledge.
AIUI, that's been his story since the beginning. So you're now seeing exactly what the government does in that case: 17 months and counting.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:31PM
You forgot option 3: they already have evidence that they acquired illegally, or by using secret tools whose existence they're not allowed to reveal, making the evidence inadmissible in court.
Now, why an honest judge would allow such shenanigans I don't know, but the list of deeply honest judges seems awfully short some days.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Wednesday March 22 2017, @10:52PM
My guess is that they KNOW what is on the hd, they want the info it contains on WHERE he got the evidence (pics, videos) so they can incriminate other as well.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @05:22PM
He did say he forgot. The judge says she doesn't buy that he forgot and that prison time will jog his memory eventually.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 22 2017, @08:22PM
- Third, in this appeal, the government convinced the court that it already knows what is on the hard drives.
That is a strong point. If they atually KNOW what is on the hard drive, then they have alternative sources for evidence. They don't NEED the hard drives decrypted to make a case. They can work up all that other evidence, which convinced everyone involved that there is illegal stuff on the drives. They can prosecute with all that other evidence, and they should win at trial.
What are they keeping secret? What is more important to them, than the conviction of a pedo? It's something pretty good - like, maybe the methods they used to track him down.
Either that, or this is a showcase trial, being used to establish that the government has the "right" to examine all hard drives. I'm sure that win or lose, the government is using this case to convince lawmakers that government requires access to all encrypted drives. One more bit of data used to twist Congress view of encryption.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:01AM (2 children)
Or don't have one yet. Doesn't like seem more than a few years at this point, which means they might get broken before the contempt order dies.
Kiddie porn is tough stuff that can mess up kids lives for a long long time. I'm still not sure where the line is between that and this guy's rights, but I think a contempt order is pretty fitting given what they probably have on this guy. Appropriate punisment, anyway. Whether it is fair or not, is less obvious to me. I'm thinking there should be an upper bound on the duration of contempt (a few months or so seems reasonable), to prevent indefinite detention. Indefinite detention just makes a mockery of justice.
I don't really buy the lock and key analogy, because I just don't think they're analagous. One's physical, one isn't. In principle, passwords are stored in the mind, and to me, compelling a password is too far down the slope of thoughtcrime. My feeling is that bodily integrity (inclusive of mental contents) should not be violable, or we open Pandora's box.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:27PM
they are already harvesting dna by force in DUI cases. the box is open and spewing it's wonder as we speak.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:09PM
I'm thinking there should be an upper bound on the duration of contempt (a few months or so seems reasonable), to prevent indefinite detention. Indefinite detention just makes a mockery of justice.
While I want to agree with this, you have to know that if implemented, this would result in every (smart) person in a similar situation refusing to cooperate and just waiting out the jail time. 3 months in jail is a lot better than 3 years in the slammer, right? (or whatever)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:22PM
The difference is between something you know which can only be retrieved by testimony (5th Amendment), and something you _have_ which is subject to a warrant under the 4th Amendment.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/tale-two-encryption-cases [eff.org] Note that there is an exception for when the cops know with certainty what the testimony would be though (in other words, never ever talk to the police under any circumstances).
It's a reason why fingerprint locking devices may be less secure legally speaking, than passcode protected devices:
http://www.americancriminallawreview.com/aclr-online/phones-fingerprints-and-fifth-amendment/ [americancriminallawreview.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Aiwendil on Wednesday March 22 2017, @08:56AM (2 children)
ok, honestly now - how many of you remember a non-trivial password if you don't use it for over a year? Especially the longer and more random variety.
Or will they at some point just progress (if they havn't already) jail him for having a not-above-average memory?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @09:39AM
Maybe his password simply is "I won't tell you my password" and he actually told them his password and they just didn't recognize it. ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @10:35PM
That is the real problem here. The longer he is locked up, the more likely he is to actually forget what the password is. I know I have to think for awhile to come up with my passwords after a week or so and I cannot remember at all my workstation password, despite using it multiple times a day, unless I am actually sitting in front of the darn thing typing it in.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Wednesday March 22 2017, @08:57AM (12 children)
They say they KNOW there is CP? if they know there is CP, they fucked up by not collecting evidence and relying on the suspect willingness to fuck himself over. Not surprisingly, you get to a stalemate.
Besides, having identified a suspect I'd rather have examined real children around him rather than jpegs in his encrypted drive, but that's only the naive me.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @09:21AM
(Score: 2) by tfried on Wednesday March 22 2017, @09:40AM (6 children)
From skimming the decision, it does look like they have pretty solid reason to believe there is CP on these drives. That includes eyewitness testimony, and - most damning - the "Forensic examination also disclosed that Doe had downloaded thousands of files known by their “hash” values to be child pornography. The files, however, were not on the Mac Pro, but instead had been stored on the encrypted external hard drives." Pretty hard to argue with the latter.
