Gonzales: child sex video chat LEGAL - GoFuckYourself.com

aiken · 06-20-2005, 09:01 AM

Gotta love ideologues who will actually allow people to mess with children just so they have a tool to advance their agenda.

From http://www.wftv.com/technology/4554266/detail.html by way of http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050619-5013.html:

Quote:

Inside the chat rooms, not only were men trying to meet children or even take them away from home to run away, the station found countless adult men using Web cameras to send children in the room lewd pictures or display live nude images of themselves.

However, the nation's top law enforcement officers said it is all legal.

"Short of changes in the law in Congress, we may be limited about what we can do in this area," U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said.

Cheers
-b

Cassie · 06-20-2005, 09:11 AM

wow

polish_aristocrat · 06-20-2005, 09:11 AM

Bump for Headless & BVF lol

Tanker · 06-20-2005, 09:27 AM

Damn I always wondered why those room existed and were not shut down.

anytime you go to a provider of chat and they let people create thier own chat rooms you end up having shit like this!

I am glad to see the advertisers pull thier ads untill its cleaned up this is one of the places that gives us as legitimate Adult entertainment companies a bad name.

Tanker · 06-20-2005, 09:29 AM

It all gets lumped in with us and even though its wrong and we are not part of it we still get tied to it

smack · 06-20-2005, 09:29 AM

"Short of changes in the law in Congress," Hint Hint.....

ronaldo · 06-20-2005, 09:30 AM

Simply more proof that the DOJ has no real interest in protecting children.

How many children is he going to protect with the new 2257 regs? Zero.

How many children COULD he save if he spent the time and effort to go after the REAL problem, like those that frequent yahoo chatrooms? I can only imagine.

mockingbich · 06-20-2005, 10:31 AM

Gonzalez will probably be on the SUPREME COURT

Already in Washington rumors are swirling that current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may be under serious consideration for the empty slot left vacant after one of the sitting justices is elevated to fill Rehnquist's role.. "You look at what he hasn't done in his few months at Justice," says a former White House staffer, "and it makes you think he's really been looking ahead and trying to keep as clear from controversy as he can."
http://www.americanprowler.com/dsp_a...sp?art_id=8209

kernelpanic · 06-20-2005, 10:33 AM

WHAT THE FUCK

Fucking hypocrite. Apparently they can overstep their authority to hassle legitimate webmasters, but can't do a thing when it comes to actually protecing children.

Oh wait, Yahoo is big enough so that its not a bully target. Makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

DWB · 06-20-2005, 10:36 AM

Are you really surprised? They don't give a flying fuck about the childred because if they did, they would go after real child porn and not break our balls for running legit sites.

jollyperv · 06-20-2005, 10:42 AM

They'll get their comeupance, soon enough. All these fucks.

crockett · 06-20-2005, 10:58 AM

You know this will end the adult stuff on yahoo don't yea..

crockett · 06-20-2005, 11:01 AM

btw they so fucking owned Gonzales ass on this part

Quote:

Gonzales told the station he can't use the laws now on the books to shut down Yahoo!'s child sex site. But back in 2002, the station broke the story when federal officials shut down a Web site called "Candyman" with those existing laws."

Gawdy · 06-20-2005, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smack

"Short of changes in the law in Congress," Hint Hint.....

Exactly

aiken · 06-20-2005, 01:53 PM

I just don't get how anyone can take DOJ seriously at this point; they are so obviously only operating for political gain, and with no real concern about kids, legality, due process, etc. At some point, hopefully people will get tired of it.

jonesy · 06-20-2005, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aiken

I just don't get how anyone can take DOJ seriously at this point; they are so obviously only operating for political gain, and with no real concern about kids, legality, due process, etc. At some point, hopefully people will get tired of it.

the DOJ always takes the easiest targets.

90% of americans are ignorant and dont care or just go along with the DOJ because coming up with their own evaluations on ANY subject is just another thing to think about

the GOV capitalizes on the stupidty of people and on the knee jerk reaction to the words porn and cp so when a headline reads "we got a c pornographer"
i makes them look good and society nods in approval.

smoke, mirrors and corporate greed.

Matt 26z · 06-20-2005, 02:15 PM

Get a grip people.

Gonzales is pretty much saying that he can't enforce laws that don't exist. What do you want him to do?

Let's use some common sense here. It'll be nearly impossible to create a law banning such chatrooms.

It would have to be a law that made illegal talking about certain things online with or without the intent to actually follow through in-person.

So now suddenly if someone on GFY says "I'd fuck a 16yo," you could be arrested for posting that here.

That's why no such law exists.

dopeman · 06-20-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Get a grip people.

Gonzales is pretty much saying that he can't enforce laws that don't exist. What do you want him to do?

Let's use some common sense here. It'll be nearly impossible to create a law banning such chatrooms.

It would have to be a law that made illegal talking about certain things online with or without the intent to actually follow through in-person.

So now suddenly if someone on GFY says "I'd fuck a 16yo," you could be arrested for posting that here.

That's why no such law exists.

so maybe he'll make that argument to start changing laws in congress. heard about any 'child protection' laws being discussed lately?

aiken · 06-20-2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Gonzales is pretty much saying that he can't enforce laws that don't exist.

That's exactly what he's saying: that laws against, say, luring a minor to run away and have sex don't exist. Funny, I could swear that I've seen plenty of prosecutions in that area. Heck, what about the catchall "child endangerment" that gets used (justifiably) with some frequency.

