THIS IS OFFICIAL. NOT SPECULATION. HE HAS BEEN CHARGED ON TWO COUNTS. HE'S BEEN SENTENCED. Short story, the gist if you will, feel free to look into this as much or little as you want, but this type of thing should be known in the community: Last year Bill Borgida was crossing the border,…
Are you sure about the reliability of them, for the majority of folks who can't, ya know, trick them? The National Academy of Sciences seems to differ in their big 2003 study they presented to Congress. But maybe there's been new research that Wexie has conducted. j/k lol Come on laugh, Baby. Who loves you most? Eff does! :D
Also, are you sure about that being the reason federal courts don't allow them? I'm asking here. I have no idea.
A lil'research revealed that the in some states, the mention of a polygraphy can be the basis of getting a new trial. Who knew!?!
I think you language is a bit strong here. Redshoes may not be perfectly correct in her opinions, but her comments don't qualify as "inane" in my book.
Let's try to keep this conversation as civilized as we can, considering the topic and the emotional reactions that inevitably follow in its wake.
In many respects this thread reminds me of conversations in seminars and colloquiums I remember from my graduate school days. At its best there is real exchange of good information, often backed up with solid evidence from scholarly literature. At its worst it devolves (as conversations sometimes did in the seminars and colloquiums I attended) into simple "I know I am, but what are YOU?" childish arguments. That sort of thing isn't particularly useful in academia, nor is it particularly useful here.
In the words of that esteemed scholar, Bill "Bojangles" Robinson - let's keep it copasetic. :)
"A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having" - V
I am aware of the study by NAS. A guy I used to train with was one of the leading experts on polygraphs for the FBI. One of the main problem with the NAS study, was they didn't use trained polygraph specialists with years of experience in law enforcement when collecting relevant parts of the data for their study. Much of the study was focused on employer use of the tool. He ripped it apart on several levels.
A sociopath can beat a polygraph. Outside of that, there are a bunch of "known tricks" people use when trying to beat a polygraph. Every experienced polygraph expert knows those tricks and they have counter techniques for each one. If someone is trying to use relaxation techniques, the polygraph expert will simply break the relaxed state. He gave me a list of about 20 ways they do that. When people are guilty, they try everything, from the use of drugs or alcohol, narcotics, and other sedatives. Probably the most effective tricks is the use of beta blockers such as Inderal, Tenormin and Lopressor. There are specific characteristics that manifest when someone tries that, that any experienced polygraph expert will pick up, and they have various counter strategies, like simply delaying the test for two hours and keep the person in the room waiting. They see this all the time. Keep in mind, It really hurts you when you are are caught deliberately trying to fool a polygraph. "Sir, can you explain to me why you took Tenormin within hours of your polygraph? " Particularly when they ask you what medications you are on prior to the test.
Originally posted Wednesday, February 10, 2010 (2 years ago)
[quote = Wexie]No one is saying possession of minor pornography is okay. There is no reason to have it. It should be illegal. The question is how society chooses to combat it, how deviant is the behavior, and what is the most educated and rational assessment of how dangerous a collector of it is to society.[/quote]
Ah. As long as this is the underlying theme of the discussion, I'm fine with saying, "posession of child pornography isn't as bad as child abuse, and possession of adolescent pornography is not as bad as possesion of pre-pubescent pornography, and perhaps the law should be altered to reflect that."
I'll admit to feeling defensive. I've felt the need to point out the law because I've been getting a "but it's not that bad! it's not that bad!" vibe and I felt the need to interject, "but it's still bad."
I still believe that efforts to make this law more fair are doomed to failure due to our soundbite political culture, but I fully support your right to try.
You know what that vibe is called? It's called projection because no one has yet said that it is OK to possess illegal pornography. Time and time again, when someone explores the topic of teenage sexuality, you come in swinging assuming that someone is defending prepubescent child porn based on teen sexuality, or defending sexualization of minors based on trying to make psychological differences between child porn consumption and teen erotica consumption.
You need to improve your ability to see conversation contexts, and the gray shades of issues. Not everything is black and white, and not every focus of the conversation is directly correlated to Bill's possession of illegal materials. Tangents are discussed without the need to justify his behavior. Is that hard to understand?