So, I wouldn't see anything wrong with convicting the guy for possession of CP, based on that evidence. But yeah, the only real point of insisting on the passwords would probably be to try to find even more (CP or other things) than already known. And fifth amendment would appear as a very valid defence against that.
(Not going to engage in a discussion of whether or not mere possession of CP should be illegal. That's something for lawmakers, not the courts to decide on, anyway.)
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:37AM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:31PM
yes, they are a bunch of self righteous pigs. this is what they do.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tfried on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:48PM
I totally agree that this is the path of action that they should be taking. As to why they don't, I imagine it's:
a) They suspect that there is much more to find on those drives. Well, they have the right to do that kind of poking in the semi-dark (valid search warrant), but they really cannot ask the defendant to help them with it (Fifth Amendment).
b) They are afraid that a judge or jury will not understand what a hash is. That fear does not justify their approach, but to their credit, one may acknowledge that it may not be entirely baseless.
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:51AM
Most likely they want to set a precedent that they can legally demand that devices be unlocked and passwords handed over. They tried the terrorism angle with the shooter in California, now they are going to try the pedophile angle on this guy. It doesn't matter that they already have the evidence they need, as actually prosecuting this guy isn't the goal here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:49AM
IIRC freenet had a mode in which all you downloaded was encrypted with a key in RAM or something lilke that, right? Besides, all activity done on a live linux system may reside only in RAM. He downloaded X therefore he has X on his HDs is a bit of a stretch, especially if you count a single GET request as a download. Hopefully the prosecutors know what they are doing.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:53AM
Actually in a Constitutional system, the courts do decide if any laws such as practicing free speech or a free press is constitutional and if not, they should strike down the law. The the law makers then rewrite the law or amend the constitution. Unluckily the American courts keep falling down on the job to the degree that most people accept a watered down version of the Bill of Rights.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @09:43AM (3 children)
All child pronography already exist in a qquantum state. Quantum computers will be used by connisuers of child porn to extract the nude child ground state from an arbitrary soize array of pixels. If the suspect filled his hard drive with ranodm data there already be cp on the drive. Since he refused to give up the passwords it is Shrdocinger's encrypted child porn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @01:43PM
Fap fap fape.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:10AM
You don't have to go quantum on this. A simple XOR operation on any cyphertext will reveal any plaintext (of the same length) that you want - as long it's you who is providing the key. In essence, you can take the Bible and XOR it with a specially crafted stream that converts it into whatever nasty video you desire.
The victim can claim that *his* key is truer, and it returns an entirely innocent set of Shakespeare's plays. But there is no way to prove one vs. the other, and the jury is likely to believe the nasty story.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:22PM
> All child pronography already exist in a qquantum state.
Your spelling, too.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @09:00AM (39 children)
I'm not really seeing how this isn't a clear constitutional violation.
The 5th amendment isn't exactly ambiguous. It says literally, 'No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.'
And this whole case is fundamentally, "Tell us how to gain access to your devices so we can prosecute you."
It's hard to want to defend this individual given the circumstance but I worry that that's part of the reason why they're pushing for this here. Once precedent is set for such behavior it becomes easier and easier to repeat it. Set precedent against a pedo at first, apply to e.g. reporters demanding access to encrypted communications with sources later.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Wednesday March 22 2017, @09:11AM (35 children)
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." ― H. L. Mencken
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @09:27AM (34 children)
So what if he has child porn? There are plenty of people who have collections of normal porn and they don't go around raping or molesting people. So just because he has child porn doesn't mean he really is a danger to others.
Based on the kill and rape counts the greater danger is from US police officers and not child porn collectors ;).
http://europe.newsweek.com/police-sexual-assault-rape-justice-258130?rm=eu [newsweek.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by Jiro on Wednesday March 22 2017, @09:34AM (1 child)
Based on the kill and rape counts the greater danger is from US police officers and not child porn collectors ;).
"On Monday, a US federal appeals court sided against a former Philadelphia police officer who has been in jail 17 months "
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @06:26PM
Remember, the laws against possession can be used against nonpedos, so such laws are a risk to us as well.
Go after those making, distributing or selling it. Like some people in the FBI perhaps... Perhaps the smarter perverts join the FBI so that they can legally possess child porn ;). By the way in other countries, the "moral police" seem full of perverts...
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Wednesday March 22 2017, @10:09AM (23 children)
"So just because he has child porn doesn't mean he really is a danger to others."
Except that he and his ilk perpetuate the market for said child porn, thereby encouraging the exploitation of children.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:12AM (3 children)
Just like piracy, if he's not depriving the owner of the original, then it's hard to claim he's generating demand. However, if he paid any money for this, that line of argument goes out the window.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:55AM
The funny thing is that they are using opposite reasoning in these cases:
Movies: Piracy drives down sales, which causes fewer movies to be produced.
CP: Piracy increases the incentive to produce more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:26PM
You mean other than the fact that these sorts often trade in them and use their supply as payment for new ones?
