Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Maryland Leaders Opposing Stronger Child Pornography Laws
PRNewswire-USNewswire ^ | March 21, 2007 | PROTECT

Posted on 03/21/2007 12:04:08 PM PDT by markchild

PROTECT says state is safe haven for child sexual predators

WASHINGTON, March 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Maryland has become a legal safe haven for child pornography traffickers, the National Association to Protect Children (PROTECT) said today, and the state's political leaders are fighting to keep it that way.

PROTECT launched a national grassroots campaign on Wednesday to demand that Maryland strengthen its laws against child pornography. Maryland is one of just five states remaining in the U.S. with misdemeanor penalties for child pornography possession, and PROTECT says that hurts children everywhere.

"This is not just a Maryland issue," said PROTECT spokesperson Alison Arngrim today. "When a sexual predator in Maryland goes online to get child pornography, a child somewhere will be raped to supply those movies and images. In the Internet age, children around the world are paying the price for Maryland's tolerance of child pornography."

PROTECT says a major part of the problem in Maryland is Delegate Joseph Vallario (D-Suitland), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. In recent days, Vallario's committee considered bills sponsored by 29 House members to toughen child pornography penalties. But the only legislation that survived, says PROTECT, was a weak and watered-down bill (House Bill 285) that keeps possession of child pornography a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine.

(Excerpt) Read more at prnewswire.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Maryland
KEYWORDS: childpornography; democrats; liberals; maryland; moralabsolutes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last
Once again liberal politicians not protecting kids. So possession of child porn gets you a fine. I'm sure all the kids raped and tortured for the child porn "hobbyists" appreciate that. Disgusting beyond belief ...

I sent an email to MD, doubt it will do any good, but at least it's something.

PROTECT

mark

1 posted on 03/21/2007 12:04:10 PM PDT by markchild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markchild

The Maryland legislature is too busy raising taxes and instituting a socialist state to worry about the rape and torture of children being exploited on the internet. They are, however, moving briskly on the ban smoking front. Nice priorities.


2 posted on 03/21/2007 12:07:46 PM PDT by 3AngelaD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markchild

. Liberal gay rights activists are pushing for more access to our children, laws restricting it will never see the light of day if they can help it.


3 posted on 03/21/2007 12:13:56 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: markchild

What are the other 4 states?


5 posted on 03/21/2007 12:20:15 PM PDT by the_devils_advocate_666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markchild

This is what libs like the kind who run Maryland really stand for: promoting the exploitation of children for tehir political advantage.

Whatever it takes.

Typical liberals.

I wonder what our friend MD4Bush has to say about this, now that his employer is in the state house.


6 posted on 03/21/2007 12:20:23 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markchild

He must have an ACLU lawyer friend in VA.


7 posted on 03/21/2007 12:21:37 PM PDT by bmwcyle (Freep Fox they drop the ball on GOE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD
They are, however, moving briskly on the ban smoking front

In all indoor locations, meaning that you won't even be able to smoke in your own house.

This is just so much more important than protecting our kids.

If you're a Commie or some other kind of totalitarian.

8 posted on 03/21/2007 12:22:15 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MD4Bush
Well?

This is what libs like the kind who run Maryland really stand for: promoting the exploitation of children for their political advantage.
Whatever it takes.
Typical liberals.
I wonder what our friend MD4Bush has to say about this, now that his employer is in the state house.

9 posted on 03/21/2007 12:22:58 PM PDT by RebelBanker (May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: markchild
Maryland the "Free State" for criminals and crooked democRats, N.J. light.
10 posted on 03/21/2007 12:42:19 PM PDT by boomop1 (there you go again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Later pingout.


11 posted on 03/21/2007 12:46:11 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Only those who thirst for truth can know truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boomop1

The people of MD elect mostly liberal Democrats so what do they expect.


12 posted on 03/21/2007 12:51:57 PM PDT by TNCMAXQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: markchild

Maryland - never been there, don't want to go there, and will never live there...too many Democrats.


13 posted on 03/21/2007 12:53:11 PM PDT by lesko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markchild
Delegate Joseph Vallario (D-Suitland),

Of all the crummy political and societal cesspools in Maryland, Suitland is near the top. What is Delegate Joseph Vallario (D-Suitland) trying to hide? What's his personal stake in protecting child pr0n0gr@phy? What did Vallario know, and when did he know it? He needs to be held accountable; the questions simply won't go away.

