<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_25_229251</id>
	<title>Tennesee Man Charged In "Virtual Pornography" Case</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1245924780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://slashdot.org/~mcgrew/journal" rel="nofollow">mcgrew</a> writes <i>"CNN reports that 'A Tennessee man is facing charges of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor for what authorities say are <a href="http://news.aol.com/article/virtual-porn/544064">three pictures &mdash; none of them featuring an actual child's body</a>. Instead, according to testimony presented at Michael Wayne Campbell's preliminary hearing in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on Wednesday, the photos feature the faces of three young girls placed on the nude bodies of adult females, CNN affiliate WDEF reported.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mcgrew writes " CNN reports that 'A Tennessee man is facing charges of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor for what authorities say are three pictures    none of them featuring an actual child 's body .
Instead , according to testimony presented at Michael Wayne Campbell 's preliminary hearing in Chattanooga , Tennessee , on Wednesday , the photos feature the faces of three young girls placed on the nude bodies of adult females , CNN affiliate WDEF reported .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mcgrew writes "CNN reports that 'A Tennessee man is facing charges of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor for what authorities say are three pictures — none of them featuring an actual child's body.
Instead, according to testimony presented at Michael Wayne Campbell's preliminary hearing in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on Wednesday, the photos feature the faces of three young girls placed on the nude bodies of adult females, CNN affiliate WDEF reported.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475775</id>
	<title>Re:the state is not required to prove the actual a</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245939120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>While "the state is not required to prove the [...] age of the minor", it does not say "the state is not required to prove that the person is a minor".  The difference is that if the picture is of a six-year-old, it is pretty clear the person is a minor.  An apparent 15-year-old, however, will need something more to prove that the person is a minor.  If the law said that minority did not need to be proved, then the law would be saying that any pornography is child pornography, on the word of the state.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While " the state is not required to prove the [ ... ] age of the minor " , it does not say " the state is not required to prove that the person is a minor " .
The difference is that if the picture is of a six-year-old , it is pretty clear the person is a minor .
An apparent 15-year-old , however , will need something more to prove that the person is a minor .
If the law said that minority did not need to be proved , then the law would be saying that any pornography is child pornography , on the word of the state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While "the state is not required to prove the [...] age of the minor", it does not say "the state is not required to prove that the person is a minor".
The difference is that if the picture is of a six-year-old, it is pretty clear the person is a minor.
An apparent 15-year-old, however, will need something more to prove that the person is a minor.
If the law said that minority did not need to be proved, then the law would be saying that any pornography is child pornography, on the word of the state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474549</id>
	<title>What about other applications?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245933120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if someone were to, say, photoshop a porn star's body by replacing the head with a dog's, by this logic it is now bestiality? Or would that require two dogs caught mid-coitus with, say, Rene Zellweger's head superimposed? No, wait, because in that scenario logically Rene Zellweger would have to be arrested for bestiality, no, wait again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Oh nevermind.</p><p>I keep having to remind myself that with over 6 BILLION humans on the planet, these kinds of weird cases are bound to come up. This behavior will usually be private, until of course the cops become involved - at which point it becomes a public circus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if someone were to , say , photoshop a porn star 's body by replacing the head with a dog 's , by this logic it is now bestiality ?
Or would that require two dogs caught mid-coitus with , say , Rene Zellweger 's head superimposed ?
No , wait , because in that scenario logically Rene Zellweger would have to be arrested for bestiality , no , wait again ... Oh nevermind.I keep having to remind myself that with over 6 BILLION humans on the planet , these kinds of weird cases are bound to come up .
This behavior will usually be private , until of course the cops become involved - at which point it becomes a public circus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if someone were to, say, photoshop a porn star's body by replacing the head with a dog's, by this logic it is now bestiality?
Or would that require two dogs caught mid-coitus with, say, Rene Zellweger's head superimposed?
No, wait, because in that scenario logically Rene Zellweger would have to be arrested for bestiality, no, wait again ... Oh nevermind.I keep having to remind myself that with over 6 BILLION humans on the planet, these kinds of weird cases are bound to come up.
This behavior will usually be private, until of course the cops become involved - at which point it becomes a public circus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476063</id>
	<title>what if it was your kid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245940740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>imagine the perp....</p><p>"yeah i went on your schools website, downloaded a bunch of kids faces, pasted them onto porno bodies using software, and jerked off and came all over the screen. your daughter i like especially"</p><p>oh wait, slashdotters don't have kids.  or consciences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>imagine the perp.... " yeah i went on your schools website , downloaded a bunch of kids faces , pasted them onto porno bodies using software , and jerked off and came all over the screen .
your daughter i like especially " oh wait , slashdotters do n't have kids .
or consciences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>imagine the perp...."yeah i went on your schools website, downloaded a bunch of kids faces, pasted them onto porno bodies using software, and jerked off and came all over the screen.
your daughter i like especially"oh wait, slashdotters don't have kids.
or consciences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475593</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting...and so's this!</title>
	<author>extremescholar</author>
	<datestamp>1245937980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>He didn't die, he just went home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He did n't die , he just went home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He didn't die, he just went home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28487867</id>
	<title>Here's a fun one...</title>
	<author>Bones3D\_mac</author>
	<datestamp>1246008780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about a case where someone clips parts of a picture taken 20 years ago, today, and slaps it onto a nude adult body? Since the "victim" was actually an adult at the time the "crime" took place, would there even be a crime at all? What if the "victim" here knowingly supplies the 20 year old photograph of themselves as a child to the offender in question? And does the "victim" become the "offender" by exploiting themselves at a younger age with an image that was taken for completely unrelated purposes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a case where someone clips parts of a picture taken 20 years ago , today , and slaps it onto a nude adult body ?
Since the " victim " was actually an adult at the time the " crime " took place , would there even be a crime at all ?
What if the " victim " here knowingly supplies the 20 year old photograph of themselves as a child to the offender in question ?
And does the " victim " become the " offender " by exploiting themselves at a younger age with an image that was taken for completely unrelated purposes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a case where someone clips parts of a picture taken 20 years ago, today, and slaps it onto a nude adult body?
Since the "victim" was actually an adult at the time the "crime" took place, would there even be a crime at all?
What if the "victim" here knowingly supplies the 20 year old photograph of themselves as a child to the offender in question?
And does the "victim" become the "offender" by exploiting themselves at a younger age with an image that was taken for completely unrelated purposes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477117</id>
	<title>Re:There is a 'harm' here...</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1245948420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So if I photoshopped a picture of a minor and smeared virtual poop on his/her face that would also be emotional abuse? Or if I photoshopped the photo of a skinny girl's head on a fat girl's body? I suppose that would qualify as harm as well.</p> </div><p>Lets just go one further step for mental harm.</p><p>Say I took a picture of a fat child, and the child doesn't like the fact they are fat.  The simple act of reality existing is emotionally harming, and being the one that pointed it out by taking a picture, that would mean jail time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I photoshopped a picture of a minor and smeared virtual poop on his/her face that would also be emotional abuse ?
Or if I photoshopped the photo of a skinny girl 's head on a fat girl 's body ?
I suppose that would qualify as harm as well .
Lets just go one further step for mental harm.Say I took a picture of a fat child , and the child does n't like the fact they are fat .
The simple act of reality existing is emotionally harming , and being the one that pointed it out by taking a picture , that would mean jail time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I photoshopped a picture of a minor and smeared virtual poop on his/her face that would also be emotional abuse?
Or if I photoshopped the photo of a skinny girl's head on a fat girl's body?
I suppose that would qualify as harm as well.
Lets just go one further step for mental harm.Say I took a picture of a fat child, and the child doesn't like the fact they are fat.