Possession shouldn't be criminal, the trading and creation of child porn is what should be illegal. Having possession be illegal just makes it too easy to frame somebody or to prosecute somebody who might not even know that there's child porn on the device.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:25PM
Never thought I'd wonder this, but what about ad-funding? Is that something criminals can get away with?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:13AM (12 children)
Except the God allows men to have female children as brides, including when the man rapes that young girl.
Dt chapter 22: verse28-verse29, hebrew (discussion: http://pastebin.com/mzFJyxea [pastebin.com] ), numbers 31,)
Your Jesus CUNTRY should be destroyed.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:24AM (1 child)
Well, if you are quoting the bible, you should note that the bible also forbids anyone to make images. Even if it is interpreted as only forbidding images of god, then it still says god made man in his image, and therefore it is to conclude that any image of a human is also indirectly an image of god, and therefore forbidden by the bible. Since child porn is by definition the image of a human (indeed, one maximizing what it shows of that human), you still have to conclude that child porn violates god's law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:48AM
The people persecuting men for viewing child porn are persecuting the men because the existence of the child porn proves that the man is attracted to (usually female) children rather than adult women.
A pillar of control over females by men is to marry them off "good and young".
White, Proud, Christian men follow the will of Jesus closely; he protected and elevated women while smashing men into the dirt. Where God (of the Armies, the Eternal one) raised man up as overlord of the female, and unpunished rapists of the girl child: a true ruler.... Jesus rejected the Law of the Eternal One and debased man into a protector of the woman, her foot solider, and a slave who may not even look at a woman, while allowing the woman to have sex with as many men as she wished without punishment.
The people persecuting men for child porn are not executing God's law, they are executing Jesus' law and the religion of women. The main crux of the persecution is to rid the society of even a hint of man-girl pedophillia as even if all other laws stood: if men could have female children as brides: men would rule over women from that day forward. Animals rarely turn on those whom they knew since childhood, while only Dogs are loyal even if adopted as an adult.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @01:18PM
But loli haet pizza. :(
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @01:45PM (1 child)
American women have the right to bear arms and kill their would-be rapists. God's Greatest Country's Constitution TRUMPS Deuterpastaroni.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:41AM
Incorrect. Females are not members of the militia: only abled bodied men were.
Females do not have the right, but they have taken it.
In modern christian societies women have more of a right to arms then mmamamaahaaaalalllleeeesssssss since mmmmmaaaaaaalllleeesss are easily denied the right via a police report by a woman.
Half of american maaaaallleeess hate their society. This is why they drop out of it. The same goes with many modern countries, Japan included.
Perhaps one day they will destroy their society. Probably not, but one can hope.
A dead society means the women who rely on it suffer and die.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:12PM (6 children)
Figures you'd show up here, Mikee. Like flies to shit. I bet you've got yourself a good-size stash of CP on your machine. Hopefully the cops pay you a visit :) It'd be like two kaiju fighting it out: whoever loses, we win, because there's one less awful monster on the loose.
tl;dr: kono rorikon domome!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:52AM (5 children)
Nope. I wish to have an actual child bride. I do not seek out, view, or collect contraband.
However if attacked, God willing, I will attack back; only it will be found that I and my adversary died for nothing.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:31PM (4 children)
So come make good on those death threats you made to me a year and a half ago. If you got the balls. Which you don't.
Funny how you go utterly silent and stop posting on any subthread when I reply with this :) It's almost like you know even a woman--granted, a ridiculously tall one who's almost as heavy as a man--could kick your ass, and the shame of it would make you commit suicide. We can only hope.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @11:58AM (3 children)
I don't know who you are, where you exist, and I would never attack someone in an honourable manner.
I would strike from the shadows. With you I cannot do that, so why would I?
Enemies should be shot in the back with a tokarev, not squared off with.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 24 2017, @04:43PM (2 children)
God, you're pathetic. You can't even face a woman head-on, despite all the shit you talk about us.
Get it through your mainframe, bro-bot: you will NEVER have sex, EVER, with ANYONE, let alone an underage girl you fucking paedo. Your life is a failure, you have no future, and if you killed yourself now the entire world would be a marginally better place for it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @09:00PM (1 child)
>Your life is a failure, you have no future,
I know. I have known since I was 6.
>and if you killed yourself now the entire world would be a marginally better place for it.
Perhaps such is what women do. I am a male: I do not wish to make the world a marginally better place for you.
I wish to make the world a worse place for you, and a better place for me. Barring that: a worse place for you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25 2017, @02:22PM
#notallanonymouscowards
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:17AM
That depends: Did he buy it or did he pirate it? :-)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:31PM (1 child)
You seem pretty sure of your position, there.
Hypothetically speaking, then... when they do get in to those drives, and find every one of those thousands of images they 'know' he has, are cartoons? When every single instance of CP in his possession is an entirely animated, and at no point in his entire CP-consuming career has an actual human being been involved in the production of the content, other than as the artist wielding the pen/pencil? If he went out of his way to keep it that way, doing his best to make sure that he was not contributing to the exploitation of children?