Quote I still believe that efforts to make this law more fair are doomed to failure due to our soundbite political culture, but I fully support your right to try.
Unfortunately, I agree. We have a very reactionary, unscientific and political legal system. When you have time, I strongly recommend this book on the subject.
It is very well written and researched, and is a interesting and often entertaining read. Not to mention quite disturbing.
Wexie, baby, sweetheart...so when you state as fact a) the "solid" reliability of polygraphs and B) that polygraphs are not used in federal courts due to a minority of people have the skills and know-how to beat them, you substantiate that "fact" based on the feedback of one dude, you personally know, who works for the F.B. f_ckin' I. of all (unbiased) places!?!
Cause HE didn't like the pivotal study by the NAS that...hmmm...might make their job a little tougher(and better), justice aside?
FBI's (personal) opinion on that important study!?! Even I could have told you what that would be. That's rich!
You've completely LOST YOUR MIND in this thread (j/k) lol I still love you though. And would SO hit that. lol Next Fram, the beers are on me.
Quote Use with sex offenders
Sexual offenders are now routinely polygraphed in many states of the United States and it is often a mandatory condition of probation or parole. In Texas, a state appellate court has upheld the testing of sex offenders under community supervision and has also upheld written statements given by sex offenders if they have committed a further offense with new victims. These statements are then used when a motion is filed to revoke probation and the probationer may then be sentenced to prison for having violated his or her probation.
Regular polygraph testing is sometimes also used during the rehabilitation of convicted sex offenders. Questioning the offender specifically about their inner thoughts, desires, and impulses is intended to give a general indication of their treatment progress and likelihood of future offenses. Similarly, predatory or violent offenders at some facilities may also undergo testing for involuntary physical arousal when shown provocative images relating to their past crimes. Perhaps the most well-known example of this rehabilitation technique is practiced at Coalinga State Hospital in California.[54]
A significant number of Federal appeals courts have upheld polygraph testing for Federal probationers as well. The most recent decision was by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals regarding a New York sex offender.
The UK will soon allow compulsory polygraph tests for convicted sex offenders released on license.[55][56]
You have a few good points. But I must qualify.
First, I stated my opinion, not a fact. Suggesting that I presented that point as anything other than my opinion and the opinion of an expert, is a bit of a stretch.
Second, I trust this guy, and he made a very compelling argument. While he may be more biased, he is also more experienced
Third, so you know how the NAS study was done? I'll put the onus on you. How did NAS conduct it's study? What specific tests did they do? What were the qualifications of those conducting the test? How accurately can they reproduce the use of a polygraph in a law enforcement environment? You can ask someone if their car is blue, and they can lie. But that is not the same as asking "Did you kill your wife." They can't reproduce that. Most of their work was based on a employee based polygraph testing, not law enforcement. Even that study states:
"specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection."
Moreover, there is nothing to counter my point that when these tests are wrong, they are way more likely to wrong by finding that someone is lying, when they are not, than the other way around.
Originally posted Wednesday, February 10, 2010 (2 years ago)
Quote Sexual offenders are now routinely polygraphed in many states of the United States and it is often a mandatory condition of probation or parole. In Texas, a state appellate court has upheld the testing of sex offenders under community supervision and has also upheld written statements given by sex offenders if they have committed a further offense with new victims. These statements are then used when a motion is filed to revoke probation and the probationer may then be sentenced to prison for having violated his or her probation.
Regular polygraph testing is sometimes also used during the rehabilitation of convicted sex offenders. Questioning the offender specifically...blah blah blah...A significant number of Federal appeals courts have upheld polygraph testing for Federal probationers as well.
Bill's up for probation already? THAT was fast.
But in all seriousness, A) can you answer my question and b) beers on me soon.
Originally posted Wednesday, February 10, 2010 (2 years ago)
Oh no you don't. You're trying to shake my trail. I read your book, Wexie :D
First things first, just to make sure you are still on Planet Earth and the sky is still blue in your world:
When you said: "Polygraphs are unreliable in that there are certain people who can beat them. Very, very, very, few people are capable of beating a polygraph test. When the polygraph is wrong, it is more likely to find someone being dishonest when they are truthful, than the other way around. Because of this, polygraphs are not admissible in court."
That was supposed to be viewed as your "opinion"? HIGH FIVE!
