This one was just too hilarious not to share. Aside from the obvious question of why the hell was a priest using a DS of all things to collect child porn, it turns out the entire thing snowballed into a full-on investigation of Rudolph Bullman's hard drives, finding even more child porn in the process.
The Destructoid version of the story is here, with Jim Sterling at his snarkiest: http://www.destructoid.com/priest-sells-ds-forgets-there-s-child-porn-on-it-224340.phtml
My favourite part of the whole shtick has to be this quote:
Jim Sterling wrote:
67-year-old Rudolph “Rudy” Carl Bullman admitted using the Nintendo handheld to access gay porn sites, but claimed he only ever visited pages that clearly stated the models were of age. After agreeing to let detectives search his computer, they found images of kids as young as twelve.
I just find it hilarious that Mr. Bullman went out of his way to clarify exactly which type of porn he was actually searching for. Just make sure to have this in the background while you're reading.
Link to video
My current project: Something mysterious (oooooh!)
My username is all lower-case letters. Please get it right :(
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
It's possible for someone to go on some antiquated file sharing network (like Kazaa or ED2K/eMule), search for porn and then download literally every result (selecting everything and clicking download), in that case maybe you'll get child porn without actually wanting it. There was a case like that here in the Netherlands.
But if it's on your Nintendo DS, surely that means you consciously moved the data onto there. It don't doubt this guy will be found guilty.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
*rolls down on floor laughing out loud*
Ahem.
Really? How do you even store child porn images on a DS? And why?
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
rog wrote:
SD card.
Okay, that was a bit too obvious of a question.
Still. Why would one store porn on an SD card in a DS?
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
67-year-old Rudolph “Rudy” Carl Bullman admitted using the Nintendo handheld to access gay porn sites, but claimed he only ever visited pages that clearly stated the models were of age. After agreeing to let detectives search his computer, they found images of kids as young as twelve.
I have always wondered why a person who's 17 years and 11 months old is considered a "child", but a month later he's suddenly an "adult". Is there a switch somewhere in people's brains that switches positions exactly at 18 years, 0 months, 0 days, 0 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds?
I have always wondered why a person who's 17 years and 11 months old is considered a "child", but a month later he's suddenly an "adult". Is there a switch somewhere in people's brains that switches positions exactly at 18 years, 0 months, 0 days, 0 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds?
I think it's based on the law that says you're an adult at age 18. In the U.S. at least (and some other countries, I assume), someone who's 18 can legally do anything - vote, sell items to pawn shops, buy stock, etc. It gives a person a lot more freedom. So I guess that's why turning 18 is such a big deal. Of course there are adults that act like children, and probably always will. If there is a mental switch in people's minds, it might be the person making a resolution: "I'm 18 now, I should grow up and be more mature from now on." Not many people make that change right away, though, and usually you'll notice a person has grown up by his or her mid-20s.
Of course, I speak not from experience, but from observation.
I think it's based on the law that says you're an adult at age 18. In the U.S. at least (and some other countries, I assume), someone who's 18 can legally do anything - vote, sell items to pawn shops, buy stock, etc. It gives a person a lot more freedom. So I guess that's why turning 18 is such a big deal. Of course there are adults that act like children, and probably always will. If there is a mental switch in people's minds, it might be the person making a resolution: "I'm 18 now, I should grow up and be more mature from now on." Not many people make that change right away, though, and usually you'll notice a person has grown up by his or her mid-20s.
I wasn't really talking about psychology but about terminology. Calling a 17yo, or even a 15yo a "child" is quite a misnomer.
Right. I guess I was rambling a little bit. I'm not sure why an 18 year old person is considered an adult either. Were you talking about the difference between pornographic pictures of a 17-year-old "child" and an 18-year-old "adult"? I don't see a difference either. Yet possession of pictures of only the former example is illegal. It's a difference of a year or less, so they should either both be illegal or both be legal.
How does what we're discussing relate to politics? Besides, we're not talking about "random...things". Warp asked a question, and we started a small discussion on the topic of his question.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
mods are asleep. post some sinks!
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Right. I guess I was rambling a little bit. I'm not sure why an 18 year old person is considered an adult either. Were you talking about the difference between pornographic pictures of a 17-year-old "child" and an 18-year-old "adult"? I don't see a difference either. Yet possession of pictures of only the former example is illegal. It's a difference of a year or less, so they should either both be illegal or both be legal.
I was not questioning the legality per se, because you have to put the limit somewhere. It will always be arbitrary (especially since people grow psychologically at different rates, and what's someone fully consensual act at 16 may be another person's big mistake at 20), but the limit just has to be somewhere.
What makes me cringe is the usage of the term "child" in relation to these crimes regardless of which age the alleged victim actually is (as long as it's less than 18). There's certainly a huge difference between eg. pornographic pictures of a 16yo and a 6yo, and bunching them into the same category is trivializing the issue to the extreme.
(At least law usually uses just the term "underage" rather than "child", so it's a lot less ambiguous, as "underage" is clearly defined in law.)
I think it's because a phrase such as "underage porn" doesn't have a nice enough ring to it. "Child porn", on the other hand, has only two syllables—but what power!
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
If you find 17 years olds sexually attractive (as an adult), you are a sick and have committed a felony in your heart. You can't always tell the difference, so to be safe you should only be attracted to 20 year olds and rising. If you think you might have pedophile tendencies, there's always the option to seek mental treatment.
If you find 17 years olds sexually attractive (as an adult), you are a sick and have committed a felony in your heart.
???
There are plenty of sexually attractive 17 year olds. I don't and won't consider that a "felony in the heart" because physiologically they're well developed for sex, and many are having it right and left at that age. The main reason I don't want to deal with them as an adult is that, barring rare exceptions, they're stupid and/or immature.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
If you find 17 years olds sexually attractive (as an adult), you are a sick and have committed a felony in your heart.
The logical followup question is: What makes a 18 years old so different?
(Also, unlike most people seem to think, age of consent laws are not universal. They vary quite a lot, all the way from 14 to 21 in different countries. There's nothing magical about precisely 18 as the "right" age.)
Kuwaga was pointing out an absurdity; IMO the real "sickness" starts below the point of ephebophilia (sexual attraction to young post-pubescent people).
I have always wondered why a person who's 17 years and 11 months old is considered a "child", but a month later he's suddenly an "adult". Is there a switch somewhere in people's brains that switches positions exactly at 18 years, 0 months, 0 days, 0 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds?
Nothing magic happens. Its just a threshold. I'd also assume that not a whole ton of thought was put into the exact age. I'd assume that the law makers assumed a good percentage of teenagers are considered 'mature' enough to make decisions regarding sex by the age of 18. Would 16 be better? 20? 30? I'm not going to comment on that.
Basically, you need some fixed threshold, because it would be foolish to have to examine each and every person's maturity to determine whether or not they are mature enough to appear in porn.
Please fill out Gov't form B6: Maturity Measurement Scale 106-B7 before taking off your clothes.
EDIT: Ooops
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
I think Warp's gripe in this case is more with wording than estimating a threshold. A 17 y.o. person can be underage, but calling them a child makes no more sense than if they were a 30 y.o.
Edit: Damn, nice sink.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I think Warp's gripe in this case is more with wording than estimating a threshold. A 17 y.o. person can be underage, but calling them a child makes no more sense than if they were a 30 y.o.
Edit: Damn, nice sink.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