Assume the existence of an otherwise healthy adult, an upstanding citizen (a police officer, perhaps even of good standing, good at his job), who has recognized he has a deviancy and a problem. He can't effectively treat it through the proper channels (psychologists / medical system) due to the very intense social stigma surrounding the entire issue, for fear word would somehow get out and the hand of the entire world would be raised against him, without even knowing any details of the situation (Exhibit A: You). What does such a person do? If they, being a responsible adult and capable of a reasonable self-control, decide to deal with it privately, ensuring to the best of their ability that no actual person is being harmed, no money is going towards supporting the evils of child exploitation, is that really so bad?
Apparently it is. Someone happens to get a glance at (the absence of) an animated titty, and word does get out. And then it's straight to a living hell, fueled by the bullshit that is the modern media.
I do not have any details of this particular case. Perhaps this man is not the man I described. In fact, he probably isn't. Almost certainly isn't. But the fact that I can come up with a scenario such as the above, in only a few minutes of thinking about it, makes it not-impossible that such a person exists, somewhere. "Innocent until proven guilty" should not, and does not, disappear as soon as underage porn becomes involved, despite the best efforts of the politicians and the media to make you believe otherwise. If you want to help the world be a better place? When you hear shit like this come on the news, turn the damn TV off. It's not really relevant anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:57AM
The crux of the matter is to suppress men's desire for child brides and to uphold Jesus' will that women be the ruler and the man the servant. The cop will be punished either way.
Why do you think all the wedding parties are bombed?
The families are marrying their female children to men.
Thus the Jesus' pro-woman society feels the man and the family must die and the bride is better of dead than raped and ruled over by a mmmmaaaallleee.
Jesus worshipers hate men and hate the God of the Armies: the Eternal one. They pine for Jesus' heavenly father and oppose the father of the Jews whom Jesus called the adversary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:35PM
yeah, and all porn watchers aid sex trafficking. maybe you've watched porn once. take your ass to jail!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:38PM (1 child)
"So just because he has child porn doesn't mean he really is a danger to others."
Except that he and his ilk perpetuate the market for said child porn, thereby encouraging the exploitation of children.
Then make the exploitation of children illegal (oh, wait... it already is). Generally speaking, the actual social ill is the illegal act, not contributing factors.
Learning chemistry about how to make a bomb is not illegal (although granted it may get you put on watch lists), making the actual bomb is. Learning how to shoot a gun, shooting somebody is. Looking at pretty women (and men) walking down the street isn't illegal, raping them is.
Child pornography is one of the few (although far from the only) things things where the "it leads to illegal acts" is itself illegal. One could argue this is thoughtcrime or one could argue that this is prudent precaution, depending on your perspective. It sounds like you would argue the latter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @11:03AM
"One could argue this is thoughtcrime"
It is thoughtcrime and is aimed at suppressing the normal practice of men to take child brides.
Women's power, and men's subservience, is based fully on a woman's sexual market power.
It requires the women to be shrewd, unattached, professionals.
When men take child brides, they can have loyal companions. This is how animals act to those they've known since childhood (Dogs being the one exception who are loyal even when welcomed into a house as an adult). This one weird trick destroys women's power as a class and end's men's subservience.
It was the one gift that the God of the Armies gave us.
The cultures before (such as sumer etc) didn't have it and Jesus afterwards sought to take it away from men.
America, England, etc are the armies of Jesus and spurn the Eternal One's Laws and beliefs.
This is why they kill any culture that follows the culture of the God who Is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:30AM
Grudgingly I would prefer that this person go free on this instance rather than hand the government the court power of precedent to demand to see what is on your hard drive. On the threat that refusal means indefinite detention. Or would you rather hand the government, run by the party opposite of the one you claim allegiance to this power?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:52AM (4 children)
When Denmark legalized porn back in the 1970'es, rape statistics went down significantly. Which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who realizes that 1) people are lazy, 2) jerking to porn is easy and 3) getting away with rape is a lot of work.
Any logical thinking person should come to the conclusion that the same applies to child porn.
But what about production? Well here it gets a bit more complicated, as we need to involve the concept of supply and demand. The demand is pretty much constant, we haven't found a cure for pedophilia yet. What we are currently doing is reducing supply, which any economist will tell you drives prices UP, which in turn increases the incentive to produce more.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @12:39PM (1 child)
You can't handwave away production as, 'well that gets a bit more complicated.' This sort of stuff destroys the victims involved and there is literally no way for them to consent. I'm fine with people having animated or other sorts of images that involve no actual people, but there is simply no way to do this with real people without causing serious damage to a person. I tend to be extremely liberal on social matters with the little clause at the end that one person's freedom ends where harm to another begins.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:01PM
This sort of stuff destroys the victims involved
Because working in the regular porn industry is always such a barrel of monkeys anyway.