Originally posted Wednesday, February 10, 2010 (2 years ago)
I don't think it's fair to say they don't mean squat. But your ultimate qualification that the reliability of polygraphs is controversial and should be taken into consideration, is fair. It is also true that the use of polygraphs through the legal system is standard operating procedure, and that "The UK will soon allow compulsory polygraph tests for convicted sex offenders released on license" is also fair and speaks to efficacy.
I'll show you some pity and consider this a draw :-P
Originally posted Wednesday, February 10, 2010 (2 years ago)
Edited on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 8:56 pm (2 years ago)
I'm not sure why it's a big deal.
It's obvious the polygraph was simply one extra aid investigators used for guidance: With limited resources, is their time and tax payer money better spent digging even more into Bill's life, or do they basically have as much of a case as they're ever going to get and should direct resources to catching other (generally far more serious) offenders.
For those of us that believe in shades of gray, the polygraph information again is simply one additional piece of guidance. Of course it is not definitive proof. The hard evidence that does exist can tell many, many different stories all just as valid as the next. Soft testimonials like the polygraph, like Bill's statements, like the testimonials his friends gave to the court, help guide to which of the potential stories told by the evidence is most likely the truth.
Yehoodi is not a court room. What we choose to use for guidance is not limited by law. As a counter example, a great many of you have chosen to use Bill's reputation with young women on the dance floor as guidance, which AFAIK would be considered hearsay and disallowed in a court.*
* Lawyers correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure you will.
Originally posted Wednesday, February 10, 2010 (2 years ago)
When district attorneys can be this [bleep!]ing asinine you really have to wonder about the wisdom of mandatory sentences and leaving the decision to prosecute or not to prosecute entirely up to the (often politically motivated) DA.
The big story is that a 15-year-old girl named Phoebe Prince committed suicide after enduring months of relentless bullying from the popular girls in her high school. Apparently she became the target of the bullying because she'd briefly dated two football players and their girlfriends didn't like it. Well, the football players were 17 & 18 and now they're both being charged with statutory rape (felony). The prosecutors are making a big deal about getting tough with the bullies but I've read a bunch of articles about this story and not one of the articles said anything about her ex-boyfriends being part of the bullying. Instead of pursuing justice, the South Hadley justice system has created two scapegoats.
Can ALL the males in the world swear that they've never looked at porn that was marketed as "BARELY LEGAL!!" or "FINALLY 18?" I'm not excusing his behavior (and neither is he, if you read the letter). But I know many men who look at a LOT of porn, and anyone who's ever even peeked into the porn world knows that the younger a girl looks, the better; it's not hard to find porn that is supposed to look like two fifteen-year-olds. In fact, a good 50% juuuuust toes the line between child and adult.
All I'm sayin' is, let's not forget that he's not some evil degenerate, but a human being, and many of us could have developed the same addiction. Let's not forget how badly things turn out when people get riled up just to chase the adrenaline of outrage (look where eight years of outrage over 9/11 got us: trillions in debt, no OBL, and amateur tools like the Times Square guy still get as far as that dude did). (Just to throw gas on a totally different fire. Mwa ha ha.)
Why don't we take this as an opportunity to reach out to those who are so lonely that porn is their only intimate connection? Or maybe wonder why porn is able to make so much money "pretending" that many of their actresses are under 18? Doesn't THAT creep anyone out?
Can ALL the males in the world swear that they've never looked at porn that was marketed as "BARELY LEGAL!!" or "FINALLY 18?" I'm not excusing his behavior (and neither is he, if you read the letter). But I know many men who look at a LOT of porn, and anyone who's ever even peeked into the porn world knows that the younger a girl looks, the better; it's not hard to find porn that is supposed to look like two fifteen-year-olds. In fact, a good 50% juuuuust toes the line between child and adult.
All I'm sayin' is, let's not forget that he's not some evil degenerate, but a human being, and many of us could have developed the same addiction. Let's not forget how badly things turn out when people get riled up just to chase the adrenaline of outrage (look where eight years of outrage over 9/11 got us: trillions in debt, no OBL, and amateur tools like the Times Square guy still get as far as that dude did). (Just to throw gas on a totally different fire. Mwa ha ha.)
