Friday, February 15, 2019

Blind Item #8

While it is true that reporters have a protection for inadvertent viewing of child porn as do most people, they are under an obligation to report it to federal law enforcement after viewing it. Reporters have no such protections for viewing a video. The only such protection would be less than three images ( 18 U.S.C. 2252A (d)) and that they destroyed them and reported them to federal law enforcement. Under any circumstance, they are required to report it to federal law enforcement. There has been no reporting by this news organization that they did so while reporting on a current case involving the former A list singer/serial child rapist/child pornographer and have not made clear whether they saw less than three images which were then destroyed, or watched a video, and whether that copy was destroyed and reported to federal law enforcement.

36 comments:

Tricia13 said...

R Kelley

kfitz said...

cnn

Tricia13 said...

+1

MDAnderson said...

I saw Michael Avenatti was involved and that’s all I needed to know.

Do Tell said...

So which news org has the child pr0n fans?

Tricia13 said...

👍

Guesser said...

Much too detailed to have seen that few images.

cadencej said...

this is weird and misleading. there is an obligation to report, of course, but the tape in question then becomes *evidence*--which is what happened with the previous tape he went on trial for. if it's destroyed, it can't be used as evidence. it has to be handed over to law enforcement. from what i understand, that tape is now in the hands of the feds.

Troy Dyer said...

Imagine being the news intern that got stuck watching that...

sandybrook said...

CNN reported yesterday that Avenatti had a tape with R. Kelly and they had viewed it. How long ago this all happened who knows, all this happened to come out yesterday afternoon. I don't think CNN said it was R. Kelly or was confirmed to be him.

kfitz said...

they just said "appeared to be r. kelly"

Brayson87 said...

Uh oh, CNN did describe it as like 43 mins long, described two different rooms in the video, and various physical acts and dialogue. They might be protected if they say that Avenatti described it to them and that they only saw three images to confirm.

They could also claim that they didn't know it was underage, the only evidence is the dialogue which could have been role playing.

kfitz said...

that dialogue was fucking gross.

Akbar Johnson said...

This is why they keep saying "alleged" and that the girl "referred to her genitals as 14". This is so that they can say they really don't know how old the girl is, just that comments were made that make it "seem" she may be underage. Then they can argue they had to watch to see if there was anything newsworthy that needed further investigation.

Yes, it's a bunch of bullshit, but no, none of these reporters will be charged with any crime.

sandybrook said...

Barely legal porn "stars" often look underaged and they get dressed as students in high school outfits, not that this girl wasn't actually 14 as she said and he said. That's why until everything can be confirmed everything has to be alleged.

sandybrook said...

Sorry Akbar, I basically was writing the same thing as you were posting. So +1.

Brayson87 said...

Oh gawd, what if it's all a scam, the girl is 19 or older, R. Kelly leaked the video himself to undermine the underage accusations?

Akbar Johnson said...

No worries Sandy, Brayson actually touched upon the same thing too.

It's sad but just possessing a "little" bit or "accidental" child porn won't even get charged usually because there's just so much of it out there the authorities only focus on the distributers.

And by "accidental" I mean things like it being cached in your history because some troll decided it would be funny to spam your favorite message board, or how it has been injected into the block chain so everyone involved is technically downloading it.

The world is a fucked up place.

Lonely Bastard said...

Some of them fapped, I'm sure of it.

Brayson87 said...

@Akbar, like that Jared motherf*cker! Wonder if he's eating a bunch of footlongs now.

sandybrook said...

Good point, I didn't even think of that part Akbar. Or even something as innocent as liking a child of your friends pic on fb. Now I have a friend who is female who is posting provocative pictures of herself when she was underage to prove a point about what certain people did to her then and people click like or whatever on them. That stays in your histories too. Fb keeps suspending her too and she comes back and starts the circle all over again.

Flashy Vic said...

Would the "Pete Townshend defence" wash over there in the States?

sandybrook said...

Probably not.

J said...

We read here every week about heroic Hollywood people who witness atrocities and rush to the polic... no, sorry, to gossip blogs with their revelations.

If they have evidence of crime and are jacking around playing games with it, they should be named.

IF the desire to end child abuse is sincere, that is.

Trapped said...

R Kelly should have been stopped when he married that 15yr old girl decades ago..
He's been allowed to keep doing his thing and he loves underage girls..

Jimbonius said...

CNN should have James Earl Jones read the transcript

J F said...

Another vague law that is only used if you piss off the wrong person or are clearly obsessed and deep into distribution, collection, or worse. I believe the requirement is to destroy and report OR turn over to law enforcement.

However, the "view 3 images" part is stupid and is just a tool to allow LOE carte blanche if they want to go after someone. Hell, if this was inforced Google, Amazon, eBay, and a bunch more companies would be locked up along with/ millions of innocent ppl who just viewed a Google search or bought a book off Amazon.

Most of the suppossed child porn found in Michael Jackson house was mostly books bought and sold on Amazon/eBay every day.

If you feel like living on the edge today... Google "wilhelm von gloeden books". If you click on images... Be sure to only look at 3 pictures and call the sheriff.

katm3 said...

Michael Jackson?

Brayson87 said...

Well since you brought it up J F, let's let the readers examine for themselves what was found in "the King of Pop's secret closet, hidden in the back of his bedroom and kept closed with three deadlocks."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3653380/Michael-Jackson-s-secret-underage-sex-closet-Inside-raid-uncovered-King-Pop-s-extensive-collection-photos-featuring-naked-teenage-boys.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3655438/Why-did-13-years-proof-Jacko-s-depravity-revealed-Mail-knows-pictures-police-raid-Neverland-home-disturbing-just-released-shatter-protestations-innocence.html

Cee Kay said...

WOW. That was wading through a whole lot of pointless just to find out this blind was about R. Kelly.

J F said...

There is no doubt that he was gay and his fetish was adolescent boys. Yes the books and magazines we're mostly all legal as in "adult material" or underage nudes considered"Artistic" books. But when assembled together it paints a very clear picture of him. The book
Taormina by wilhelm von gloeden was one of the proverbial "smoking gun" pieces of evidence in his trial. Yet it is in museums, classic book collections, libraries and sold publicly as art still to this day all over the world. It is 100% legal to own, but if you're suspected pedophile, then it becomes evidence of a felony. It's a fucked up world we live in....

Freebird said...

+1

Little Miss Sunshine said...

@Brayson87, I humbly request you to spend some time in reading some real news. https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8/amp

Freebird said...

I only looked at one image, per your suggestion of the book. The image I saw was “Study Of A Male Nude On A Rock In Taormina.” From a photograpghy standpoint, that’s a beautiful photo. The guy looks like an adult, so hopefully, that’s the case. Don’t want to go searching for any other images..

AbbyRock said...

The Avenatti crap is months old. Has CNN had it all that time without handing it over or did they just happen to come across it while housekeeping? How many at CNN viewed it and who? Sick pervs

Thorne said...

Has Avenatti been sitting on this video waiting to use it as a distraction from his own shady business practices? One day, he's in trouble for hiding $ from bankruptcy proceedings, the next, he has an R Kelly video?

Advertisement

Popular Posts from the last 30 days