I doubt GP was attempting to be glib. How one defines "child" is part of the problem. Girls apparently mature faster than boys, and 17 years 364 days is still considered child porn?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @06:28PM
Move to Hollywood, apparently child actors do a bit more than just simply act..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25 2017, @12:16PM
You have a correlation in denmark. Good. I have average life expectancy of a porn star being only 37. What would this mean for children? Fap to 3d porn instead.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday March 22 2017, @08:34PM (1 child)
What about the problems associated with the production of the child porn? Exploitation. All sorts of questions.
Where are the models coming from?
Can they give consent?
Do they have parents?
Are they doing this of their own free will?
Do they even have any understanding of what they are doing?
The reason possession of this pr0n is illegal is because somebody had to produce it. A secondary concern is that those who view this may very well be more likely to rape or molest people. People viewing normal pr0n can probably still get dates. People viewing gay pr0n can probably get dates. People viewing this material probably cannot legally engage in any such activity. But like others who view pr0n, they probably will, at some point, engage in it.
While I may have a degree of sympathy for someone with this particular attraction, I certainly don't want them around my kid.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @11:07AM
>What about the problems associated with the production of the child porn? Exploitation. All sorts of questions.
Solution: The man keeps female child as a bride of his for life. Dt 22, verse 28-verse 29, hebrew
>Where are the models coming from?
Immaterial (Dt 22, verse 28-verse 29, hebrew)
>Can they give consent?
Immaterial (Dt 22, verse 28-verse 29, hebrew)
>Do they have parents?
Only relevant for payment to the father (Dt 22, verse 28-verse 29, hebrew)
>Are they doing this of their own free will?
Immaterial (Dt 22, verse 28-verse 29, hebrew)
>Do they even have any understanding of what they are doing?
Immaterial (Dt 22, verse 28-verse 29, hebrew)
Females were made for man, not man for the female.
Men should have child brides.
These men are being persecuted for their love of girls rather than women, not for making pictures.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:20AM (2 children)
"It's hard to want to defend this individual given the circumstance "
Why? Because you follow Jesus and his raising of women over men and his pushing of men into the ground?
The real God, who Jesus proclaimed was "the adversary": the father of the Jews; allows men to have female children as brides, even when the man has raped that young girl. ( discussion: http://pastebin.com/mzFJyxea [pastebin.com] )
Dtronmy chapter 22, verse 28, (also see Numbers 31 for wartime conquests as opposed to peace time)
The man is Ba'....(CensorshipFilter)....al: overlord, of the female. That is the title of the man. Just as the pagan god "Baalzebub" is the "lord of the flies"
You people who oppose men having female children as brides, who say let us go follow this other ruler/judge/god instead (Jesus, American Law, Women's demands) are to be klld on the spot.
Sometimes the muslims do this: they are correct to do so.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:14PM (1 child)
Hey Mikee, you ever gonna make good on those death threats you gave me on IRC like a year and a half ago? I'm waiting. Every day I draw breath is another black eye for you, you sick fucking pedo.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:37AM
Never talked to you in my life. I do hope all feminists die however and celebrate when Putin or the Taliban murder one.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:04AM (24 children)
Women don't want men going after young girls.
Thus they have their Jesus Religion (opposite of old testament on subjects involving women) and their cunt empire.
All the world is under the cunts thumb.
Men should work to destroy the world via stockpiling millions of nuclear weapons with the knowlege that one is likely to be stolen at those numbers and used.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:15AM
And yet, one nuke doesn't end the world, as has already been shown.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:53AM (22 children)
Going after youngsters is abuse of an underdeveloped personality. Given the current state of affairs the age of reason is around 25. Let youngsters go with other youngsters if you feel they need to be sexually liberated. A pity sexual liberation is being documented as an utter failure.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:16PM (10 children)
You don't have any morals anyway so on what basis do you make this judgment? Anyone who refers to non-Christians as "your team" and espouses a combination of "might makes right" and "fuck you Cthulhu does what he wants" is in no position to be making claims about what's right or wrong. You showed your true colors amply.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by ragequit on Wednesday March 22 2017, @08:51PM (5 children)
Did you reply to the wrong person or something? marcello_dl seems to be on your side. Likewise, your response doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with what he wrote...
Besides, Cthulhu does not do what he wants as Cthulhu is still trapped in R'lyeh and lies dreaming.
The above views are fabricated for your reading pleasure.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 23 2017, @02:18AM (4 children)
Oh no, not at all. In a previous thread he's gone on a looooong, spergy serial sociopathic dump as to why no one can judge the Christian God because it's like characters in a novel judging the author (and stubbornly refusing to see the category error there no matter how many times I point it out). He also refers to non-Christians as "your team," and invokes the "God knows more than you so you can't judge his actions" defense any reasonably perceptive third grader can think his or her way around. I smell smug, arrogant triumphalism.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:32AM (2 children)
The christian god is Jesus and "his heavenly father". Christians have rejected the law of God (the one who said "I Am" when asked his name) and God's laws. They see God as "the adversary" and pine for Jesus and Jesus' "Heavenly Father", whomever that is.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:34PM (1 child)
Matthew 5:17-20 "Think not that I have come to abolish the Law. I have come not to abolish, but to fulfill. I tell you truly, whoever keeps these commandments shall be called great in heaven, but whoever breaks the least of them, and teaches others to do so, the same shall be called least in heaven."