Why don't we take this as an opportunity to reach out to those who are so lonely that porn is their only intimate connection? Or maybe wonder why porn is able to make so much money "pretending" that many of their actresses are under 18? Doesn't THAT creep anyone out?
"A federal judge has ruled that border agents cannot seize a traveler's laptop, keep in locked up for months, and examine it for contraband files without a warrant half a year later."
Wow...
Considering the timeline in Bill's recount of the events (namely that they didn't find anything in the initial search, rather some time later while they had it in evidence lockup), I'd wonder if this court ruling wouldn't possibly have substantial, retroactive ramifications wrt Bill's case. Indeed, even the test case that brought about this ruling is similarly regarding alleged child pornography.
Any friends of Bill should probably forward this article onto him and his attorney.
Once again, I believe you are dead-on correct. This sounds like an excellent basis for appeal of Bill's conviction based on possible "fruit of the poisoned tree" exclusion of evidence improperly obtained.
The fact that Bill followed the advice of his lawyer to plead guilty could be a complication here. Perhaps Bill's friends and family should talk to someone at the ACLU about this. They have more experience with cases like this than most criminal defense attorneys engaged in "general practice". Bill probably needs an attorney that specializes in civil liberties cases.
The good news for Bill is that this case may affect so many people that it might turn in to a class action where one attorney may represent a whole bunch of people here, reducing legal costs for all of the members of the class. And the ACLU might be willing to pick up the tab.
Thing is, this decision makes this case about something much larger than Bill and his poor decisions and behavior (and a lot of others convicted of similar offenses). This has to do with the Constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure - one of the main issues the founding fathers fought and died for in the Revolutionary War.
"A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having" - V
Originally posted Thursday, December 1, 2011 (2 months ago)
I know this is an old topic, but I only found out about it today. I haven't been following this site for some time, and was shocked to hear about this. Regardless of my personal opinion on his guilt or innocence, I feel compelled to comment on this statement made by Wexie: "While I don't know the intimate details, I do trust the Federal government to understand the laws regarding child pornography." OH MY GOD!! I literally started laughing hysterically when I read that. If you trust the Federal government to do anything at all--particularly to understand the laws regarding child pornography (or the laws regarding anything, for that matter) then I have some swampland in the Everglades to sell you. Cheap.
Bill Borgida: Two Counts: Child Porn.
THIS IS OFFICIAL. NOT SPECULATION. HE HAS BEEN CHARGED ON TWO COUNTS. HE'S BEEN SENTENCED. Short story, the gist if you will, feel free to look into this as much or little as you want, but this type of thing should be known in the community: Last year Bill Borgida was crossing the border,…
Page(s): < Previous 1 2 ... 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 (1048 items total)
Two questions:
Are you sure about the reliability of them, for the majority of folks who can't, ya know, trick them? The National Academy of Sciences seems to differ in their big 2003 study they presented to Congress. But maybe there's been new research that Wexie has conducted. j/k lol Come on laugh, Baby. Who loves you most? Eff does! :D
Also, are you sure about that being the reason federal courts don't allow them? I'm asking here. I have no idea.
A lil'research revealed that the in some states, the mention of a polygraphy can be the basis of getting a new trial. Who knew!?!
I think you language is a bit strong here. Redshoes may not be perfectly correct in her opinions, but her comments don't qualify as "inane" in my book.
Let's try to keep this conversation as civilized as we can, considering the topic and the emotional reactions that inevitably follow in its wake.
In many respects this thread reminds me of conversations in seminars and colloquiums I remember from my graduate school days. At its best there is real exchange of good information, often backed up with solid evidence from scholarly literature. At its worst it devolves (as conversations sometimes did in the seminars and colloquiums I attended) into simple "I know I am, but what are YOU?" childish arguments. That sort of thing isn't particularly useful in academia, nor is it particularly useful here.
In the words of that esteemed scholar, Bill "Bojangles" Robinson - let's keep it copasetic. :)
"A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having" - V
I am aware of the study by NAS. A guy I used to train with was one of the leading experts on polygraphs for the FBI. One of the main problem with the NAS study, was they didn't use trained polygraph specialists with years of experience in law enforcement when collecting relevant parts of the data for their study. Much of the study was focused on employer use of the tool. He ripped it apart on several levels.