The simple act of reality existing is emotionally harming, and being the one that pointed it out by taking a picture, that would mean jail time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473623</id>
	<title>Great, my town made the news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245929580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terrific, Chattanooga made the news.</p><p>It had to be some weirdo... not our new residential fiber-optics rollout, not our fuel cell research, not our biofuel companies, not our new VW plant... virtual porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Terrific , Chattanooga made the news.It had to be some weirdo... not our new residential fiber-optics rollout , not our fuel cell research , not our biofuel companies , not our new VW plant... virtual porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terrific, Chattanooga made the news.It had to be some weirdo... not our new residential fiber-optics rollout, not our fuel cell research, not our biofuel companies, not our new VW plant... virtual porn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477515</id>
	<title>Re:It's a complicated issue</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1245951660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Higher in this thread, I've given a link to the supreme court decision of 2002, and quoted the clause that shows their reasoning why material that uses real children's images and not purely virtual sources is NOT necessarily protected.</p><p>Here it is again:</p><p><a href="http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html" title="cornell.edu">http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html</a> [cornell.edu]</p><p>This doesn't necessarily mean that the accused's cut and paste rises to the level of a crime, but I don't see an automatic first amendment appeal win either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Higher in this thread , I 've given a link to the supreme court decision of 2002 , and quoted the clause that shows their reasoning why material that uses real children 's images and not purely virtual sources is NOT necessarily protected.Here it is again : http : //supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html [ cornell.edu ] This does n't necessarily mean that the accused 's cut and paste rises to the level of a crime , but I do n't see an automatic first amendment appeal win either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Higher in this thread, I've given a link to the supreme court decision of 2002, and quoted the clause that shows their reasoning why material that uses real children's images and not purely virtual sources is NOT necessarily protected.Here it is again:http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html [cornell.edu]This doesn't necessarily mean that the accused's cut and paste rises to the level of a crime, but I don't see an automatic first amendment appeal win either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477493</id>
	<title>Alteration in pictures leads to fake person</title>
	<author>VegetaFH1</author>
	<datestamp>1245951480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heres what it boils down to folks.

Real picture of a minor's face
Real picture of a adult or an appropriate age body
= not real pornographic.

If ANY alteration of a picture/video has taken place then it is not in the original makers name a.k.a photoshoped.
If the picture is not real then it is plainly not real, therefore the person in the picture is not real which leads to the pornographic picture in question being not real.

EVEN IF you take the face of a minor and add it to the body of the exact same person 20 years ago it is still considered alteration and therefore the person is not real.

There is no differance between this so called pornographic picture and japanesse cartoon pornography of minors becuase it is as simple as this, the person is the picture IS NOT REAL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heres what it boils down to folks .
Real picture of a minor 's face Real picture of a adult or an appropriate age body = not real pornographic .
If ANY alteration of a picture/video has taken place then it is not in the original makers name a.k.a photoshoped .
If the picture is not real then it is plainly not real , therefore the person in the picture is not real which leads to the pornographic picture in question being not real .
EVEN IF you take the face of a minor and add it to the body of the exact same person 20 years ago it is still considered alteration and therefore the person is not real .
There is no differance between this so called pornographic picture and japanesse cartoon pornography of minors becuase it is as simple as this , the person is the picture IS NOT REAL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heres what it boils down to folks.
Real picture of a minor's face
Real picture of a adult or an appropriate age body
= not real pornographic.
If ANY alteration of a picture/video has taken place then it is not in the original makers name a.k.a photoshoped.
If the picture is not real then it is plainly not real, therefore the person in the picture is not real which leads to the pornographic picture in question being not real.
EVEN IF you take the face of a minor and add it to the body of the exact same person 20 years ago it is still considered alteration and therefore the person is not real.
There is no differance between this so called pornographic picture and japanesse cartoon pornography of minors becuase it is as simple as this, the person is the picture IS NOT REAL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28484611</id>
	<title>Re:the state is not required to prove the actual a</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246038300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The difference is that if the picture is of a six-year-old, it is pretty clear the person is a minor"<br>"For a toddler, it's obvious, but what about someone in high school?"</p><p>Are you sure? Another<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. article from today talks about a girl who looks like an infant but is 16. In 2 years do you think people will look at her and think anything but "baby"?<br>http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/06/26/1342215/Doctors-Baffled-Intrigued-By-Girl-Who-Doesnt-Age?art\_pos=4</p><p>What about Hallie Kate Eisenberg, who played the little girl in the pepsi commericals? She looked like a 6 year old with the vocabulary/intelligence of a teenager- because she was a teenager! Or Gary Coleman who played a child well into his adult years.</p><p>Although I'm all for fighting child pornography, I think that the government needs to provide evidence that a person used in pornography is truly under the age of 18. It falls into that whole 'innocent until PROVEN guilty'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The difference is that if the picture is of a six-year-old , it is pretty clear the person is a minor " " For a toddler , it 's obvious , but what about someone in high school ?
" Are you sure ?
Another / .
article from today talks about a girl who looks like an infant but is 16 .
In 2 years do you think people will look at her and think anything but " baby " ? http : //science.slashdot.org/story/09/06/26/1342215/Doctors-Baffled-Intrigued-By-Girl-Who-Doesnt-Age ? art \ _pos = 4What about Hallie Kate Eisenberg , who played the little girl in the pepsi commericals ?
She looked like a 6 year old with the vocabulary/intelligence of a teenager- because she was a teenager !
Or Gary Coleman who played a child well into his adult years.Although I 'm all for fighting child pornography , I think that the government needs to provide evidence that a person used in pornography is truly under the age of 18 .
It falls into that whole 'innocent until PROVEN guilty' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The difference is that if the picture is of a six-year-old, it is pretty clear the person is a minor""For a toddler, it's obvious, but what about someone in high school?
"Are you sure?
Another /.
article from today talks about a girl who looks like an infant but is 16.
In 2 years do you think people will look at her and think anything but "baby"?http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/06/26/1342215/Doctors-Baffled-Intrigued-By-Girl-Who-Doesnt-Age?art\_pos=4What about Hallie Kate Eisenberg, who played the little girl in the pepsi commericals?
She looked like a 6 year old with the vocabulary/intelligence of a teenager- because she was a teenager!
Or Gary Coleman who played a child well into his adult years.Although I'm all for fighting child pornography, I think that the government needs to provide evidence that a person used in pornography is truly under the age of 18.
It falls into that whole 'innocent until PROVEN guilty'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474623</id>
	<title>Why not...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245933360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... if they also punish him virtually only, and without using any actual virtual punishment device.</p><p>Everytime I wondered how retarded they are, I know know that they can't be *that* retarded. So it must be something else. Guess what...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... if they also punish him virtually only , and without using any actual virtual punishment device.Everytime I wondered how retarded they are , I know know that they ca n't be * that * retarded .
So it must be something else .
Guess what.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if they also punish him virtually only, and without using any actual virtual punishment device.Everytime I wondered how retarded they are, I know know that they can't be *that* retarded.
So it must be something else.
Guess what...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473981</id>
	<title>Unbelievable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245931020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can you imaging going to jail for a long time and being a registered sex offender for playing with photoshop and some photos of Miley Cirrus? It's outragous!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imaging going to jail for a long time and being a registered sex offender for playing with photoshop and some photos of Miley Cirrus ?
It 's outragous !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imaging going to jail for a long time and being a registered sex offender for playing with photoshop and some photos of Miley Cirrus?
It's outragous!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473733</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting...and so's this!</title>
	<author>Vinegar Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1245930060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey everyone, I just heard the sad news on talk radio today. Michael Jackson, the talented pop star, was found dead in his Santa Monica hospital this afternoon. </p></div><p>It's the best news Gov Mark Sanford could have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey everyone , I just heard the sad news on talk radio today .
Michael Jackson , the talented pop star , was found dead in his Santa Monica hospital this afternoon .
It 's the best news Gov Mark Sanford could have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey everyone, I just heard the sad news on talk radio today.
Michael Jackson, the talented pop star, was found dead in his Santa Monica hospital this afternoon.