Jesus is on your side (and you can ALL go to Hell...).
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @12:08PM
He speaks that one passage when he's trying to spare his kneck.
Before (and his followers after) constantly negate and deride the law in the written Torah.
They see the Law as now being ret-conned into "Grace", or just false and a forgery (like the muslims see it).
Christians totally reject any pro-child marraige laws as invalid.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Saturday March 25 2017, @02:28PM
> as to why no one can judge the Christian God
Read again.
No one is logically able to judge ANYTHING in the hypothetical domain for which this reality is a creation. That includes ANY god.
In practice everybody judges all gods including the absent one, but that is a matter of opinion. Seems ABC to me.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:19PM (3 children)
Except mine was not a moral speech.
Let's put it this way, arm wrestling of a full grown adult with a child will result in the child being injured. Weight lifting, ditto.
Cue the "but that youtube video of the child weight lifter..." Yes. So? there are 12 years old that can perfectly drive a car, better than you and me, and whose personality would enable them to be responsible drivers. So what? are we going to reduce the driving age to 12 because of a few corner cases? Does not work that way.
Besides, what are we discussing?
If you really love that young person, and it is truly reciprocal, you could wait till the young gets 40, or it ain't love. If it ain't love it's sex. If it's sex a mismatch of sexual organ age is still wrong, mechanically.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:26PM (2 children)
Your God, as Kvaratskhelia continuously pointed out, had no problem whatsoever with rape, underage marriages, and sexual slavery or abuse. For all the bitching he does about Jesus supposedly being at odds with Yahweh, nothing is further from the truth. Jesus never once spoke a (recorded) word, anywhere, about not doing this. So you and Mikee are in precisely the same position here, even if he's too damn biblically illiterate to know that.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @11:55AM
As for the New Testament, in one breath Jesus declares the Law valid, and in the other he condemns circumcision ("I made him ever whit whole"), stoning of adulteress women, and proclaims himself the arbitor of all things, proclaims the father of the Jews as the adversary, and parodys a greek tyrants law against lewd acts against women and boys ("any man that offends a free woman or a boy is to be executed or fined by the assembly", now Jesus: "any man that offends one of these children it is better if a millstone were tied around their kneck and they thrown into the sea" -- the greek reader would recall the tyrant's laws and see a double meaning: just as modern christians do). He completely rejects the old order in one breath, and affirms it in the next when his kneck is on the line. So one can say anything any which way when it comes to Christianity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @12:01PM
>So you and Mikee are in precisely the same position here,
marcello_dl rejects the Law and the will of the God of the Armies.
I do not. I want that God's Law to become what we live and die by again, and I want many to die by it, so men may have female children again as brides. And the 50 percent of white men who are proud protectors of women and children; who will return with their shields or on it (while "their" women fuck whomever they wish, and if the men lose the women fuck the victors), who oppose, I want those white men to be murdered in a cruel manner.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:35AM (10 children)
>Going after youngsters is abuse of an underdeveloped personality. Given the current state of affairs the age of reason is around 25. Let youngsters go with other youngsters if you feel they need to be sexually liberated. A pity sexual liberation is being documented as an utter failure.
The God of the Armies says the man is the overlord of the female. He allows the rape of female children and for the man to keep the girl. What is most advantageous for the female is immaterial to he that worships God (rather than Jesus and Jesus' "Heavenly Father") as the female was made for the man and not the other way around (unlike Jesus' teachings where the man is to die for the woman).
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:06PM (9 children)
"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:26PM (3 children)
Yeah I don't think that's what that passage actually refers to, but thanks for quoting it, as I predicted you would. What is the precise Koine word that's translated as "offend" here, and what does it mean in context?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:46PM (2 children)
The context is clearly different from a discussion on sexuality, but logically speaking, if a different kind of offense bears such consequences, sexual assault (assault because the receiver of sexual interest is in a handicapped position due to his scientifically proven immaturity) bears the same consequences or worse.
I don't think you can argue that the passage does not mean "leave them kids alone" no matter the translation details.
Also, if you speak about the context, read also the verses that follow, which are more general and still rough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @11:41AM (1 child)
God's Law:
---
Men can rape female children and just keep them: Dtrnmy chapter 22, 28-29, in hebrew. (Discussion: http://pastebin.com/mzFJyxea [pastebin.com] )The hebrew refers to a girl (age, say from infancy till adolescence). The worst crime under women's christianity: a man having a nice sweet young girl: fine and endorsed under the law of the God (Not Jesus)
(Also See Numbers 31, hebrew, notice female children and "take them for yourselves" (in hebrew: devour)
Furthurmore Dtrnmy says do not go to the right nor the left, and if anyone entices you to follow another ruler/judge/god to kill them.
It also refers to the man as ba'....(avoiding censorfilter)....al: master, of the female.
As baalzebub was lord of the flies, the man is lord of woman.
---
Jesus's Preaching:
"You are of your father - a murderer from the begining" --Jesus talking about someone... seemingly the God of the Armies that we see in dtrnmy.
"No man nor woman, all one in christ"
"Do not stone the woman"
"A man that looks at a woman has committed adultery"
"Die for the woman"
All inversions of Dtrnmy.
"Better a millstone" cry of the american protestant is another one. (though out of context for once)
Jesus came to free women from men and preach a false inclusive god: to take from men their victory over women and girls.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25 2017, @12:36PM
> Men can rape female children and just keep them: Dtrnmy chapter 22
LOL man, have you actually read it? if somebody rapes a girl then... means raping is against the law, not that it is OK. I guess you have trouble following law books?
> (Discussion: http://pastebin.com/mzFJyxea [pastebin.com] )The hebrew refers to a girl
Irrelevant.
> (Also See Numbers 31, hebrew, notice female children and "take them for yourselves" (in hebrew: devour)
yeah disprove this first
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2333 [apologeticspress.org]
Furthurmore Dtrnmy says do not go to the right nor the left, and if anyone entices you to follow another ruler/judge/god to kill them.
Jesus is not another ruler, unfortunately for you, he is one with the father.
> It also refers to the man as ba'....(avoiding censorfilter)....al: master, of the female.
God is your master and lets you live free. You just lost the argument.
> ...
what?
> Jesus came to free women from men and preach a false inclusive god: to take from men their victory over women and girls.
Inclusivity does not exist in the bible as a concept. Man is not against woman except in feminism and in your view, equivalently satanic. Feminists hid it better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @11:45AM (4 children)
Jesus can go to hell, marcello_d
In america and all white societies the woman is the ruler (master) of the man and the man is mastered by the woman.
The man must be loyal to the woman ("if you look at a woman, you have committed adultery with her in your heart") ("the man must set down his life for the woman"), the woman need not be loyal to the man ("do not stone the adulterous woman"). This is because while a servant (the man) may have but one master, a master, a ba'////al, may have many slaves.
This is why you were denied entry into the US military. The US and white society exist so enforce the lordship of women over men. They bomb every country where men ruled over women and had child brides.
This is in direct contradiction to the will of the God of Dtrnmy, whom Jesus hated and seems to have called "a murderer from the beginning, the father of lies". The God of Dtrnmy was the Israeli God of War (Lord of hosts: ie: lord of the armies). He set that the MAN was the ba'///al (master) of the female, that if a man raped a female child, the man paied the father money and kept the sweet qt-pie.
(Dt 22, 28-29, hebrew (If you wish to argue, here's a refutation of your arguments: http://pastebin.com/mzFJyxea [pastebin.com] )
Also note: Numbers 31:18, take the female children for yourselves (taph: child. lachem: means to devour in this section)
White men, men who follow Jesus and reject God, men who say Jesus is god, who follow Jesus' teaching are at war with the remnants of the order God created and promoted.
You were rejected because you are not a "white" man. Be joyful. White men are the enemies of all men on earth and of God. Be a celt, a gaul, a Roman, a Jew, a Russian. Do not be a white man (a new invention who needed a new lynchpin to keep together: and that is promoting the mastership of women over men and the eradication of "chomos" (men who like girls, somehow white men think this is "gay" (sure: it would make men very happy, to have a sweetiepie)))
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Friday March 24 2017, @03:17PM (3 children)
Your POV is unsustainable without implying the scriptures, which put Jesus as the only god, becoming man in every aspect, have been altered. If they have been altered we are discussing about nothingness or about a different religion.
Yes I know some guys like to think the Bible does not say Jesus is God, but all their objections and theorems I have found inconclusive/trolling. Of course, people are free to believe in whatever set of books.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @09:03PM (2 children)
The Torah puts the God who said that he is who he is as the only God.
It existed before Jesus and the New Testament renunciation of the Law.
Just as the New Testament existed before Muhammed's book.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25 2017, @12:07PM
The NT is the only set of books in continuity with the Torah, The Talmud is not, the Koran bwaahahahahah.
The NT did not renounce the Law, Mt 7:21, John 14... actually Jesus made it stricter. What you call renunciation is probably the fact that the law never saved anybody BY ITSELF and never took away any original sin. Jesus can.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Monday March 27 2017, @08:37PM
The divine nature of Jesus makes the phrase "God existed before Jesus" utterly meaningless.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:07AM
Under the Law of the God of the Armies (NOT JESUS) Raping Female Children simply supplies the man (who is BA
...
