Jan 29, 2010: Porno Pete
 

http://cellar.org/2010/who.jpg

Evidently, the USPOC feels the the legal system is not qualified to judge innocence/guilt, only they can be judge/jury/hangman.
I think the USPOC is out of control and Pete should sue the bastards for everything they've got, and will ever get.:mad:

link

WTF is up with the picture? It looks like he's doing a cell phone self portrait in his car. How did these people get a copy of his picture, and why did they chose such a random picture of him when there are thousands of them around the internet to chose from?

bc that one is by far the creepiest if youre a hater.....

Yebbut, wait a sec - isn't that our money?

Only if you donated to them. And then it's their money.

Wow. That's unbelievable.

Once again a British band is playing at the SuperBowl. That's just plain wrong!!

But the WHO kick ass....

Pete doesn't have a leg to stand on to sue uspoc.org

He is a sex offender in the UK. He was caught red-handed paying for child porn with his credit card and downloading on his comp.

If you believe he was doing "research" into child abuse, then you just fell off the turnip truck.

I really, really don't want to eat him.

It doesn't matter what turnip truck you or the uspoc are driving.
Which means you have no right the persecute him. That is the law.

Hrm. I guess everybody at the Super Bowl will be at large.

Especially the Eagles. ;)

Excuse me. I didn't create those flyers.

What I said is that, in civil court, Pete would not win a defamation suit against uspoc.org

Pete admitted downloading child porn. He was allowed to get away with it because of WHO he is.

Uspoc.org has something called Freedom of Speech rights. That is the law.

Wait a minute. The cops gave Pete a pass because he's famous? When the charge was related to child pornography? Come on.

Cops *love* to nail famous people. It shows they mean business, especially when it has to do with a huge hotbutton issue like child porn. I do not see anyone letting him walk. If the charges were dropped, it was for a good reason. Either way, it has been determined that he is not guilty of the crime. That makes him i-n-n-o-c-e-n-t. That being the case, he would be within his rights to sue.

If Pete had intended to get kiddie porn and fap to it, and used his credit card to pay for it, that would pretty much make him catastrophically stupid. Somehow, I don't think he is.

I wonder if this has malicious intent.

DUH???

Those people need to get a life and mind their own fokkin business.

Next up... Westboro Baptist Church.

Bruce,

What the flyer said was technically true. However, he was not convicted (given a caution) after a four month investigation. What is left is that hazy special area where unconvicted suspects are still required to register. Also, Townshend was only required to register through 2008. So the U.S. is using part of the UK judgment and throwing out the bits that we don't like.

If someone is convicted of theft in Britain, serves his time, and travels to Saudi Arabia, can they cut his hand off?

I dunno. If I am arrested but later the charges are dropped, can another country hold that against me?

Yep. Canada can. And does. I was once arrested on felony charges in Florida. Charges dropped and the record says so. Never convicted of more than a parking ticket EVER. Canada still says, and I quote, "We don't want your kind here." End quote.

So yes, some countries will hold your record OF ANY KIND against you.

I'm boycotting Canada forever.

Child pron is one of those areas where we, the public, are being asked to forgo the normal protections of the law (burden of proof, etc) in order to make double super sure that nothing bad happens. This is a bad thing to do because it sets precedent. In twenty years, we'll be registered parking offenders if we let this shit go on.

Convicted of a crime? Then it's on your record. Sort of kinda mighta been maybe guilty of something that we can't quite put our finger on, let alone prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but find the possibility distasteful? Let's not register those people, m'kay?

Sunday a friend of mine told me, his 30/40 year old daughter called him in the middle of the night, last week. She was drunk as a skunk, accusing him of putting his hand down the front of her shirt, when she was three-ish.

If she stopped and thought about it, it makes no sense, unless he was tickling her, or straightening her undershirt. But with a lawyer, she could stir up a world of shit with stupid accusations, because of the world we live in.:(