...
Title of the article is misleading. He is talking about how the Justice system is out of hand and uses a specific case involving a college friend looking at a website of 16 year olds.
A quote from him specifically says,"I have no sympathy for real paedophiles... God, please lock those people up. But so many of these guys do not deserve harsh prison sentences, and that's what they're getting,"
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60099187 Now wait a minute. Media is the Ministry of Propaganda & Indoctrination. Within its creations, it places what it is that they want you to take away from it. Just before your quote is the clincher of the whole article, the thing that they want you to adopt as your belief.
Asked about the argument that viewing child pornography fuelled the industry of abuse needed to create the pictures, Mr Grisham said that current sentencing policies failed to draw a distinction between real-world abusers and those who downloaded content, accidentally or otherwise.Do you notice that he does not answer the question?
Do you notice the pattern of writing which equates two things to each other?
Realworld abusers = create the pictures
"Non-abusers" = viewers of child porn, those who downloaded content, accidentally or otherwise
This is known programming speech. Under the pre-text of a viewer of 16 year olds, he has just stated his belief to you. Whilst you come away with thinking that it's only discussing viewers of 16 year olds this article is actually teaching the audience that those who view and download child porn are not child abusers.
When the reality is, if EVERY LAST PERSON REFUSED TO WATCH IT, not ONE CHILD WOULD BE SEXUAL PREY TO THE CREATERS Of CHILD PORN.
Zero watchers = no children sexually abused for the making of child porn
Children sexually abused on film IS TO SATISFY THE PERVERTED SEXUAL DESIRES OF PEOPLE
And that is why he does not answer the question but instead gives you his belief;
That the child abuser is the creator of these films and the watcher is not a child abuser.