A sociopath can beat a polygraph. Outside of that, there are a bunch of "known tricks" people use when trying to beat a polygraph. Every experienced polygraph expert knows those tricks and they have counter techniques for each one. If someone is trying to use relaxation techniques, the polygraph expert will simply break the relaxed state. He gave me a list of about 20 ways they do that. When people are guilty, they try everything, from the use of drugs or alcohol, narcotics, and other sedatives. Probably the most effective tricks is the use of beta blockers such as Inderal, Tenormin and Lopressor. There are specific characteristics that manifest when someone tries that, that any experienced polygraph expert will pick up, and they have various counter strategies, like simply delaying the test for two hours and keep the person in the room waiting. They see this all the time. Keep in mind, It really hurts you when you are are caught deliberately trying to fool a polygraph. "Sir, can you explain to me why you took Tenormin within hours of your polygraph? " Particularly when they ask you what medications you are on prior to the test.
[quote = Wexie]No one is saying possession of minor pornography is okay. There is no reason to have it. It should be illegal. The question is how society chooses to combat it, how deviant is the behavior, and what is the most educated and rational assessment of how dangerous a collector of it is to society.[/quote]
Ah. As long as this is the underlying theme of the discussion, I'm fine with saying, "posession of child pornography isn't as bad as child abuse, and possession of adolescent pornography is not as bad as possesion of pre-pubescent pornography, and perhaps the law should be altered to reflect that."
I'll admit to feeling defensive. I've felt the need to point out the law because I've been getting a "but it's not that bad! it's not that bad!" vibe and I felt the need to interject, "but it's still bad."
I still believe that efforts to make this law more fair are doomed to failure due to our soundbite political culture, but I fully support your right to try.
You know what that vibe is called? It's called projection because no one has yet said that it is OK to possess illegal pornography. Time and time again, when someone explores the topic of teenage sexuality, you come in swinging assuming that someone is defending prepubescent child porn based on teen sexuality, or defending sexualization of minors based on trying to make psychological differences between child porn consumption and teen erotica consumption.
You need to improve your ability to see conversation contexts, and the gray shades of issues. Not everything is black and white, and not every focus of the conversation is directly correlated to Bill's possession of illegal materials. Tangents are discussed without the need to justify his behavior. Is that hard to understand?
Unfortunately, I agree. We have a very reactionary, unscientific and political legal system. When you have time, I strongly recommend this book on the subject.
It is very well written and researched, and is a interesting and often entertaining read. Not to mention quite disturbing.
Wexie, baby, sweetheart...so when you state as fact a) the "solid" reliability of polygraphs and B) that polygraphs are not used in federal courts due to a minority of people have the skills and know-how to beat them, you substantiate that "fact" based on the feedback of one dude, you personally know, who works for the F.B. f_ckin' I. of all (unbiased) places!?!
Cause HE didn't like the pivotal study by the NAS that...hmmm...might make their job a little tougher(and better), justice aside?
FBI's (personal) opinion on that important study!?! Even I could have told you what that would be. That's rich!
You've completely LOST YOUR MIND in this thread (j/k) lol I still love you though. And would SO hit that. lol Next Fram, the beers are on me.
I gotta say, I was initially surprised to see mention of a polygraph in this federal case. Hoya, any elucidation here?
That said, I'll go out on the limb and state my view here: who shives a git that Bill "passed" a polygraph.
Anyone have thoughts on the word that he "passed" one as anything more than just defense attorney spin?
Ahem
You have a few good points. But I must qualify.
First, I stated my opinion, not a fact. Suggesting that I presented that point as anything other than my opinion and the opinion of an expert, is a bit of a stretch.
Second, I trust this guy, and he made a very compelling argument. While he may be more biased, he is also more experienced
Third, so you know how the NAS study was done? I'll put the onus on you. How did NAS conduct it's study? What specific tests did they do? What were the qualifications of those conducting the test? How accurately can they reproduce the use of a polygraph in a law enforcement environment? You can ask someone if their car is blue, and they can lie. But that is not the same as asking "Did you kill your wife." They can't reproduce that. Most of their work was based on a employee based polygraph testing, not law enforcement. Even that study states:
"specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection."
