ABC Online is reporting that Wayne Edward Hewitt has been senstenced to six months in the big house after 100 child porn images were found on his computer at Parliament House.
It’s a start.
No worries 🙂
I see your point, my apologies..
Arg. Tool, you’ve completely missed my point (LG, you haven’t – thank you).
Tool: If nobody paid for Britany Spears’ records, her record company would drop her. If that happened, it wouldn’t matter how many people downloaded her stuff off BitTorrent or whatever. The sickos that pay for her album are what keep her career alive and well. In this instance, “payment” probably needs to be taken to mean any kind of trade, be it money or “in kind”.
Just to make it crystal clear (though I thought I was pretty clear last time) – I’m not condoning, defending, or otherwise trying to excuse child pornography – there are plenty of good reasons for it to be illegal to produce, purchase, and indeed download (whether paid for or not). The point I am trying to make is that it doesn’t matter whether you’re dealing with the worst crime in the universe, or just parking illegally – it’s counterproductive to make statements about it that don’t stand up to logical scrutiny.
I don’t think Spectra was defending child pornography. I think he also has zero tolerance. As does anyone with a soul.
If nobody listened to Brittany Spears would she still make records – no her record company would drop her, If nobody looked at child pornography wopuld they still make it? Same principal applies. These sickos that view keep this huge industry alive and well, zero tolerance….
First, let me say that child pornography is bad. Really, really bad. There is never any excuse for abusing and exploiting children in such a fashion, and those who do so ought to have the full force of the law brought against them.
However, I find it slightly troubling that people seem to think that this justifies making statements like:
“…he did not pay for the images but the court heard that money would have changed hands somewhere down the line and simply viewing it added to the market for pornography.”
Sorry? That’s the same as arguing that if I download a Britany Spears song (*shudder*) and listen to it, I have “increased the market” for her music. It’s simply not true (unless you include people who will never add money to the system in “the market”. But last I checked, it only included people who were willing to actually offer something in exchange).
Again, just so nobody gets the wrong idea, child pornography is bad bad bad bad. But something being bad doesn’t justify making fallacious statements about it – that’s just counter-productive, because it risks devaluing the valid arguments made against it.
I’m sure that you mean it’s a start in terms of sentencing, not in terms of him having 100 images. Don’t you…?
What should we call Canberra’s newest Light Rail Vehicle?