14 posted on 03/21/2007 12:57:39 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markchild
Possession of these pictures shouldn't be a felony anyway. Each picture is one separate count of the crime. These misdemeanors are not only punishable by fines, but also by jail time. People busted on these charges could get multiple sentences, just like they could get multiple prison sentences if each count was a felony. One might possess these pictures because he inadvertently went to a website that has these pictures, maybe because of some malicious program that causes page after page of porn sites to open up after you click on an innocent looking link, and then after all the pages open up his computer cached whatever pictures might have been on the page. Possession of a picture is not in any way the same as forcing some kid or paying him or her to pose in the nude and/or engaged in sexual activity.

We have way too many felony crimes in this country as it is. Well meaning politicians are always passing new laws, making things crimes that weren't crimes before, upping misdemeanors to felonies, increasing prison sentences, etc. In the worst case scenarios it's easy to say these people arrested deserve the punishments they are getting. But there are always a lot of cases coming through the system where people might technically be guilty of the crimes as charged but just about everyone who looks at the unique facts of the case thinks that the inevitable outcome would be a a miscarriage of justice. It is entirely possible that someone might think he is downloading adult porn but instead some of the files he downloaded will be photographs of minors, and it is entirely possible if he is using a program like Free Agent to download files from binary file groups on Net News that he would never have seen thumbnails of the pictures before downloading and would not realize that his computer is actually saving a copy of every file he downloads even if he doesn't click any button asking the computer to save a copy after viewing the files and seeing what they are. Now, maybe it's creepy to download porn, even adult porn, but do we really want to stick people in prison for looking at dirty pictures because he accidentally downloaded some that depicted minors. With these laws that is exactly what will happen. Keep it a misdemeanor and continue to crack down on those who make these pictures, sell them, and/or post them on the net for others to download.
15 posted on 03/21/2007 1:06:26 PM PDT by TKDietz (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz

I predict that at some time in the future you will see people arrested for taking pictures of their kids in the tub or one of those cute bare butt pictures that we all have hanging on a wall somewhere. And don't tell me that it won't happen because the system will weed them out, it won't. It will prosecute them. Just look at what a mad-dog prosecutor can do by taking a look at the Scooter Libby trial. There's a 16 and 17 year old boy and girl in Florida who were prosecuted and convicted for taking pictures of themselves, not anyone else, themselves. The Florida Appellate court upheld the conviction. As the Chinese say, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.


16 posted on 03/21/2007 1:58:35 PM PDT by rednesss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: markchild

It's disgusting that it's only a misdemeanor, especially if people have actual DVDs, videos, and internet films of children engaged in sexual acts. The pictures exploit the kids as well, especially if they have to pose in provactive nude poses or are of the children performing sexual acts. I don't know what sort of person enjoys looking at innocent children being taken advantage of in such a way, but I think it should be more than a misdemeanor, as it apparently is more in the other 45 states. Most importantly, the people who produce these films and photos should really be gone after and tossed in prison as they are creeps.


17 posted on 03/21/2007 4:27:47 PM PDT by Pinkbell (Whack-A-Lib = Improved version of Whack-A-Mole)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markchild

What is with this Joseph Vallario guy? Maybe his computer needs to be checked.


18 posted on 03/21/2007 4:30:54 PM PDT by daybreakcoming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 230FMJ; 49th; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Alexander Rubin; An American In Dairyland; Antoninus; ...
Owning, sharing, buying, viewing, producing, selling, manufacturing, duplicating, or anything else connected with child pornography should mandate at the very least long jail sentences. And if involved in producing, execution. Don't give me this "what about people who have it on their computers by accident" jive. I don't have it on my computer. I've never seen any by accident (or on purpose). No one sends me attachments of child porn and if they did I'd know about it and turn them in to the cops.

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

19 posted on 03/22/2007 9:44:40 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Only those who thirst for truth can know truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Sadly, there are legitimate cases of porn on computers by accident. I know of a church that had a web address that expired (or something). Anyway it was bought up by some porn site and the church got a call from someone who went on the site to check on some church activities and was very surprised by what they saw. But that was only one incident I've heard of in several years and the people involved took care of it right away.

We had a virus that started giving up porn links (not windows) and immediately took care of it.

Anyway, that being said, computer can be iffy, sort of, but possession of ANYTHING else, like videos, DVD's etc. is a whole different story. That you have to make an effort to go out and buy. No *Ooops, it was an accident* there. OTOH, you can clean up your computer. The chances of someone just happening to look at your computer before you have a chance to clean it up are infinitesimal. A computer loaded with the stuff indicates someone who is using it.

Anyone who opens attachments they aren't absolutely positive about is stupid anyway. Any e-mail I get that I don't recognize gets junked so that anything else from the same source automatically gets the same treatment.

20 posted on 03/22/2007 10:02:56 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson