|
Title: Kiddie Porn Does Not Count as ‘Moral Turpitude’ to San Francisco Govt. Post by: Wilikon on January 24, 2014, 04:55:12 AM A former high-ranking San Francisco government employee convicted of felony possession of child pornography will continue to receive his government pension because, according to city regulations, evidence of “moral turpitude” is required to revoke a pension yet viewing violent kiddie porn does not qualify as moral turpitude.
As reported here in the Tatler, Larry Brinkin, a prominent San Francisco Human Rights Commissioner and nationally known gay rights advocate, was arrested in 2012 for possessing and possibly distributing videos and images of babies being raped by adult men. Because of Brinkin’s “iconic” stature in the community as the person who pioneered “domestic partnership” laws nationwide, supporters at the time accused the police of framing him with false charges. [...] Knox said he did not believe Brinkin’s city pension would be affected by the plea because his conviction doesn’t fall under “moral turpitude.” Under Proposition C, approved by voters in 2008, a city employee convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude – usually theft, fraud or a breach of the public trust – cannot collect employer-funded retirement benefits. In case you’re thinking that perhaps this is just an over-reaction to Brinkin possessing some pornography which, unbeknownst to him, just happened to depict minors under the age of 18: Nope. The details of what type of imagery he enjoyed (and what he said about it) are so horrifying and so unimaginably vile that to even describe it feels like a crime. But the exact nature of his conviction is necessary for the reader to assess whether or not Brinkin’s actions should count as “moral turpitude.” http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/01/23/kiddie-porn-does-not-count-as-moral-turpitude-to-s-f-govt/?singlepage=true Title: Re: Kiddie Porn Does Not Count as ‘Moral Turpitude’ to San Francisco Govt. Post by: Mike Christ on January 24, 2014, 05:07:12 AM I was unaware these kinds of people actually existed for realsies. Good thing we have all this government to put a stop to it.
Title: Re: Kiddie Porn Does Not Count as ‘Moral Turpitude’ to San Francisco Govt. Post by: Wilikon on January 24, 2014, 05:19:01 AM I was unaware these kinds of people actually existed for realsies. Good thing we have all this government to put a stop to it. Yes. Getting payed by the tax payers? Not a problem. His government pension is safe. Title: Re: Kiddie Porn Does Not Count as ‘Moral Turpitude’ to San Francisco Govt. Post by: Spendulus on January 25, 2014, 03:08:06 PM A former high-ranking San Francisco government employee convicted of felony possession of child pornography will continue to receive his government pension because, according to city regulations, evidence of “moral turpitude” is required to revoke a pension yet viewing violent kiddie porn does not qualify as moral turpitude. As reported here in the Tatler, Larry Brinkin, a prominent San Francisco Human Rights Commissioner and nationally known gay rights advocate, was arrested in 2012 for possessing and possibly distributing videos and images of babies being raped by adult men. Because of Brinkin’s “iconic” stature in the community as the person who pioneered “domestic partnership” laws nationwide, supporters at the time accused the police of framing him with false charges. [...] Knox said he did not believe Brinkin’s city pension would be affected by the plea because his conviction doesn’t fall under “moral turpitude.” Under Proposition C, approved by voters in 2008, a city employee convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude – usually theft, fraud or a breach of the public trust – cannot collect employer-funded retirement benefits. In case you’re thinking that perhaps this is just an over-reaction to Brinkin possessing some pornography which, unbeknownst to him, just happened to depict minors under the age of 18: Nope. The details of what type of imagery he enjoyed (and what he said about it) are so horrifying and so unimaginably vile that to even describe it feels like a crime. But the exact nature of his conviction is necessary for the reader to assess whether or not Brinkin’s actions should count as “moral turpitude.” http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/01/23/kiddie-porn-does-not-count-as-moral-turpitude-to-s-f-govt/?singlepage=true A fairly good description of "moral turpitude" can be found in this wikipedia entry - go down to the "crimes against persons" section. Several of the mentioned offenses that might apply in this case include rape, including statutory rape, assault, contributing to the delinquency of a minor. But that's not "viewing porn". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude Note the very first sentence of the article... Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States and some other countries that refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals." I'd have to agree that nothing which is remotely similar to the act of viewing pornography is in the enumerated list of behavior and/or crime which would be under "moral turpitude". Further, the enumerated list does not include any and all felonies, such as would prohibit an individual from purchasing firearms, it is a strict list. Of course, the general definition "against community standards" would possibly trump any such enumerated list. In that latter case, we have the conclusion as brought to us by the news media, that San Francisco does not consider this behavior as "moral turpitude". It appears that is substantially correct. It would be nice to see some disclaimer by the city such as "this behavior, although appalling, does not constitute legally 'moral turpitude'. " Good luck with that. And in concluding, although for San Francisco this is a virtual impossibility, it's worth noting what would have happened if the individual involved had been a Republican, a Tea Party member, an elected Libertarian, or any other, unrelated and not beholden to the current Fascist leaning current regime. Title: Re: Kiddie Porn Does Not Count as ‘Moral Turpitude’ to San Francisco Govt. Post by: Lethn on January 25, 2014, 03:21:27 PM Meanwhile people are getting arrested and jailed for I kid you not lolihentai which are just unrealistic drawings made up of lines and colour and worldwide western style governments are banding together to take it all down >_>