It's the best news Gov Mark Sanford could have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476103</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting...and so's this!</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1245941040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jackson wasn't an icon of MY America.  Frigging queer won't be missed by me.  And, before some gay rights kook blasts me, look up the term queer.  The word preceded any gay rights activists in the United States.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jackson was n't an icon of MY America .
Frigging queer wo n't be missed by me .
And , before some gay rights kook blasts me , look up the term queer .
The word preceded any gay rights activists in the United States .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jackson wasn't an icon of MY America.
Frigging queer won't be missed by me.
And, before some gay rights kook blasts me, look up the term queer.
The word preceded any gay rights activists in the United States.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473415</id>
	<title>As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1245928620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>ruled that in order for something to be "child pornography", it had to be depictions of (1) real children, and (2) real pornography.
<br> <br>
This is interesting, though, if the faces were of real children. Which side of the line does that land on?</htmltext>
<tokenext>ruled that in order for something to be " child pornography " , it had to be depictions of ( 1 ) real children , and ( 2 ) real pornography .
This is interesting , though , if the faces were of real children .
Which side of the line does that land on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ruled that in order for something to be "child pornography", it had to be depictions of (1) real children, and (2) real pornography.
This is interesting, though, if the faces were of real children.
Which side of the line does that land on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28478079</id>
	<title>Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245956880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[Note to UK police officers reading this - Mr Hangman is at least 18 years of age.]</p></div><p>As I understand it, that's no longer good enough in the UK!  Mr. Hangman must also be clothed.  It's only okay to torture and kill people if they're clothed (or the government is doing it).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Note to UK police officers reading this - Mr Hangman is at least 18 years of age .
] As I understand it , that 's no longer good enough in the UK !
Mr. Hangman must also be clothed .
It 's only okay to torture and kill people if they 're clothed ( or the government is doing it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Note to UK police officers reading this - Mr Hangman is at least 18 years of age.
]As I understand it, that's no longer good enough in the UK!
Mr. Hangman must also be clothed.
It's only okay to torture and kill people if they're clothed (or the government is doing it).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369</id>
	<title>Interesting...and so's this!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245928380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey everyone, I just heard the sad news on talk radio today. Michael Jackson, the talented pop star, was found dead in his Santa Monica hospital this afternoon. There were no other details. Even if you didn't like his plastic surgery addiction and kiddie fondling, you have to admit...he was truly an American icon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey everyone , I just heard the sad news on talk radio today .
Michael Jackson , the talented pop star , was found dead in his Santa Monica hospital this afternoon .
There were no other details .
Even if you did n't like his plastic surgery addiction and kiddie fondling , you have to admit...he was truly an American icon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey everyone, I just heard the sad news on talk radio today.
Michael Jackson, the talented pop star, was found dead in his Santa Monica hospital this afternoon.
There were no other details.
Even if you didn't like his plastic surgery addiction and kiddie fondling, you have to admit...he was truly an American icon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474403</id>
	<title>Wait, what?</title>
	<author>The Creator</author>
	<datestamp>1245932520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You actually support this stupid shit?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You actually support this stupid shit ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You actually support this stupid shit?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474299</id>
	<title>Re:So if he takes the head of Goofy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245932100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no point to this exercise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no point to this exercise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no point to this exercise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473513</id>
	<title>illeagle because its offensive?</title>
	<author>compatibles</author>
	<datestamp>1245928980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is like that hentai guy.  I think material like this may be grounds for investigating someone to see if they have actual illegal porn.  But I don't see how this is a crime.  I don't want thought police, but there should be no gray area when actual children are involved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like that hentai guy .
I think material like this may be grounds for investigating someone to see if they have actual illegal porn .
But I do n't see how this is a crime .
I do n't want thought police , but there should be no gray area when actual children are involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is like that hentai guy.
I think material like this may be grounds for investigating someone to see if they have actual illegal porn.
But I don't see how this is a crime.
I don't want thought police, but there should be no gray area when actual children are involved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477233</id>
	<title>Re:It's a complicated issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245949260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see you got modded up for using the phrase mens rea, but after a quick check, I see that it means this:<p><div class="quote"><p>(law) criminal intent; the thoughts and intentions behind a wrongful act (including knowledge that the act is illegal);</p> </div><p>
How can you possibly show intent to harm based on his actions? Nevermind knowledge that what he was doing was illegal.  In fact, under the 2002 ruling (if the guy even knew about it - unlikely), you could probably say that he safely felt it was NOT illegal.
</p><p>
And where, specifically, is the exploitation occurring?  Making a minor not look like a minor?  That kind of defeats the purpose of what any pedophile would want, so who is harmed here?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(a) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly promote, employ, use, assist, transport or permit a minor to participate in the performance of, or in the production of, acts or material that includes the minor engaging in:
(1) Sexual activity; or
(2) Simulated sexual activity that is patently offensive</p></div><p>Where's the sexual activity or simulated sexual activity again?  At least as far as they mentioned in the article, there was none -- just kids' heads atop nude adult bodies.  Weird, yes.  Criminal? I'm not seeing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see you got modded up for using the phrase mens rea , but after a quick check , I see that it means this : ( law ) criminal intent ; the thoughts and intentions behind a wrongful act ( including knowledge that the act is illegal ) ; How can you possibly show intent to harm based on his actions ?
Nevermind knowledge that what he was doing was illegal .
In fact , under the 2002 ruling ( if the guy even knew about it - unlikely ) , you could probably say that he safely felt it was NOT illegal .
And where , specifically , is the exploitation occurring ?
Making a minor not look like a minor ?
That kind of defeats the purpose of what any pedophile would want , so who is harmed here ?
( a ) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly promote , employ , use , assist , transport or permit a minor to participate in the performance of , or in the production of , acts or material that includes the minor engaging in : ( 1 ) Sexual activity ; or ( 2 ) Simulated sexual activity that is patently offensiveWhere 's the sexual activity or simulated sexual activity again ?
At least as far as they mentioned in the article , there was none -- just kids ' heads atop nude adult bodies .
Weird , yes .
Criminal ? I 'm not seeing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see you got modded up for using the phrase mens rea, but after a quick check, I see that it means this:(law) criminal intent; the thoughts and intentions behind a wrongful act (including knowledge that the act is illegal); 
How can you possibly show intent to harm based on his actions?
Nevermind knowledge that what he was doing was illegal.
In fact, under the 2002 ruling (if the guy even knew about it - unlikely), you could probably say that he safely felt it was NOT illegal.
And where, specifically, is the exploitation occurring?
Making a minor not look like a minor?
That kind of defeats the purpose of what any pedophile would want, so who is harmed here?
(a) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly promote, employ, use, assist, transport or permit a minor to participate in the performance of, or in the production of, acts or material that includes the minor engaging in:
(1) Sexual activity; or
(2) Simulated sexual activity that is patently offensiveWhere's the sexual activity or simulated sexual activity again?
At least as far as they mentioned in the article, there was none -- just kids' heads atop nude adult bodies.
Weird, yes.
Criminal? I'm not seeing it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475185</id>
	<title>Re:It's a complicated issue</title>
	<author>snookums</author>
	<datestamp>1245935760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is certainly a mens rea of harm to a minor involved when someone has the faces of children pasted on adult bodies</p></div><p>I had to look up <i>mens rea</i> (lit: guilty mind), and I think you're taking it out of context. The intent of this phrase is to express that a defendant has not only physically committed a crime, but there was also intent. No actual harm (physical or psychological) has come to any minors here, so the <i>mens rea</i> is irrelevant.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's even aggravated</p></div><p>Please explain. Exactly what about this incident could be considered aggravated? If anything the situation is mitigated by the fact that there were not even naked pictures of the children in question. Obscene? Almost certainly. Sexual exploitation? Probably. Aggravated? I think that's stretching it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child?</p></div><p>This is really the core problem with your argument. You've got absolutely no evidence for this. I shoot virtual bullets at pictures of people in video games all the time. There are even games that simulate violence against specific individuals (Slap a Spice Girl was very popular in it's day). I have no intention of committing these acts in real life.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(a) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly promote, employ, use, assist, transport or permit a minor to participate in the performance of, or in the production of, acts or material that includes the minor engaging in:<br><b>(2) Simulated sexual activity that is patently offensive.</b> </p></div><p>The problem here is that the defendant in this case really hasn't done anything to "a minor", but rather to "a picture of a minor". The fact that the result is patently offensive (something I think no reasonable adult would deny) is beside the point. The real issue is whether a minor was actually used, employed or promoted to do something. In this case I believe that has not happened.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, looks like we can!</p></div><p>The Tennessee court seems to agree with you. Other people, myself included, do not.<br>
&nbsp; </p><p>If a jurisdiction decides to enact a law against any depiction, fictional or otherwise, of minors in a sexual context then that's their decision, but the statute you've quoted does not, in my reading, cover this. I believe that such laws have already been enacted in various places, although personally I find them hypocritical. If we take maximum prison sentences as a gauge of the seriousness of a crime in our society, murder is more serious than the sexualisation or abuse of a minor, but the fictionalised depiction of the latter can land you in prison while the fictionalised depiction of the former can make you a successful film producer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is certainly a mens rea of harm to a minor involved when someone has the faces of children pasted on adult bodiesI had to look up mens rea ( lit : guilty mind ) , and I think you 're taking it out of context .
The intent of this phrase is to express that a defendant has not only physically committed a crime , but there was also intent .
No actual harm ( physical or psychological ) has come to any minors here , so the mens rea is irrelevant.It 's even aggravatedPlease explain .
Exactly what about this incident could be considered aggravated ?
If anything the situation is mitigated by the fact that there were not even naked pictures of the children in question .
Obscene ? Almost certainly .
Sexual exploitation ?
Probably. Aggravated ?
I think that 's stretching it.Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child ? This is really the core problem with your argument .
You 've got absolutely no evidence for this .
I shoot virtual bullets at pictures of people in video games all the time .
There are even games that simulate violence against specific individuals ( Slap a Spice Girl was very popular in it 's day ) .
I have no intention of committing these acts in real life .
( a ) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly promote , employ , use , assist , transport or permit a minor to participate in the performance of , or in the production of , acts or material that includes the minor engaging in : ( 2 ) Simulated sexual activity that is patently offensive .
The problem here is that the defendant in this case really has n't done anything to " a minor " , but rather to " a picture of a minor " .
The fact that the result is patently offensive ( something I think no reasonable adult would deny ) is beside the point .
The real issue is whether a minor was actually used , employed or promoted to do something .
In this case I believe that has not happened.Well , looks like we can ! The Tennessee court seems to agree with you .
Other people , myself included , do not .
  If a jurisdiction decides to enact a law against any depiction , fictional or otherwise , of minors in a sexual context then that 's their decision , but the statute you 've quoted does not , in my reading , cover this .
I believe that such laws have already been enacted in various places , although personally I find them hypocritical .
If we take maximum prison sentences as a gauge of the seriousness of a crime in our society , murder is more serious than the sexualisation or abuse of a minor , but the fictionalised depiction of the latter can land you in prison while the fictionalised depiction of the former can make you a successful film producer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is certainly a mens rea of harm to a minor involved when someone has the faces of children pasted on adult bodiesI had to look up mens rea (lit: guilty mind), and I think you're taking it out of context.
The intent of this phrase is to express that a defendant has not only physically committed a crime, but there was also intent.
No actual harm (physical or psychological) has come to any minors here, so the mens rea is irrelevant.It's even aggravatedPlease explain.
Exactly what about this incident could be considered aggravated?
If anything the situation is mitigated by the fact that there were not even naked pictures of the children in question.
Obscene? Almost certainly.
Sexual exploitation?
Probably. Aggravated?
I think that's stretching it.Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child?This is really the core problem with your argument.
You've got absolutely no evidence for this.
I shoot virtual bullets at pictures of people in video games all the time.
There are even games that simulate violence against specific individuals (Slap a Spice Girl was very popular in it's day).
I have no intention of committing these acts in real life.
(a) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly promote, employ, use, assist, transport or permit a minor to participate in the performance of, or in the production of, acts or material that includes the minor engaging in:(2) Simulated sexual activity that is patently offensive.
The problem here is that the defendant in this case really hasn't done anything to "a minor", but rather to "a picture of a minor".
The fact that the result is patently offensive (something I think no reasonable adult would deny) is beside the point.
The real issue is whether a minor was actually used, employed or promoted to do something.
In this case I believe that has not happened.Well, looks like we can!The Tennessee court seems to agree with you.
Other people, myself included, do not.
  If a jurisdiction decides to enact a law against any depiction, fictional or otherwise, of minors in a sexual context then that's their decision, but the statute you've quoted does not, in my reading, cover this.
I believe that such laws have already been enacted in various places, although personally I find them hypocritical.
If we take maximum prison sentences as a gauge of the seriousness of a crime in our society, murder is more serious than the sexualisation or abuse of a minor, but the fictionalised depiction of the latter can land you in prison while the fictionalised depiction of the former can make you a successful film producer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477071</id>
	<title>Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245948120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My hangman is pornier and punnier.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -----<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; |/ |<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; |  0<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; |<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/|\<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; |  |<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; |<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/|\<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; / \<br>===========</p><p>[Note to any police officers reading this - There's a sale going on at Krispy-Kreme! Get going!]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My hangman is pornier and punnier .
      -----       | / |       | 0       | / | \       | |       | / | \     / \ = = = = = = = = = = = [ Note to any police officers reading this - There 's a sale going on at Krispy-Kreme !
Get going !
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My hangman is pornier and punnier.
      -----
      |/ |
      |  0
      | /|\
      |  |
      | /|\
    / \===========[Note to any police officers reading this - There's a sale going on at Krispy-Kreme!
Get going!
]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474671</id>
	<title>Re:Prosecuting thought crime not helping</title>
	<author>hamburgler007</author>
	<datestamp>1245933540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously not every person who produces virtual child pornography is going to go out and produce actual child pornography as an alternative.  However there is clearly a niche market for this kind of material, and it is going to be satisfied somehow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously not every person who produces virtual child pornography is going to go out and produce actual child pornography as an alternative .
However there is clearly a niche market for this kind of material , and it is going to be satisfied somehow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously not every person who produces virtual child pornography is going to go out and produce actual child pornography as an alternative.
However there is clearly a niche market for this kind of material, and it is going to be satisfied somehow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474869</id>
	<title>Re:the state is not required to prove the actual a</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1245934320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A: You're guilty if they want you to be.<br>B: At least in Norway, you're guilty if they <b>appear to be</b> under 18. There's no defense if you can legally prove thay <b>are</b> over 18. Yes it's true, I read a court verdict where the defendant clearly referred to "Tiny Tove" Jensen, a Danish porn actress that was provably 18+ during her entire career yet played many dubious roles. Thoughtcrime at its best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A : You 're guilty if they want you to be.B : At least in Norway , you 're guilty if they appear to be under 18 .
There 's no defense if you can legally prove thay are over 18 .
Yes it 's true , I read a court verdict where the defendant clearly referred to " Tiny Tove " Jensen , a Danish porn actress that was provably 18 + during her entire career yet played many dubious roles .
Thoughtcrime at its best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A: You're guilty if they want you to be.B: At least in Norway, you're guilty if they appear to be under 18.
There's no defense if you can legally prove thay are over 18.
Yes it's true, I read a court verdict where the defendant clearly referred to "Tiny Tove" Jensen, a Danish porn actress that was provably 18+ during her entire career yet played many dubious roles.
