MSNBC is shit

[somegirl]

So.. I've been up all night, instead of studying, like I SHOULD be.. I let my mind wonder off in google. I googled things that don't rest well with me. Namely, Chris Hanson's MSNBC's show "To Catch a Predator" and their affiliate Perverted-Justice.com. Second on my google list was Nancy Grace, also with a show on MSNBC related to law.

I know my opinion on both of these shows/issues/people is very unpopular. I think what PJ and Chris Hanson do is wrong. I'm not for people of age molesting, being indecent in any sexual way, having sexual contact of any kind, or any sort of sex acts with minors. NOT FOR IT. VERY MUCH AGAINST IT.

I feel kind of odd, too, because the people, well, mainly the creator of PJ has this KGB attitude "if you're not for us you're for them." Which is bullshit. I think what they do is Constitutionally wrong. It's a touchy subject, I mean, sex with minors. Not cool. But blatant disregard and disrespect for our right to due process of law, a fair trail by OUR PEERS, etc? I don't know which is worse. And then making these stories, this To Catch a Predator thing, into a sensational prime time hour on a news station?

I was happy to read the results from the sting here in Texas (up in Murphy) went with all the guys arrested being let out because the police couldn't/didn't provide arrest warrants and a smathering of other paper work. Which seems kind of petty for such a heinous crime, until I remind you that crime didn't even happen.

And Nancy Grace.. I just can't stand that women.. she uses her dramatized, victimized past and takes it out on other people.

Alright. Sleepeh. Just had to get that off my chest.
_________________

[The Ceej]

And how's there going to be people that don't know shit about the case if it's on Prime Time. I feel you, Somegirl. I don't know about the other show, but Chris Hansen is creating extreme bias, thus denying these people right ot a fair trial. I hope someone catches him on some show doing something and he doesn't get a fair trial.
_________________

[somegirl]

That was my hope exactly. I know he/MSNBC is fighting him being deposed as a witness in some of these trials. They can't use the reporter shield law because of the situation.

Everytime I try and talk about this IRL someone pipes up with, "So. You defend pedophiles." Which, these men aren't pedos, according to definition, pedo's are mainly attracted to children under the age of ten. I can't remember what it's called, and I don't feel like looking it up again, but there's another name for people attracted to post-pubescent children. And I don't think it qualifies for them to be labeled because children (for most of them) aren't their *main* attraction. I've read some of the logs, and those decoys are fucking walking a fine line. If they were law enforcement, it would be entrapment. Definitely.

Some of these men definately deserve to be in jail, but a good 70% (by my observation and reading) don't.

But I definately I hope Chris Hanson and the entire PJ team get into situations where their due process and fair trial rights are violated to the extent they've violated the rights of these men. Which their standpoint is basically these men have no rights. EVERY CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY, EVEN CONVICTED FELONS, have rights. Every single one of us.
_________________

[The Ceej]

Men attracted to prepubescent children are pedophiles.
Men attracted to pubescent children are ephebophiles.

Convicted felons don't have rights. Alleged felons continue to have rights until such time as they're convicted. That's according to our laws, anyway. It doesn't always work out that way.

And besides, just because someone is a pedophile or an ephebophile, it doesn't mean they're going out and molesting or raping children. Some men have self control. And this is where virtual child pornography comes in. I'm for it. Think about it. These men are going to need something to jack off to. Would you rather they use pornography where real children got abused or images where no one got hurt? Virtual child pornography is good for the children. I know I'm getting off topic here, but what are you gonna do?

I know I was working my way to some major point, but somehow I forgot what that point is. I'm sorry.
_________________

[fishofdoom]

I really don't like it too, because it feeds into people's misunderstanding of the issues. I hate the way the camera lingers over pictures of young teens...

And about the whole virtual porn thing, yes, some people have self control, but it's so very hard when you can very easily win the trust of some family and their children, watch them for an afternoon when no one is around to help/hear them cry, and then shame/threaten/bribe them into staying quiet. How can you stay in control when it's so very easy to abuse children? They don't have nearly as much power, and they can be exploited.
_________________
SHOW ME YER METAL FACE!

[Running Wolf]

I'd like to see some stats from Nevada and Amsterdam about the per capita rape incidents. I know rape is supposed to be about power and not sex... but would like to see how legalized prostitution might change the nature of violent crime (like how it was said above about someone jerking off instead of going out and hurting a kid).

That catch a predator show is pretty much mixed emotions. I'm sure you're only getting half the story on the shows. "you sent this teenage girl pictures of your naked genitals!" Yeah did they show the chat log when the "girl" asks if he has any pictures?

Also one has to ask (for the real life people who do this) where in the lives of the child are the parents? I'm pretty damned sure that if a teenager is going on line soliciting older men for sex that their parents must somehow be responsible for it. If a kid was brought up knowing about sex and feeling needed (in a non-sexual/perverted way) from the parents they wouldn't be trying to get laid by guys on line who are old enough to be their fathers!