Title: Re: Kiddie Porn Does Not Count as ‘Moral Turpitude’ to San Francisco Govt. Post by: Wilikon on January 25, 2014, 04:08:23 PM A former high-ranking San Francisco government employee convicted of felony possession of child pornography will continue to receive his government pension because, according to city regulations, evidence of “moral turpitude” is required to revoke a pension yet viewing violent kiddie porn does not qualify as moral turpitude. As reported here in the Tatler, Larry Brinkin, a prominent San Francisco Human Rights Commissioner and nationally known gay rights advocate, was arrested in 2012 for possessing and possibly distributing videos and images of babies being raped by adult men. Because of Brinkin’s “iconic” stature in the community as the person who pioneered “domestic partnership” laws nationwide, supporters at the time accused the police of framing him with false charges. [...] Knox said he did not believe Brinkin’s city pension would be affected by the plea because his conviction doesn’t fall under “moral turpitude.” Under Proposition C, approved by voters in 2008, a city employee convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude – usually theft, fraud or a breach of the public trust – cannot collect employer-funded retirement benefits. In case you’re thinking that perhaps this is just an over-reaction to Brinkin possessing some pornography which, unbeknownst to him, just happened to depict minors under the age of 18: Nope. The details of what type of imagery he enjoyed (and what he said about it) are so horrifying and so unimaginably vile that to even describe it feels like a crime. But the exact nature of his conviction is necessary for the reader to assess whether or not Brinkin’s actions should count as “moral turpitude.” http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/01/23/kiddie-porn-does-not-count-as-moral-turpitude-to-s-f-govt/?singlepage=true A fairly good description of "moral turpitude" can be found in this wikipedia entry - go down to the "crimes against persons" section. Several of the mentioned offenses that might apply in this case include rape, including statutory rape, assault, contributing to the delinquency of a minor. But that's not "viewing porn". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude Note the very first sentence of the article... Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States and some other countries that refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals." I'd have to agree that nothing which is remotely similar to the act of viewing pornography is in the enumerated list of behavior and/or crime which would be under "moral turpitude". Further, the enumerated list does not include any and all felonies, such as would prohibit an individual from purchasing firearms, it is a strict list. Of course, the general definition "against community standards" would possibly trump any such enumerated list. In that latter case, we have the conclusion as brought to us by the news media, that San Francisco does not consider this behavior as "moral turpitude". It appears that is substantially correct. It would be nice to see some disclaimer by the city such as "this behavior, although appalling, does not constitute legally 'moral turpitude'. " Good luck with that. And in concluding, although for San Francisco this is a virtual impossibility, it's worth noting what would have happened if the individual involved had been a Republican, a Tea Party member, an elected Libertarian, or any other, unrelated and not beholden to the current Fascist leaning current regime. Yes, the precision of the legalese made this "person" keep his paycheck. It is personally hard to read the description of what he was watching, collecting and sharing and not feeling sick. But that's just me. He was a heroic figure of gay rights in San Fran (and still is). This news never got past a few press articles. Nothing to see or hear. I remember this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=325664.0 and contrast this to an adult watching other adults forcing themselves on babies who were NOT 3D generated... Title: Re: Kiddie Porn Does Not Count as ‘Moral Turpitude’ to San Francisco Govt. Post by: Spendulus on January 25, 2014, 04:39:05 PM .... No question, this case differs substantially.I remember this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=325664.0 and contrast this to an adult watching other adults forcing themselves on babies who were NOT 3D generated... I guess I just have a basic problem with the FBI protecting us from bad guys by searching out, entrapping, and bringing charges against various US citizens for their particular or peculiar styles of cruising the Internet. Just looks like an awfully convenient way to put anyone you want away in jail for long periods of time. Title: Re: Kiddie Porn Does Not Count as ‘Moral Turpitude’ to San Francisco Govt. Post by: Wilikon on January 25, 2014, 04:51:59 PM .... No question, this case differs substantially.I remember this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=325664.0 and contrast this to an adult watching other adults forcing themselves on babies who were NOT 3D generated... I guess I just have a basic problem with the FBI protecting us from bad guys by searching out, entrapping, and bringing charges against various US citizens for their particular or peculiar styles of cruising the Internet. Just looks like an awfully convenient way to put anyone you want away in jail for long periods of time. And at the same time you realize the way those "people" are treated by the press and the FBI will not be the same if your cause is taxation, freedom of religion, not gay rights in San Fran or abortion. |