The problem isn't that the laws don't exist. The problem is that the laws that *do* exist aren't sufficiently draconian for Gonzales' taste, and he's essentially refusing to do his job and protect children unless Congress passes laws that *do* give him the wide ranging police powers that he wants.

Plenty of *local* cops have made busts by hanging out in pedophilia-centric rooms in sting operations. For the US Attorney General to say that his hands are tied in this case is the worst form of political opportunism.

Cheers
-b

chadglni · 06-20-2005, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aiken

That's exactly what he's saying: that laws against, say, luring a minor to run away and have sex don't exist. Funny, I could swear that I've seen plenty of prosecutions in that area. Heck, what about the catchall "child endangerment" that gets used (justifiably) with some frequency.

The problem isn't that the laws don't exist. The problem is that the laws that *do* exist aren't sufficiently draconian for Gonzales' taste, and he's essentially refusing to do his job and protect children unless Congress passes laws that *do* give him the wide ranging police powers that he wants.

Plenty of *local* cops have made busts by hanging out in pedophilia-centric rooms in sting operations. For the US Attorney General to say that his hands are tied in this case is the worst form of political opportunism.

Cheers
-b

They don't bust the people chatting, they bust the ones trying to lure kids away to kidnap them.

aiken · 06-20-2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

They don't bust the people chatting, they bust the ones trying to lure kids away to kidnap them.

Quote:

...not only were men trying to meet children or even take them away from home to run away... However, the nation's top law enforcement officers said it is all legal.

Apparently they're not all that interested in either the people engaging in webcam sex with children or those luring them to real-life meetings.

Cheers
-b

06-20-2005, 09:11 AM	#2
Cassie Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 3,139	wow __________________ ICQ: 309756847 ]

06-20-2005, 09:11 AM	#3
polish_aristocrat Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 40,377	Bump for Headless & BVF lol __________________ I don't use ICQ anymore.

06-20-2005, 09:27 AM	#4
Tanker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada Posts: 9,287	Damn I always wondered why those room existed and were not shut down. anytime you go to a provider of chat and they let people create thier own chat rooms you end up having shit like this! I am glad to see the advertisers pull thier ads untill its cleaned up this is one of the places that gives us as legitimate Adult entertainment companies a bad name. __________________ Tanker ICQ 3427575 CCBTools Now featured in the CCBill.com APP STORE

06-20-2005, 09:29 AM	#5
Tanker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada Posts: 9,287	It all gets lumped in with us and even though its wrong and we are not part of it we still get tied to it __________________ Tanker ICQ 3427575 CCBTools Now featured in the CCBill.com APP STORE

06-20-2005, 09:29 AM	#6
smack Push Porn Like Weight. Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Inside .NET Posts: 10,652	"Short of changes in the law in Congress," Hint Hint..... __________________ Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

06-20-2005, 09:30 AM	#7
ronaldo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: ICQ#: 272000271 Posts: 5,475	Simply more proof that the DOJ has no real interest in protecting children. How many children is he going to protect with the new 2257 regs? Zero. How many children COULD he save if he spent the time and effort to go after the REAL problem, like those that frequent yahoo chatrooms? I can only imagine.

06-20-2005, 10:31 AM	#8
mockingbich Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 274	Gonzalez will probably be on the SUPREME COURT Already in Washington rumors are swirling that current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may be under serious consideration for the empty slot left vacant after one of the sitting justices is elevated to fill Rehnquist's role.. "You look at what he hasn't done in his few months at Justice," says a former White House staffer, "and it makes you think he's really been looking ahead and trying to keep as clear from controversy as he can." http://www.americanprowler.com/dsp_a...sp?art_id=8209

06-20-2005, 10:33 AM	#9
kernelpanic Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,961	WHAT THE FUCK Fucking hypocrite. Apparently they can overstep their authority to hassle legitimate webmasters, but can't do a thing when it comes to actually protecing children. Oh wait, Yahoo is big enough so that its not a bully target. Makes perfect sense :rolleyes: __________________ ZangoCash - Turn Your Traffic Into Ca$h. $.40 Per Install - No Tier

06-20-2005, 10:36 AM	#10
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	Are you really surprised? They don't give a flying fuck about the childred because if they did, they would go after real child porn and not break our balls for running legit sites.

06-20-2005, 10:42 AM	#11
jollyperv Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NYC Posts: 3,927	They'll get their comeupance, soon enough. All these fucks.

06-20-2005, 10:58 AM	#12
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	You know this will end the adult stuff on yahoo don't yea.. __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

06-20-2005, 01:53 PM	#15
aiken Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Kona, HI Posts: 204	I just don't get how anyone can take DOJ seriously at this point; they are so obviously only operating for political gain, and with no real concern about kids, legality, due process, etc. At some point, hopefully people will get tired of it. __________________ ICQ: 12005327

06-20-2005, 02:15 PM	#17
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	Get a grip people. Gonzales is pretty much saying that he can't enforce laws that don't exist. What do you want him to do? Let's use some common sense here. It'll be nearly impossible to create a law banning such chatrooms. It would have to be a law that made illegal talking about certain things online with or without the intent to actually follow through in-person. So now suddenly if someone on GFY says "I'd fuck a 16yo," you could be arrested for posting that here. That's why no such law exists.