Thoughtcrime at its best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473987</id>
	<title>Re:the state is not required to prove the actual a</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245931020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That law is bizarre... how the hell can they call a person a minor without proving they're a minor?  That's sort of a major piece of evidence...</p><p>"This person had a picture of Pamela Anderson (naked and petrified), who -- as we all know -- is a minor.  You must find him guilty of possession of kiddie porn because we don't actually have to prove that she's a minor for you to convict!"</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IElN\_kqEt60" title="youtube.com">Jonnie Cochran</a> [youtube.com] would be so proud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That law is bizarre... how the hell can they call a person a minor without proving they 're a minor ?
That 's sort of a major piece of evidence... " This person had a picture of Pamela Anderson ( naked and petrified ) , who -- as we all know -- is a minor .
You must find him guilty of possession of kiddie porn because we do n't actually have to prove that she 's a minor for you to convict !
" Jonnie Cochran [ youtube.com ] would be so proud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That law is bizarre... how the hell can they call a person a minor without proving they're a minor?
That's sort of a major piece of evidence..."This person had a picture of Pamela Anderson (naked and petrified), who -- as we all know -- is a minor.
You must find him guilty of possession of kiddie porn because we don't actually have to prove that she's a minor for you to convict!
"Jonnie Cochran [youtube.com] would be so proud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476823</id>
	<title>Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1245946200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A game of hang man...<br><tt><br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -----<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; |/ |<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; |  0<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; |<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/|\<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; |  |<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; |<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/|\<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; / \<br>===========<br></tt><br>Or virtual snuff porn? You decide.</p></div><p>NOW it looks like virtual snuff porn. (and also like he's been run through a wood chipper.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A game of hang man.. .       -----       | / |       | 0       | / | \       | |       | / | \     / \ = = = = = = = = = = = Or virtual snuff porn ?
You decide.NOW it looks like virtual snuff porn .
( and also like he 's been run through a wood chipper .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A game of hang man...
      -----
      |/ |
      |  0
      | /|\
      |  |
      | /|\
    / \===========Or virtual snuff porn?
You decide.NOW it looks like virtual snuff porn.
(and also like he's been run through a wood chipper.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476109</id>
	<title>Re:Prosecuting thought crime not helping</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245941040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ooooohhh yeeeeaahhhh I saw that movie<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "Minority Report" was it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ooooohhh yeeeeaahhhh I saw that movie ... " Minority Report " was it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ooooohhh yeeeeaahhhh I saw that movie ... "Minority Report" was it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475917</id>
	<title>Re:It's a complicated issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245939840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And there's growing evidence that suggests that the actual effect might be the reverse - that viewing child pornography might actually be a <em>substitute</em> for actual sexual contact with children.</p><p>It's unlikely that further research will be funded, though, if it seems likely to reach the "wrong" conclusions.</p></div><p>Thanks for quoting chapter and verse from the NAMBLA newsletter. However, the scientific evidence indicates that pedophilia has other underlying causes and can successfully be treated in many or most cases. If you know how to cure the disease, nobody's going to study how to mollify the symptoms.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And there 's growing evidence that suggests that the actual effect might be the reverse - that viewing child pornography might actually be a substitute for actual sexual contact with children.It 's unlikely that further research will be funded , though , if it seems likely to reach the " wrong " conclusions.Thanks for quoting chapter and verse from the NAMBLA newsletter .
However , the scientific evidence indicates that pedophilia has other underlying causes and can successfully be treated in many or most cases .
If you know how to cure the disease , nobody 's going to study how to mollify the symptoms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there's growing evidence that suggests that the actual effect might be the reverse - that viewing child pornography might actually be a substitute for actual sexual contact with children.It's unlikely that further research will be funded, though, if it seems likely to reach the "wrong" conclusions.Thanks for quoting chapter and verse from the NAMBLA newsletter.
However, the scientific evidence indicates that pedophilia has other underlying causes and can successfully be treated in many or most cases.
If you know how to cure the disease, nobody's going to study how to mollify the symptoms.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28511655</id>
	<title>Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246272360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's disgusting.  You should be arrested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's disgusting .
You should be arrested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's disgusting.
You should be arrested.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474061</id>
	<title>Re:Prosecuting thought crime not helping</title>
	<author>Qzukk</author>
	<datestamp>1245931380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because politicians in all branches of the government pad out their resumes by being "tough on criminals" and the unwashed masses think it has something to do with being tough on crime and just lap it right up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because politicians in all branches of the government pad out their resumes by being " tough on criminals " and the unwashed masses think it has something to do with being tough on crime and just lap it right up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because politicians in all branches of the government pad out their resumes by being "tough on criminals" and the unwashed masses think it has something to do with being tough on crime and just lap it right up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474165</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting...and so's this!</title>
	<author>BluBrick</author>
	<datestamp>1245931800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which reminds me...
<ul>
<li>Thriller</li><li>Bad</li><li>Dangerous</li></ul><p>

You can't say he never warned us!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which reminds me.. . ThrillerBadDangerous You ca n't say he never warned us !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which reminds me...

ThrillerBadDangerous

You can't say he never warned us!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475457</id>
	<title>Fear of getting caught?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1245937320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>why would someone who engages in this type of behavior not commit the actual crime in the future?</p></div><p>Because it might increase the risk of getting caught?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why would someone who engages in this type of behavior not commit the actual crime in the future ? Because it might increase the risk of getting caught ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why would someone who engages in this type of behavior not commit the actual crime in the future?Because it might increase the risk of getting caught?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475033</id>
	<title>Re:the state is not required to prove the actual a</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245935040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't matter to you that actors in their late 20s playing teenagers aren't actually convincing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter to you that actors in their late 20s playing teenagers are n't actually convincing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter to you that actors in their late 20s playing teenagers aren't actually convincing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480731</id>
	<title>The harm is done to my brain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246025100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF?  Really?  Next will be going to jail for possession of a picture that depicts a cop being shot or something.  We are getting more ridiculous every day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF ?
Really ? Next will be going to jail for possession of a picture that depicts a cop being shot or something .
We are getting more ridiculous every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF?
Really?  Next will be going to jail for possession of a picture that depicts a cop being shot or something.
We are getting more ridiculous every day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475373</id>
	<title>Re:When did it all go so wrong.</title>
	<author>Derek Loev</author>
	<datestamp>1245936780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But don't you get it?!  It's a gateway image.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But do n't you get it ? !
It 's a gateway image .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But don't you get it?!
It's a gateway image.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28478215</id>
	<title>Re:When did it all go so wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245958140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These laws are meant to be there to protect children. No children were harmed in the making of these images. This is essentially thought-crime.</p></div><p>These laws have nothing to do with protecting children, as evidenced by them having been used against children (teens who "sext" naked pics of themselves to each other).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These laws are meant to be there to protect children .
No children were harmed in the making of these images .
This is essentially thought-crime.These laws have nothing to do with protecting children , as evidenced by them having been used against children ( teens who " sext " naked pics of themselves to each other ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These laws are meant to be there to protect children.
No children were harmed in the making of these images.
This is essentially thought-crime.These laws have nothing to do with protecting children, as evidenced by them having been used against children (teens who "sext" naked pics of themselves to each other).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480573</id>
	<title>OMFG!</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1246024320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I am not a pedophile, but this is taking things too far, someone photo shops some obvious fake pictures of heads on top of women's bodies, and it gets taken to court, I really hope the judge throws this one out without so much as a glance...this is pushing the envelope too far!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I am not a pedophile , but this is taking things too far , someone photo shops some obvious fake pictures of heads on top of women 's bodies , and it gets taken to court , I really hope the judge throws this one out without so much as a glance...this is pushing the envelope too far !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I am not a pedophile, but this is taking things too far, someone photo shops some obvious fake pictures of heads on top of women's bodies, and it gets taken to court, I really hope the judge throws this one out without so much as a glance...this is pushing the envelope too far!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477865</id>
	<title>Re:the state is not required to prove the actual a</title>
	<author>mabhatter654</author>
	<datestamp>1245954900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but that's the real "threat" from the government.  Film or depict SMG as "Buffy" having sex with a vamp and under the new rules it's a crime because you "called" her 15. That's why they're so careful on the shows like 90210 or Gossip Girl to avoid the "in bed" scenes where their of-age actors might possibly be depicting teens, they have the drama before and after and talk about it graphically but don't show people being "nice" to each other because it might "look" like sex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but that 's the real " threat " from the government .