Moreover, there is nothing to counter my point that when these tests are wrong, they are way more likely to wrong by finding that someone is lying, when they are not, than the other way around.
Bill's up for probation already? THAT was fast.
But in all seriousness, A) can you answer my question and b) beers on me soon.
ROFL! ( Great Gif! )
Not really relevant. Talking efficacy is talking efficacy. How is it different using prior to probation vs after?
Also, I added stuff to the post above.
Oh no you don't. You're trying to shake my trail. I read your book, Wexie :D
First things first, just to make sure you are still on Planet Earth and the sky is still blue in your world:
When you said: "Polygraphs are unreliable in that there are certain people who can beat them. Very, very, very, few people are capable of beating a polygraph test. When the polygraph is wrong, it is more likely to find someone being dishonest when they are truthful, than the other way around. Because of this, polygraphs are not admissible in court."
It's my opinion that Bill's poly likely means squat. But I gotta get back to work. Hoya, HELP US HERE!
Check your FB Wexie: wings and beers on your baby's daddy soon!
I don't think it's fair to say they don't mean squat. But your ultimate qualification that the reliability of polygraphs is controversial and should be taken into consideration, is fair. It is also true that the use of polygraphs through the legal system is standard operating procedure, and that "The UK will soon allow compulsory polygraph tests for convicted sex offenders released on license" is also fair and speaks to efficacy.
I'll show you some pity and consider this a draw :-P
Careful with those funny ideas...
you just got to listen to the music, 'cause it's talkin' to you man! -frankie http://www.zazzle.com/anarchyforpresident
No disrespect intended, but I'm really not clear what your point is. Please put some flesh on those bones!
I'm not sure why it's a big deal.
It's obvious the polygraph was simply one extra aid investigators used for guidance: With limited resources, is their time and tax payer money better spent digging even more into Bill's life, or do they basically have as much of a case as they're ever going to get and should direct resources to catching other (generally far more serious) offenders.
For those of us that believe in shades of gray, the polygraph information again is simply one additional piece of guidance. Of course it is not definitive proof. The hard evidence that does exist can tell many, many different stories all just as valid as the next. Soft testimonials like the polygraph, like Bill's statements, like the testimonials his friends gave to the court, help guide to which of the potential stories told by the evidence is most likely the truth.
Yehoodi is not a court room. What we choose to use for guidance is not limited by law. As a counter example, a great many of you have chosen to use Bill's reputation with young women on the dance floor as guidance, which AFAIK would be considered hearsay and disallowed in a court.*
* Lawyers correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure you will.
When district attorneys can be this [bleep!]ing asinine you really have to wonder about the wisdom of mandatory sentences and leaving the decision to prosecute or not to prosecute entirely up to the (often politically motivated) DA.
Please see new thread for dancers who have been subjected to disturbing behavior (not necessarily specific to Bill Borgida). See: Speak Up; Stop Harm
Please see new thread for dancers who have been subjected to disturbing behavior (not necessarily specific to Bill Borgida).
See: Speak Up; Stop Harm
[disregard]
Awesome Dance Movies • Teaching Teens to Charleston is Awesome
Well, IMO here's another case of prosecutors pursuing completely unjustified charges of statutory rape:
Suicide in South Hadley
The big story is that a 15-year-old girl named Phoebe Prince committed suicide after enduring months of relentless bullying from the popular girls in her high school. Apparently she became the target of the bullying because she'd briefly dated two football players and their girlfriends didn't like it. Well, the football players were 17 & 18 and now they're both being charged with statutory rape (felony). The prosecutors are making a big deal about getting tough with the bullies but I've read a bunch of articles about this story and not one of the articles said anything about her ex-boyfriends being part of the bullying. Instead of pursuing justice, the South Hadley justice system has created two scapegoats.
Sarcastically proud that this happening in my neck of the woods when it comes to the prosecutor.
Very proud to be from this area with the girls and their families are standing up to this power mad jack off.
The velocity of Spanish is that many tables do not have sadness...
