“Receipt” carries the 5 year mandatory minimum also. This is one of the issues with the sentencing guidelines, since you cannot be in possession of something without having received it, unless you produced it, which should be a much more heinous crime.

The “use of a computer” enhancement is also nonsensical, because downloading something from the internet does not involve the same degree of complexity as meeting up with someone in person to exchange images or ordering them through the mail. I’m hesitant to use the term “minimize” when it comes to this crime, but it almost seems that someone who accessed the images on the internet through the use of a computer took an easier path than other options.

It’s not often someone on here calls for ‘going harder’ against cp offenders. But we welcome a diversity of opinions.

Penalties are heavier for posting than they are for viewing. In the feds, distribution or ‘posting’ carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years, with sentencing guidelines higher still, while possession carries no mandatory minimum. The Feds prosecute many of both types of cases, and the Florida registry lists a number of individuals who have been convicted of one or the other or both.

I think they need to go after them harder—since when does a cop bust a dealer and an addict in the same room, and charge the addict more severely- or arrest the bystanders who ogle a murder scene?

These heavy penalties for viewing are solely designed to mask the nefarious behind the scenes activity of government, and to maintain a false narrative of “harm.”

The goal is to stop defendants and attorneys from digging deeper, one data point after another, and asking hard questions about government programs like total surveillance.

For example, in the Josh Duggar case, it had potential to reveal illegal, unconstitutional spying via Fusion Center activity, but only one PD provided evidence, out of three that were monitoring him.

In the other cases I linked to, we see military and CIA deeply involved in these types of activity. State police in every state have a hand at the table too in these cases.

The evidence is at the top secret Fusion Centers.

ROGS…..
…SCOTUS, in the Jacobellis Case in 1964, really has defined Things…

As Justice Potter said. “I know it, when I see it”…His Roth Test to Protected Speech!

ROGS

My charges had nothing to do with the computer or porn. In fact, I did not even own or use a computer for the first time until after I was released from prison. That was the first time I had ever even used one, after I got released.

Although my probation officer tried to frame me saying she found porn on my computer while I was on probation. Funny because when she came over to accuse me, she demanded to see my new computer.(I was required to report any computer use even though my crime had nothing to do with the internet).

So she tells me she remotely scanned my computer(I gave her a screen name I was going to use). When I showed her the computer still taped up in the box, she had a fit. I said there was no way you found porn on my computer because I had not even open the box yet LOL

Hey, citation bot, here’s another link You will have to look it up by headline, due to FAC TOS

CIA Files Reveal Staffers Committed Child Abuse Crimes, Avoiding Prosecution

“They” give you the disease, and sell you the cure. People like Cruz et al are all controlled assets. Honey traps and blackmail are nothing new to politics. Child porn just ups the game for “ them” whoever “ they” are.

The recent case of underage this and that with Matt Goetz in FL, the Epstein circus, or the Israeli contractors indicted for CP distribution are just a few examples. I provided a glimpse of how it works above.

Viewing porn is an entirely separate physical and emotional event that having sex of any kind- the equivalent of watching movies about war, versus actually killing people.

Apples v. Oranges

Yet Dick Cheney et al. have yet to be indicted for viewing war snuff films.

It’s not too late….

This isn’t really the forum to solicit members for details on their own cases.

Some may volunteer that information, but otherwise, these are conversations that normally take place between members and their lawyers.

This forum is a safe place for members.

I really don’t think our armed forces are planting child pornography on civilians’ computers.

A large quantity of this material is out there, people are looking and sharing, and that’s normally why they get prosecuted.