Film or depict SMG as " Buffy " having sex with a vamp and under the new rules it 's a crime because you " called " her 15 .
That 's why they 're so careful on the shows like 90210 or Gossip Girl to avoid the " in bed " scenes where their of-age actors might possibly be depicting teens , they have the drama before and after and talk about it graphically but do n't show people being " nice " to each other because it might " look " like sex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but that's the real "threat" from the government.
Film or depict SMG as "Buffy" having sex with a vamp and under the new rules it's a crime because you "called" her 15.
That's why they're so careful on the shows like 90210 or Gossip Girl to avoid the "in bed" scenes where their of-age actors might possibly be depicting teens, they have the drama before and after and talk about it graphically but don't show people being "nice" to each other because it might "look" like sex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28478983</id>
	<title>Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>Yogiz</author>
	<datestamp>1246007700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><tt>
&nbsp; -----<br>
&nbsp; |/ |<br>
&nbsp; | 0<br>
&nbsp; |<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/|\<br>
&nbsp; | |<br>
&nbsp; | / \<br>
&nbsp; / \<br>===========<br></tt></p> </div><p>How about this: Mr. Hangman is actually 14 years old and naked. Would I go to jail for that post now?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>  -----   | / |   | 0   | / | \   | |   | / \   / \ = = = = = = = = = = = How about this : Mr. Hangman is actually 14 years old and naked .
Would I go to jail for that post now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  -----
  |/ |
  | 0
  | /|\
  | |
  | / \
  / \=========== How about this: Mr. Hangman is actually 14 years old and naked.
Would I go to jail for that post now?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474569</id>
	<title>Re:oh noes! a \_picture\_ threatens society!</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1245933180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't prosecutors have anything better to do, then pretend to be a nanny to some adult?</p></div><p>In many states the prosecutor or district attorney is an elected position which tends to get re-elected more easily when the candidate or the incumbent is seen as being "tough on crime". The public has largely been brainwashed into equating criminals with the monsters living under the bed when they were younger instead of realizing that many of them are simply adults like them who were in the wrong place at the wrong time or made an unfortunate decision in a tough situation (i.e. a mistake). Few people would categorize themselves as a "bad person", but we would all of us do well to remember that given the right circumstances every person has their breaking point and we are all capable of making mistakes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't prosecutors have anything better to do , then pretend to be a nanny to some adult ? In many states the prosecutor or district attorney is an elected position which tends to get re-elected more easily when the candidate or the incumbent is seen as being " tough on crime " .
The public has largely been brainwashed into equating criminals with the monsters living under the bed when they were younger instead of realizing that many of them are simply adults like them who were in the wrong place at the wrong time or made an unfortunate decision in a tough situation ( i.e .
a mistake ) .
Few people would categorize themselves as a " bad person " , but we would all of us do well to remember that given the right circumstances every person has their breaking point and we are all capable of making mistakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't prosecutors have anything better to do, then pretend to be a nanny to some adult?In many states the prosecutor or district attorney is an elected position which tends to get re-elected more easily when the candidate or the incumbent is seen as being "tough on crime".
The public has largely been brainwashed into equating criminals with the monsters living under the bed when they were younger instead of realizing that many of them are simply adults like them who were in the wrong place at the wrong time or made an unfortunate decision in a tough situation (i.e.
a mistake).
Few people would categorize themselves as a "bad person", but we would all of us do well to remember that given the right circumstances every person has their breaking point and we are all capable of making mistakes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474037</id>
	<title>Miley Cyrus REAL 20 year old boyfriend</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245931140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I don't understand is why this guy is being prosecuted for pasting together a picture of Miley Cyrus on a nude body, when there is (was) an actual 20 year old adult HAVING SEX with her. Isn't that statuary rape? Oh... but they are rich and famous so it's ok?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't understand is why this guy is being prosecuted for pasting together a picture of Miley Cyrus on a nude body , when there is ( was ) an actual 20 year old adult HAVING SEX with her .
Is n't that statuary rape ?
Oh... but they are rich and famous so it 's ok ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't understand is why this guy is being prosecuted for pasting together a picture of Miley Cyrus on a nude body, when there is (was) an actual 20 year old adult HAVING SEX with her.
Isn't that statuary rape?
Oh... but they are rich and famous so it's ok?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474657</id>
	<title>Re:So if he takes the head of Goofy</title>
	<author>Workaphobia</author>
	<datestamp>1245933480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Helen Thomas.</p><p>Have I demolished your mind yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Helen Thomas.Have I demolished your mind yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Helen Thomas.Have I demolished your mind yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473679</id>
	<title>Steve Jobs got a transplant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245929820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Steve Jobs went to the doctor with a totally fucked up anus. Years of abuse had resulted in a severely scarred sphincter, the gang bangs, fist fuckings, object insertions, etc, had done irreparable damage.</p><p>-The only solution now is a transplant -- the doctor said.</p><p>Luckily, they found a compatible donor in a young straight guy who had died in an accident, and the surgery was a success. After many years, Steve Jobs had a virgin asshole again.</p><p>A few months went by, and Steve Jobs was back at the doctor with an anal sphincter that was a total loss.</p><p>-I don't understand -- the doctor said -- you just got a new anus and willingly destroyed it again?</p><p>-Look, doctor, -- Steve Jobs replied -- if I let people fuck my backside when it was MY ass, do you think I'm going to stop now that it's someone elses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve Jobs went to the doctor with a totally fucked up anus .
Years of abuse had resulted in a severely scarred sphincter , the gang bangs , fist fuckings , object insertions , etc , had done irreparable damage.-The only solution now is a transplant -- the doctor said.Luckily , they found a compatible donor in a young straight guy who had died in an accident , and the surgery was a success .
After many years , Steve Jobs had a virgin asshole again.A few months went by , and Steve Jobs was back at the doctor with an anal sphincter that was a total loss.-I do n't understand -- the doctor said -- you just got a new anus and willingly destroyed it again ? -Look , doctor , -- Steve Jobs replied -- if I let people fuck my backside when it was MY ass , do you think I 'm going to stop now that it 's someone elses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve Jobs went to the doctor with a totally fucked up anus.
Years of abuse had resulted in a severely scarred sphincter, the gang bangs, fist fuckings, object insertions, etc, had done irreparable damage.-The only solution now is a transplant -- the doctor said.Luckily, they found a compatible donor in a young straight guy who had died in an accident, and the surgery was a success.
After many years, Steve Jobs had a virgin asshole again.A few months went by, and Steve Jobs was back at the doctor with an anal sphincter that was a total loss.-I don't understand -- the doctor said -- you just got a new anus and willingly destroyed it again?-Look, doctor, -- Steve Jobs replied -- if I let people fuck my backside when it was MY ass, do you think I'm going to stop now that it's someone elses?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28485195</id>
	<title>Re:So if he takes the head of Goofy</title>
	<author>zummit</author>
	<datestamp>1246040400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long until they arrest somebody for photoshopping inter-species situations?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long until they arrest somebody for photoshopping inter-species situations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long until they arrest somebody for photoshopping inter-species situations?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28478365</id>
	<title>which part of "legal" do they have a problem with?</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1245959520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think putting pictures of the faces of your neighbors' children on porn stars is disturbin and wrong.  But...</p><p>Quote 1:</p><blockquote><div><p>The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that "virtual child pornography," in which no children were actually harmed, is protected speech and does not constitute a crime.</p></div></blockquote><p>Quote 2:</p><blockquote><div><p>Since then, "more and more of these guys are using morphed images, image manipulations" in an attempt to circumvent prosecution, Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said Wednesday.</p></div></blockquote><p>Which part of "protected speech" does Ernie Allen not understand?  Even if "virtual child pornography" causes someone to commit a crime against children they otherwise wouldn't have, that's the price of free speech.  I'm sorry, I don't want to live in a fascist state just so that everybody is maximally safe.</p><p>I think they may have a case based on the misuse of the image itself.  But the reason for legal action wouldn't be child pornography, it would be that the image of a person is used without their permission in a pornographic context.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think putting pictures of the faces of your neighbors ' children on porn stars is disturbin and wrong .