Look at the letter he sent.
http://www.yehoodi.com/comment/171088/a-letter-to-the-dance-communit
Can ALL the males in the world swear that they've never looked at porn that was marketed as "BARELY LEGAL!!" or "FINALLY 18?" I'm not excusing his behavior (and neither is he, if you read the letter). But I know many men who look at a LOT of porn, and anyone who's ever even peeked into the porn world knows that the younger a girl looks, the better; it's not hard to find porn that is supposed to look like two fifteen-year-olds. In fact, a good 50% juuuuust toes the line between child and adult.
All I'm sayin' is, let's not forget that he's not some evil degenerate, but a human being, and many of us could have developed the same addiction. Let's not forget how badly things turn out when people get riled up just to chase the adrenaline of outrage (look where eight years of outrage over 9/11 got us: trillions in debt, no OBL, and amateur tools like the Times Square guy still get as far as that dude did). (Just to throw gas on a totally different fire. Mwa ha ha.)
Why don't we take this as an opportunity to reach out to those who are so lonely that porn is their only intimate connection? Or maybe wonder why porn is able to make so much money "pretending" that many of their actresses are under 18? Doesn't THAT creep anyone out?
Look at the letter he sent.
http://www.yehoodi.com/comment/171088/a-letter-to-the-dance-communit
Can ALL the males in the world swear that they've never looked at porn that was marketed as "BARELY LEGAL!!" or "FINALLY 18?" I'm not excusing his behavior (and neither is he, if you read the letter). But I know many men who look at a LOT of porn, and anyone who's ever even peeked into the porn world knows that the younger a girl looks, the better; it's not hard to find porn that is supposed to look like two fifteen-year-olds. In fact, a good 50% juuuuust toes the line between child and adult.
All I'm sayin' is, let's not forget that he's not some evil degenerate, but a human being, and many of us could have developed the same addiction. Let's not forget how badly things turn out when people get riled up just to chase the adrenaline of outrage (look where eight years of outrage over 9/11 got us: trillions in debt, no OBL, and amateur tools like the Times Square guy still get as far as that dude did). (Just to throw gas on a totally different fire. Mwa ha ha.)
Why don't we take this as an opportunity to reach out to those who are so lonely that porn is their only intimate connection? Or maybe wonder why porn is able to make so much money "pretending" that many of their actresses are under 18? Doesn't THAT creep anyone out?
Judge limits DHS laptop border searches
"A federal judge has ruled that border agents cannot seize a traveler's laptop, keep in locked up for months, and examine it for contraband files without a warrant half a year later."
Wow...
Considering the timeline in Bill's recount of the events (namely that they didn't find anything in the initial search, rather some time later while they had it in evidence lockup), I'd wonder if this court ruling wouldn't possibly have substantial, retroactive ramifications wrt Bill's case. Indeed, even the test case that brought about this ruling is similarly regarding alleged child pornography.
Any friends of Bill should probably forward this article onto him and his attorney.
Once again, I believe you are dead-on correct. This sounds like an excellent basis for appeal of Bill's conviction based on possible "fruit of the poisoned tree" exclusion of evidence improperly obtained.
The fact that Bill followed the advice of his lawyer to plead guilty could be a complication here. Perhaps Bill's friends and family should talk to someone at the ACLU about this. They have more experience with cases like this than most criminal defense attorneys engaged in "general practice". Bill probably needs an attorney that specializes in civil liberties cases.
The good news for Bill is that this case may affect so many people that it might turn in to a class action where one attorney may represent a whole bunch of people here, reducing legal costs for all of the members of the class. And the ACLU might be willing to pick up the tab.
Thing is, this decision makes this case about something much larger than Bill and his poor decisions and behavior (and a lot of others convicted of similar offenses). This has to do with the Constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure - one of the main issues the founding fathers fought and died for in the Revolutionary War.
"A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having" - V
I know this is an old topic, but I only found out about it today. I haven't been following this site for some time, and was shocked to hear about this. Regardless of my personal opinion on his guilt or innocence, I feel compelled to comment on this statement made by Wexie: "While I don't know the intimate details, I do trust the Federal government to understand the laws regarding child pornography." OH MY GOD!! I literally started laughing hysterically when I read that. If you trust the Federal government to do anything at all--particularly to understand the laws regarding child pornography (or the laws regarding anything, for that matter) then I have some swampland in the Everglades to sell you. Cheap.
Page(s): < Previous 1 2 ... 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 (1048 items total)
BBCode is no longer supported. Use Markdown instead: