Ronald A. Lynn, 52, reportedly has a curious defense in the making for his trial on child pornography charges: he really did not know any of the children personally.
The Daytona Beach man reportedly admitted to police that he has a weakness for child porn and that he downloaded and viewed child pornography on numerous occasions and that he shared those files with other users on peer-to-peer file-sharing. Police say that found an estimated 150 suspected videos of child pornography in their search of his home and computers. As Lynn was being escorted through the police department, he is quoted as saying “The child porn I was downloading was only of kids I didn’t know. None of them are real. I don’t make my own videos, I promise. Maybe we can work this out since they are not local girls.”
What is interesting is that Lynn was charged with not just 18 counts of possession of photos of sexual performance by a child but two counts of promotion of sexual performance by a child. It is not clear what the basis for the first two charges are. The statute stated “A person is guilty of promoting a sexual performance by a child when, knowing the character and content thereof, he or she produces, directs, or promotes any performance which includes sexual conduct by a child less than 18 years of age.” The news accounts speak only of sharing and possessing such pornographic material.
His bond was set at $210,000.
Source: Orlando
People on Planet Earth need to address sex offenders a little more directly. A male with no testicles is less likely to abuse children, young women, women or men or boys who dont consent who are of the age of consent. You could hire that doctor on the previous article who is going to prison for too many operations. While he is in the joint he could do the testicle removals. Shorten the penis on some perps just for punishment alone not for cure.
Squeeky’s now outsourcing her racist rants?
What a creepy wanker! Another Porn Disciple. I wonder how he justified it to himself?
Kinda off topic, but here is an epic rant about how screwed up America has become, and this POS fits right in there: The whole rant is great, and worth the read, but here are some fun excerpts:
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Reposted because I put into the wrong thread.
Possession of Child Pornography is illegal. Just because he doesn’t personally know the children or know the “exact” source of the filming is immaterial. He is in possession of items that he KNOWS is illegal to have or distribute.
Just like being in possession of stolen goods. If I buy what I know to have been stolen, say some guns, and I know it is illegal to possess those guns because 1) they have not been registered, 2) the serial numbers may be filed off or 3) they are registered to someone else (the legal owner)….it doesn’t matter if I don’t know who the guns belonged to or where they came from or how the guns came to be stolen. They are illegal and I would be prosecuted because I knowingly bought, possess, obtained something of which II should not be in possession.
I think I remember reading that anime porn is not porn so child anime porn is not child porn. Again this may be a case of over charging hoping to get a plea to the lessors.
It’s unclear what he meant by his statement, “they’re not real.” Could the videos be of some kind of computer animation? Would that make a difference? Then he goes on to say that “they’re not local girls.” Of course, that’s not going to matter under the federal statutes. Even if the videos were made in a foreign country, it is likely illegal to download them in the U.S. I believe the theory is that by downloading and/or sharing the porn, that the defendant is creating a market. It seems to be a bit of a stretch, for example if he downloaded and viewed a porn film that was made in Japan in 1950, before he was born, how would he be contributing any exploitation? But I suppose it’s no more of a legal stretch than using the Commerce Clause against some hole-in-the-wall restaurant in Georgia that didn’t want to sell a hamburger to a black person, or convicting someone under both state and federal law for the same act. If it is an unpopular defendant, and a “just cause” to punish the bad behavior, then the courts are more willing to engage in legal contortions to get to what they consider the socially correct result. But then the downside is that the judges are increasingly viewed as little more than political appointees who are expected to enforce a political agenda, not interpret the law.
Is is porn of little males or of little females? Is the guy Catholic? Was he ever a Priest? Perhaps there is a defense here.
This is just a guess of course, but this stuff isn’t made in a studio. While it does say “P2P sharing”, its a little unlike trading mp3 and mp4 files; these guys are part of a secret ring of criminals who are manufacturing these videos themselves. Possibly the charge comes from him knowing one of the people who made some video that he is in possession of. Or he requested it from this person. Maybe they are just putting pressure on him so he will give up as many names as he possibly can.
Perhaps its something like this:
http://www.knysnaplettherald.com/news/News/General/127643/Alleged-paedophile-linked-to-international-porn-ring
http://ewn.co.za/2015/04/22/Plettenberg-Bay-paedophile-case-postponed
Somewhere in this mix children are being abused. If a person is part of it in any way, they are part of the industry which means that they contribute to child abuse. It’s a two part problem. The guy is broken somewhere and children are being abused or worse. If he’s guilty he needs to be dealt with under the existing laws, jail and monitoring. As a deterrent, perhaps other non participants/but contributors might be pushed to seek some help.
I read Jared from Subway is under investigation for child porn.
As he was sharing the files – i.e., letting others download them off his system via P2P, it could be argued that he was promoting them through distribution.