But...Quote 1 : The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that " virtual child pornography , " in which no children were actually harmed , is protected speech and does not constitute a crime.Quote 2 : Since then , " more and more of these guys are using morphed images , image manipulations " in an attempt to circumvent prosecution , Ernie Allen , president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children , said Wednesday.Which part of " protected speech " does Ernie Allen not understand ?
Even if " virtual child pornography " causes someone to commit a crime against children they otherwise would n't have , that 's the price of free speech .
I 'm sorry , I do n't want to live in a fascist state just so that everybody is maximally safe.I think they may have a case based on the misuse of the image itself .
But the reason for legal action would n't be child pornography , it would be that the image of a person is used without their permission in a pornographic context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think putting pictures of the faces of your neighbors' children on porn stars is disturbin and wrong.
But...Quote 1:The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that "virtual child pornography," in which no children were actually harmed, is protected speech and does not constitute a crime.Quote 2:Since then, "more and more of these guys are using morphed images, image manipulations" in an attempt to circumvent prosecution, Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said Wednesday.Which part of "protected speech" does Ernie Allen not understand?
Even if "virtual child pornography" causes someone to commit a crime against children they otherwise wouldn't have, that's the price of free speech.
I'm sorry, I don't want to live in a fascist state just so that everybody is maximally safe.I think they may have a case based on the misuse of the image itself.
But the reason for legal action wouldn't be child pornography, it would be that the image of a person is used without their permission in a pornographic context.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28482953</id>
	<title>After reading the article and this thread...</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1246032480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm on the verge of driving up to the courthouse and on the way buying a playboy magazine, a people magazine, construction paper, scissors and elmer's glue.  Then sitting on the courthouse steps and recreating similar images just to show how stupid this law is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm on the verge of driving up to the courthouse and on the way buying a playboy magazine , a people magazine , construction paper , scissors and elmer 's glue .
Then sitting on the courthouse steps and recreating similar images just to show how stupid this law is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm on the verge of driving up to the courthouse and on the way buying a playboy magazine, a people magazine, construction paper, scissors and elmer's glue.
Then sitting on the courthouse steps and recreating similar images just to show how stupid this law is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476631</id>
	<title>Re:Scary CNN Video</title>
	<author>Mashiki</author>
	<datestamp>1245944700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is always the slippery slope.  I'm a right-conservative up in Canada, pretty law and orderish type.  When you know the lines they're pretty easy to cross, when the lines start getting smudged into gray there's other issues.  The biggest problems you face, and those of us law-and-order types know it as well, is the special interests who feel that 'protect the children' is the easy way to enact whatever they feel is correct.</p><p>On top of that are the politicians who use that issue in order to make sure they get re-elected.  They play on the heartstrings of making sure that their political message is 'think of the children'.  Speaking of which I'm surprised we haven't seen:<br>Remove all A-bombs, think of the children<br>Save a whale, think of the children<br>etc.  (Anyone using those, I'll personally hunt down and sue into the dirt.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p )</p><p>Don't forget controversy sells, and if it bleeds it leads.  The more blood, the better the ratings.  After all, do you think most people care about Li'Jill's head being on a naked womans body, or a firefighter, police officer, and EMS tech went around to schools teaching kids what their jobs are like?  Personally the second one is much better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is always the slippery slope .
I 'm a right-conservative up in Canada , pretty law and orderish type .
When you know the lines they 're pretty easy to cross , when the lines start getting smudged into gray there 's other issues .
The biggest problems you face , and those of us law-and-order types know it as well , is the special interests who feel that 'protect the children ' is the easy way to enact whatever they feel is correct.On top of that are the politicians who use that issue in order to make sure they get re-elected .
They play on the heartstrings of making sure that their political message is 'think of the children' .
Speaking of which I 'm surprised we have n't seen : Remove all A-bombs , think of the childrenSave a whale , think of the childrenetc .
( Anyone using those , I 'll personally hunt down and sue into the dirt .
: p ) Do n't forget controversy sells , and if it bleeds it leads .
The more blood , the better the ratings .
After all , do you think most people care about Li'Jill 's head being on a naked womans body , or a firefighter , police officer , and EMS tech went around to schools teaching kids what their jobs are like ?
Personally the second one is much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is always the slippery slope.
I'm a right-conservative up in Canada, pretty law and orderish type.
When you know the lines they're pretty easy to cross, when the lines start getting smudged into gray there's other issues.
The biggest problems you face, and those of us law-and-order types know it as well, is the special interests who feel that 'protect the children' is the easy way to enact whatever they feel is correct.On top of that are the politicians who use that issue in order to make sure they get re-elected.
They play on the heartstrings of making sure that their political message is 'think of the children'.
Speaking of which I'm surprised we haven't seen:Remove all A-bombs, think of the childrenSave a whale, think of the childrenetc.
(Anyone using those, I'll personally hunt down and sue into the dirt.
:p )Don't forget controversy sells, and if it bleeds it leads.
The more blood, the better the ratings.
After all, do you think most people care about Li'Jill's head being on a naked womans body, or a firefighter, police officer, and EMS tech went around to schools teaching kids what their jobs are like?
Personally the second one is much better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28478073</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245956820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it still illegal to take pictures in NYC?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it still illegal to take pictures in NYC ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it still illegal to take pictures in NYC?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474427</id>
	<title>Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245932640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>stick-man / stick-woman pornography!</p></div><p>Otherwise known as xkcd.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>stick-man / stick-woman pornography ! Otherwise known as xkcd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stick-man / stick-woman pornography!Otherwise known as xkcd.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475029</id>
	<title>No, prosecutors does not.</title>
	<author>Lead Butthead</author>
	<datestamp>1245934980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Don't prosecutors have anything better to do, then pretend to be a nanny to some adult?</p></div></blockquote><p>Prosecutor can go pursue gang bangers or mafia and risk themselves and their family members to possible violent retaliation that could go on for years, -OR- they can chase down some sicko for disgusting deeds that is otherwise legal and get themselves a lot of positive press as 'protectors of innocent children.' Do point out which one of these two is much easier (not to mention safer) for prosecutors with political aspiration.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't prosecutors have anything better to do , then pretend to be a nanny to some adult ? Prosecutor can go pursue gang bangers or mafia and risk themselves and their family members to possible violent retaliation that could go on for years , -OR- they can chase down some sicko for disgusting deeds that is otherwise legal and get themselves a lot of positive press as 'protectors of innocent children .
' Do point out which one of these two is much easier ( not to mention safer ) for prosecutors with political aspiration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't prosecutors have anything better to do, then pretend to be a nanny to some adult?Prosecutor can go pursue gang bangers or mafia and risk themselves and their family members to possible violent retaliation that could go on for years, -OR- they can chase down some sicko for disgusting deeds that is otherwise legal and get themselves a lot of positive press as 'protectors of innocent children.
' Do point out which one of these two is much easier (not to mention safer) for prosecutors with political aspiration.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28479397</id>
	<title>Re:the state is not required to prove the actual a</title>
	<author>St.Creed</author>
	<datestamp>1246012080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which means that if you can't figure out the age of the person, you'd better not have any pictures of them in the nude, since you're the one who has to prove that you are innocent. Somehow I feel this violates a really basic part of the justice system.</p><p>And I wonder if people are allowed to have nude pictures of their kids, under this type of law, by the way. It sounds like a risky thing to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which means that if you ca n't figure out the age of the person , you 'd better not have any pictures of them in the nude , since you 're the one who has to prove that you are innocent .
