blog | facebook | twitter
It is currently Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:44 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: R. Kelly arrested on child porn charges
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2003 3:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 4:14 pm
Posts: 4116
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Hey, look who's joining Pete Townsend in making the world a better place for kids!

"R. Kelly arrested in Miami on Child Porn Charges"

Did you know R. Kelly's first name is Robert?

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:05 am 
Jet Jaguar
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:08 am
Posts: 184
Sorry this is so long, but Mr. Townshend's honor must be defended. He is NOT a pedophile and has never been accused of touching nor harming any child.

> Townshend trapped by deaf, dumb, and blind laws
> By Brian Doherty
> Iconic rock star Pete Townshend, guitarist and
> songwriter for The Who, isn't the first prominent rock
> star you might expect to be caught up in child porn
> accusations. His image has never been sneeringly
> libidinous, like Mick Jagger's, or transgressively
> intellectual and blandly creepy, like David Byrne's.
> (Since one can't be too safe in this current
> hysterical environment, let me underline that I am not
> accusing either man of an interest in or possession of
> child porn.)
> Townshend's niche has always been more big
> brotherish—concerned, conflicted but honest, deeply
> fascinated with and understanding of the confusions,
> manias, and travails of teens — particularly teen
> boys. That used to sound noble and valuable to his
> fans. (And yes, I'm one of them—from age 14 to 24, his
> classic saga of a conflicted teen, Quadrophenia, was
> my hands-down favorite album.) Now it sounds creepy
> and possibly damning, in the wake of Townshend's
> arrest (though still without official charges, and he
> is not now in custody) on suspicion of possessing
> child porn on his computers. The rocker's collaring
> was part of an international police operation known as
> Operation Avalanche. (Priests, also formerly admired
> for an ability to relate to and mentor young men, are
> similarly tainted these days.)
> Ah, the dark shadows are easy to see all through
> Townshend's career, if you look for them. He's written
> two songs about porn and masturbation—"Pictures of
> Lily" and "How Can You Do It Alone?" The plot of
> Psychoderelict, his last album of new material from
> 1993, centered on an aging rock star disgraced by a
> scheming media over an affair with an underaged girl.
> The plot of his most famous work, Tommy—a runaway hit
> as a double LP, a Broadway show, and, well, an
> interestingly peculiar Ken Russell movie—concerns a
> deaf, dumb, and blind pinball messiah who is, among
> other things, sexually abused by his wicked Uncle
> Ernie.
> The whole case shows how perceptions can change. News
> reports might lead you to think that Townshend's
> confession that he has viewed internet child porn only
> came last week as the police net closed in. In fact,
> it came in an impassioned anti-child porn essay that
> appeared on his Web site, spun off the suicide of a
> friend haunted in adulthood by memories of child sex
> abuse. He discussed how horrified he was to discover
> how easy it was to find the stuff, and the horrendous
> nature of the stuff he found. In that context, no one
> anywhere raised an alarm or called for a hanging. But
> in the context of a legal investigation, that very
> same behavior that seemed perfectly understandable
> seems disgusting and damning.
> It could be, of course, that this was a devilishly
> clever attempt to lay the groundwork for an alibi a
> year in advance. Those who want to hang him will be
> quick to believe that. But Townshend has always been
> known for a disarming, even if often foolhardy,
> openness. Just look at his refreshing declaration,
> after being implicated in this current mess, that when
> it comes to the adult stuff, "I've always been into
> pornography and I have used it all my life." This does
> not seem to be a man cleverly manipulating the media
> to maintain pure innocence.
> While some might—and have—maintained that the mere
> violation of the law about possessing or viewing the
> images should be enough to pillory Pete, motive is
> important. And if Townshend's motive is as he
> maintained, it ought not be a legal matter. To avoid
> thoughtcrime, the laws should concentrate on those
> committing the abuse of making the stuff, not just
> seeing it under any circumstances. Even what seem to
> be completely legitimate reporters and researchers can
> be snared in the web of current child porn law
> enforcement. The disgust many feel for Townshend does
> not come from the thought that—my God!—he may have
> violated a statute. It comes from the thought that he
> is a predatory creep who gets off on and approves of
> images of children forced into sexual situations. But
> not everyone who might ever have seen such an image
> fits into that mold.
> But perfectly proper hatred of child porn and child
> sex abuse has become somewhat cancerous in our
> culture. When the wildest therapist-induced "memories"
> of previously forgotten past abuse are given quick
> credence, where the attorney general insists that even
> material that isn't actually child porn ought to be
> treated that way legally if it seems like it might be,
> or where possession of kitschy nostalgic gay erotica
> whose specific nature the owner could well not even be
> aware of, as with Pee Wee Herman, is considered a
> reputation-destroying criminal offence, a sense of
> proportion or making fine—and important—distinctions
> about motives can't be expected.
> It is perhaps too easy to blame the cops or the media
> when circuses like this irreparably destroy a man's
> reputation. Of course, they were both just doing their
> jobs. It's the people making the unkind inferences who
> might want to consider being ashamed of themselves.
> There are the usual lessons—hoary, but always worth
> noting—about the value of not leaping to conclusions,
> making unsupported and damaging inferences, sullying
> people's names without strong evidence. In this case,
> those lessons arise from the enforcement of statutes
> that are as deaf, dumb, and blind to important
> questions about motive as was Townshend's Tommy.
> Brian Doherty is an associate editor of Reason.

Below is from:

By Pete Townshend years before recent events:

On the issue of child-abuse, the climate in the press, the police,
and in Government in the UK at the moment is one of a witch-hunt.
This may well be the natural response triggered by cases like that of
my friend who committed suicide. But I believe it is rather more a
reaction to the 'freedoms' that are now available to us all to enter
into the reality of a world that most of us would have to admit has
hitherto been kept secret. The world of which I speak is that of the
abusive paedophile. The window of 'freedom' of entry to that world is
of course the internet.

There is hardly a man I know who uses computers who will not admit to
surfing casually sometimes to find pornography. I have done it.
Certainly, one expects only to find what is available on the top
shelf as the newsagents. I make no argument here for or
against 'hard' or 'soft' pornography. What is certain is that
providers of porn feel the need to constantly 'refresh' their supply.
So new victims are drawn in every day. This is just as true on the
internet as it is in the world of magazines and video. However, what
many people fail to realize is how - by visiting their websites - we
directly and effectively subsidize pornographers. This is true
whether we do so unwittingly or deliberately, out of curiosity or a
vigilante spirit. Vigilante campaigners I have contacted on the
internet tell me that many porn sites that claim to feature underage
subjects do not - in fact - do so. Many that are 'genuine' do feature
much the same content on the inside as they do on their free pop-up
pages that litter search engines. So why do these pornographers
bother with us at all? They can't be getting rich. Why can't they
remain secret?

As someone who runs a 'commercial' website of my own I am fully aware
of how direct the avenue is between the provider and the user of any
internet site. I am also aware - as are most people today I think -
of how easy it is to trigger the attention of an internet service
provider (ISP) when certain 'buzz-words' are used in a search. These
are, in effect, words - or combinations of words - that alert
attention at the ISP.

This first came to my attention when in 1997 a man who had briefly
worked for me was arrested in the UK for downloading paedophilic
pornography. I was cautious of openly condemning him. He had
performed in one of my musicals and was a popular figure in the soft-
pop pantomime of the UK music scene. When he went to trial, the buzz-
word that the newspapers kept reprinting - that he had allegedly used
in his regular internet searches - was 'lolita'. A few weeks into the
trial The Guardian newspaper reveal that
listed 'lolita' high on the list of the most searched words in the UK
('sex' is often No.1). It seemed to me that there was some hypocrisy
going on. Who were all these people typing 'lolita' into their
browsers? They were surely not all paedophiles. They may have been
vigilantes. I'm fairly certain that in most cases they were simply
curious of what they might find.

The terrible part is that what they found on the internet will almost
have certainly found them by return. It is not to suggest that every
one of them was 'hooked' as soon as they found a porn site professing
to display underage subjects, it is to say that because their visit
was undoubtedly recorded by the site or sites in question, the
pornographers who run those sites would have found validation and
commercial promise for their activity. They would then have redoubled
their efforts in that area.

Many porn sites use software triggers so that when you try to leave a
site upon which you may have unwittingly stumbled, another similar -
or worse - site immediately pops up. When you try to shut that site,
another pops up, then another, the content getting more and more
extreme until your browser is solid with pornography and eventually
will seize up as though choking on some vapid manifestation of evil
itself. Thus it is that the pornographer's validation is spawned at
the same time. One site opened triggers another dozen or more - all
of which you have unwillingly 'visited'. All of which will have a
record of your computer's unique address.

It was obvious to me (though obviously not to the rest of the
country) while the man I knew was on trial, that 'lolita' is not a
word to use carelessly when searching the internet - even if one
happened to be studying Nabokov for a literature degree. So I had my
first encounter with internet paedophilia by accident.

Ethan Silverman, a film director friend, had made an extremely moving
documentary about an American couple who adopted a Russian boy. As a
charity fundraiser (and, I suppose, philanthropist to boot) I wanted
to support the work of such orphanages and decided to see if I could -
via the internet - find legitimate contacts to help. (I had tried
many other methods and failed). The various words I used
included 'Russia' and 'orphanages'. I used no words that could
usually be taken to be sexual or lascivious, except - perhaps ill-
advisedly - the word 'boys'.

Within about ten minutes of entering my search words I was confronted
with a 'free' image of a male infant of about two years old being
buggered by an unseen man. The blazer on the page claimed that sex
with children is 'not illegal in Russia'. This was not smut. It was a
depiction of a real rape. The victim, if the infant boy survived and
my experience was anything to go by, would probably one day take his
own life. The awful reality hit me of the self-propelling, self-
spawning mechanism of the internet. I reached for the phone, I
intended to call the police and take them through the process I had
stumbled upon - and bring the pornographers involved to book. Then I
thought twice about it. With someone on trial who had once been
connected with me - however loosely - I spoke off-the-record to a
lawyer instead. He advised me to do nothing. He advised me that I
most certainly should not download the image as 'evidence'. So I did
as he advised. Nothing.

I mentioned my own internet experience to a few people close to me.
The trial of the man who had been in musical was on everyone's
agenda. It became clear very quickly that some people I spoke to were
skeptical of me. I think they thought that if I had searched using
the right words, my exposure to that terrible image would not have

It might be strange to hear that I was glad I found it. Until then,
like my ostrich-like friends, I imagined that only those who
communicated on the internet using secret codes, private chat-rooms
and encrypted files would ever be exposed to this kind of porn. But I
learned through this accident that such images were 'freely'
available through the machinery of common search engines and User-
Groups, and openly available for sale through subscription via credit
card. I was then concerned that there would be those 'providers' of
paedophilic porn who felt the need to regularly 'refresh' their
supply of images. It is a chilling though isn't it? Even so, I found
myself wondering whether that thought brought fears for me that were,
perhaps, quite out of proportion with reality: maybe I was stirring
my own subconscious memories; maybe I was just being pompous.

Now my friend has joined a long line of suicides who were sexually
abused as children, and I feel I must speak up.

Since 1997 I have been attempting to prepare some kind of document
with respect to all this for wider publication. My feeling is that if
internet service providers (ISP's) can be enlisted by the police and
other authorities to 'snoop' and provide information about customers
downloading illegal pornography, they could just as easily filter
search terms - or better yet, practice combinations of such search
terms on a regular basis and then block specific site names. Many
ISPs do such work. It is part of their regular housekeeping. But the
pornographers are rich, determined, and - in the area of under-age
pornography - criminal. Banned sites are replicated, renamed and
replaced in days.

Why am I suddenly writing this today? My friend who committed suicide
was the victim of an active but secret ring of paedophiles. They are
still at large today. Only those who knew my friend, and believed her
story, feel any urge to speak up against her abusers. But we have no
proof. It is frustrating, but for her, at least, the pain is over.
Meanwhile, on the internet, vigilante groups and individuals work
tirelessly and obsessively both to trace and block certain porn sites
and to offer - through 12 Step programmes for sex-addiction -
probably the only way out for some ensnared by addiction to what the
internet has to offer.

 Post subject: Yet more in defense of Pete
PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:07 am 
Jet Jaguar
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:08 am
Posts: 184
I gotta post this too. PLEASE don't make your final judgements of anyone from simplistic press accounts!

Those of you that have been following the current case involving Pete
will be aware he had stated that he had been in contact with the
Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) regarding his concerns over child
pornography on the Internet. At the time the story first broke the
IWF denied that they had in fact heard from Pete. They have now
admitted that they did in fact have communication with Pete on a
number of occasions.

This is the remit of the IWF (taken from their website )

'The Internet Watch Foundation works in partnership with ISPs,
Telcos, Mobile Operators, Software Providers, Police and Government,
to minimise the availability of illegal Internet content particularly
child abuse images. Our Internet Hotline can deal with reports of
potentially illegal Internet content, such as websites, newsgroups
and online groups that:

Contain images of child abuse, anywhere in the world.

Contain adult material that potentially breaches the Obscene
Publications Act in the UK.

Contain criminally racist material in the UK.'

As you can see the IWF was the correct body for Pete to approach but
since some of the media have reported the fact that the IWF denied
receiving any communication from him we thought it was important that
this updated information was published.

In response to this information Pete has said :

"You may recall that among the media frenzy of a couple of weeks ago,
representatives of the Internet Watch Foundation told the press and
the news stations that they had never heard from me. I, of course,
know that I did communicate with them several times last year and
they have now supplied to us copies of my e-mails to them, one in
August and the rest in November. My lawyers have written to the
Founder of the IWF, Mark Stephens, who was adamant that they had
never heard from me, asking for an explanation."

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

Buy a Premium BlogAd