'AL (Overlord) of the female) with a bride: D....t
chapter 22: verse 28
verse - 29, hebrew (discussion: http://pastebin.com/mzFJyxea [pastebin.com] ), numbers 31,)
That is: PEDOPHILE RAPE OF GIRLS IS NOT A SIN ACCORDING TO GOD (not Jesus). Females were _MADE_ for men. Man is the _MASTER_/_OVERLORD_ of the female.
Acolytes of the false prophet Jesus; those who hate men and raise up women; oppose God's law in everything and further the respect and adoration of the whore all around the globe, while reviling men who would have (for themselves) what is good and pure.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:11AM (8 children)
The God of the armies allows men to have female children as brides, including in cases of rape.
Jesus cuntries (ALL white cuntries) oppose this and bomb any place that follows the law of the God Jesus seemed to oppose.
>Your blasphemy of Jesus will not go unnoticed in Heaven, I assure you. God will not be mocked.
Jesus is not my God. The God written of in the book of Dtrnmy is my God. The God who, when asked by Moses what his name was, simply replied... I am... who I am. The God that is eternal and changes not his Law, who simply Is, is my God.
Jesus, who proclaimed that one must hate his father and mother (vs honoring them), who proclaimed that if one is able to cut his own genitals off "let him do it for the kingdom of heaven" (vs no one who has cut or crushed genitals shall enter the assembly), who proclaimed that if a man looks at a woman he has committed adultery (vs no limit on the amount of females a man may have), who let the adulterous woman walk (vs being killed), who's ministers taught that one must die for the woman (vs, being the overlord of the female), who himself said "if anyone offends one of these children, it would be better if he were drowned via a millstone" (vs raping female children and keeping them (dtrnmy chapter 22, verse 28- verse 29, hebrew, numbers 31)), who proclaimed that no one comes to HIS heavenly father but through him (who is his heavenly father?), who proclaimed that the FATHER OF THE JEWS (The Overlord of the Armies) is THE AVERSARY,
That person. Jesus. Is. Not. MY. GOD.
He Hates My God. He hates everything My God stands for. And so do you: My Enemy.
Were it in my power, I would do anything to defeat you, cuckold scum.
Man is Overlord of the Female; and girls are his Birthright.
Anyone opposed to the Ruler, the God of the Armies, who says "let us follow this other Judge/Ruler/God" is commanded to die (-Dtrnmy).
There is no penalty for blasphemy against a false prophet. Only against the will of the God of the Armies. To not blaspheme against your false deity and to instead speak the Truth that the Lord of the Armies gave; his Law; his Will; that of he who simply exists for all time and is unchanging...: that would be an offense.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:17PM (7 children)
You won't do shit, Mikee. You're a fat impotent unwashed slob sitting in your mother's basement trying to jack off to Cardcaptor Sakura hentai. Any one of us here, including the crazy guy and the guy in the wheelchair, could take you.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @06:47PM (1 child)
You really ought to make an effort to usefully report the guy to the authorities.
If he hasn't already, he clearly wants to hurt people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:29AM
You actively hurt people; but they're mmmaaaalllleeesss so who cares.
You bomb every culture that allows men to have female children as brides.
You hunt down every man across the globe that acquires a girl for himself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:26AM (4 children)
Believe whatever you want, cunt.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:35PM (3 children)
Then come and get me, ya fat dickless sack of crap :D I'll tell your buddies in hell to put out the good china so y'all can have a tea party when you get there.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @11:32AM (2 children)
You're not a qt3.14 young girl; why would I want to come get you?
I want people like you: cunt feminist bitches, to be dead. I do not want to come get you.
I celebrate when Putin and the Afghan men murder one of your kind: they are obeying the Law of the Lord of the Armies.
If the God of Dtrnmy is in hell; that is where I wish to end up.
I wish to be as far away as possible from Jesus, the people Jesus likes (feminist women) and his "Heavenly Father" (whereas the Father of the Jews: the Lord of Hosts(armies) is, according to Jesus, the adversary)
Hopefully meek sweet girls are dragged down to hell for not being obedient to Jesus' plan for them and instead obeying his adversary and being supplicants to men as they should be.
If not, surely with all the male brains down there, qt3.14 girls can be re-engineered: I mean... one burns forever without being consumed by the fire supposedly... so once acclimated the eternal life in the galactic tropics will give more than enough time to re-engineer some DNA... and we'll have our God there too apparently; and I'm sure He knows all there is to know about the subject.
... I'm pretty sure there are Anime girls (like Anzu when she has makeup on) in hell as we speak if the Lord of the Armies is in hell while Jesus and his feminist supporters reign in heaven thusly...
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 24 2017, @04:45PM (1 child)
Oh don't worry, you are *definitely* going to Hell. And you're gonna reincarnate as a girl, I bet. Now could you explain how a cartoon character ends up in Hell? They aren't real!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @08:56PM
Anzu is a real girl that exists. A turkish one.