Somehow I feel this violates a really basic part of the justice system.And I wonder if people are allowed to have nude pictures of their kids , under this type of law , by the way .
It sounds like a risky thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which means that if you can't figure out the age of the person, you'd better not have any pictures of them in the nude, since you're the one who has to prove that you are innocent.
Somehow I feel this violates a really basic part of the justice system.And I wonder if people are allowed to have nude pictures of their kids, under this type of law, by the way.
It sounds like a risky thing to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475427</id>
	<title>What about those Anatomically correct Statues?</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1245937200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about anatomically correct Cherub statues of naked little babies/kids that have wings and some are even pissing out into fountains?</p><p>I saw we confiscate the books of marble statue sellers and any one who ever bought a cherub statue gets put on the sex offendersw list and maybe some jail time.</p><p>I know what people will say, "Oh well they are sculptures, or statues, and they are angelic too!"</p><p>Oh so throwing a pair of marble chicken wings on a obscene statue of a naked frolicking child makes everything okay?????</p><p>Anyone with a lawn cherub: BAM!!!! compulsory 4 year sentence in federal pound them in the ass prison and permanent residence on the sex offender list.</p><p>Maybe the mistake the creepy scary looking idiot in the article made was not putting a pair of clipart wings on his poorly photo shopped creation.</p><p>Oh and don't get me started on how wrong a certain cover to a certain VanHalen Album is!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about anatomically correct Cherub statues of naked little babies/kids that have wings and some are even pissing out into fountains ? I saw we confiscate the books of marble statue sellers and any one who ever bought a cherub statue gets put on the sex offendersw list and maybe some jail time.I know what people will say , " Oh well they are sculptures , or statues , and they are angelic too !
" Oh so throwing a pair of marble chicken wings on a obscene statue of a naked frolicking child makes everything okay ? ? ? ?
? Anyone with a lawn cherub : BAM ! ! ! !
compulsory 4 year sentence in federal pound them in the ass prison and permanent residence on the sex offender list.Maybe the mistake the creepy scary looking idiot in the article made was not putting a pair of clipart wings on his poorly photo shopped creation.Oh and do n't get me started on how wrong a certain cover to a certain VanHalen Album is !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about anatomically correct Cherub statues of naked little babies/kids that have wings and some are even pissing out into fountains?I saw we confiscate the books of marble statue sellers and any one who ever bought a cherub statue gets put on the sex offendersw list and maybe some jail time.I know what people will say, "Oh well they are sculptures, or statues, and they are angelic too!
"Oh so throwing a pair of marble chicken wings on a obscene statue of a naked frolicking child makes everything okay????
?Anyone with a lawn cherub: BAM!!!!
compulsory 4 year sentence in federal pound them in the ass prison and permanent residence on the sex offender list.Maybe the mistake the creepy scary looking idiot in the article made was not putting a pair of clipart wings on his poorly photo shopped creation.Oh and don't get me started on how wrong a certain cover to a certain VanHalen Album is!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474157</id>
	<title>Re:It's a complicated issue</title>
	<author>taustin</author>
	<datestamp>1245931740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child?</em></p><p>Problem is, there's zero evidence to support the claim that viewing child pornography incites child abuse of any kind. And there's growing evidence that suggests that the actual effect might be the reverse - that viewing child pornography might actually be a <em>substitute</em> for actual sexual contact with children.</p><p>It's unlikely that further research will be funded, though, if it seems likely to reach the "wrong" conclusions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child ? Problem is , there 's zero evidence to support the claim that viewing child pornography incites child abuse of any kind .
And there 's growing evidence that suggests that the actual effect might be the reverse - that viewing child pornography might actually be a substitute for actual sexual contact with children.It 's unlikely that further research will be funded , though , if it seems likely to reach the " wrong " conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child?Problem is, there's zero evidence to support the claim that viewing child pornography incites child abuse of any kind.
And there's growing evidence that suggests that the actual effect might be the reverse - that viewing child pornography might actually be a substitute for actual sexual contact with children.It's unlikely that further research will be funded, though, if it seems likely to reach the "wrong" conclusions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477401</id>
	<title>Re:the state is not required to prove the actual a</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1245950580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's precisely what the law doesn't say. Instead, it requires the prosecution offer proof the person is a minor, but not necessarily their exact age. I repeat, the DA still has to prove the child was a minor, <b> and that requirement HAS NOT BEEN DROPPED from this law</b>, but quibbling over whether the child was, for example, 11 or 12 at the time of the violation isn't something where the DA has to offer proof. Do it differently, and you get possible cases where the child is a Jane Doe, and where you can bring forward a dozen medical experts who would testify the infant in question can't be more than nine months old, and the accused would still get to have the whole case dropped. The people who are misreading this clause as saying there's no need to prove the person is a minor are demanding a good clause be changed into a bad one, one that would make acquittals for not proving the child's age exactly, count as "guilty but getting off on a technicality".<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; By the way, that part of the Tennessee law is copied exactly from the system used by both New York and California to keep John Doe/Jane Doe status from blocking prosecution. That part of the law has been used by SCOTUS as an example of how to do it right, and if the Supremes find any part of the Tennessee law unconstitutional, it is incredibly unlikely to be that part, or the 41 other states that have adopted the same model for many of their laws will all need to rewrite about 20 to 30\% of their entire legal codes. I have my doubts about some parts of the Tennessee law, but not that part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's precisely what the law does n't say .
Instead , it requires the prosecution offer proof the person is a minor , but not necessarily their exact age .
I repeat , the DA still has to prove the child was a minor , and that requirement HAS NOT BEEN DROPPED from this law , but quibbling over whether the child was , for example , 11 or 12 at the time of the violation is n't something where the DA has to offer proof .
Do it differently , and you get possible cases where the child is a Jane Doe , and where you can bring forward a dozen medical experts who would testify the infant in question ca n't be more than nine months old , and the accused would still get to have the whole case dropped .
The people who are misreading this clause as saying there 's no need to prove the person is a minor are demanding a good clause be changed into a bad one , one that would make acquittals for not proving the child 's age exactly , count as " guilty but getting off on a technicality " .
      By the way , that part of the Tennessee law is copied exactly from the system used by both New York and California to keep John Doe/Jane Doe status from blocking prosecution .
That part of the law has been used by SCOTUS as an example of how to do it right , and if the Supremes find any part of the Tennessee law unconstitutional , it is incredibly unlikely to be that part , or the 41 other states that have adopted the same model for many of their laws will all need to rewrite about 20 to 30 \ % of their entire legal codes .
I have my doubts about some parts of the Tennessee law , but not that part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's precisely what the law doesn't say.
Instead, it requires the prosecution offer proof the person is a minor, but not necessarily their exact age.
I repeat, the DA still has to prove the child was a minor,  and that requirement HAS NOT BEEN DROPPED from this law, but quibbling over whether the child was, for example, 11 or 12 at the time of the violation isn't something where the DA has to offer proof.
Do it differently, and you get possible cases where the child is a Jane Doe, and where you can bring forward a dozen medical experts who would testify the infant in question can't be more than nine months old, and the accused would still get to have the whole case dropped.
The people who are misreading this clause as saying there's no need to prove the person is a minor are demanding a good clause be changed into a bad one, one that would make acquittals for not proving the child's age exactly, count as "guilty but getting off on a technicality".
      By the way, that part of the Tennessee law is copied exactly from the system used by both New York and California to keep John Doe/Jane Doe status from blocking prosecution.
That part of the law has been used by SCOTUS as an example of how to do it right, and if the Supremes find any part of the Tennessee law unconstitutional, it is incredibly unlikely to be that part, or the 41 other states that have adopted the same model for many of their laws will all need to rewrite about 20 to 30\% of their entire legal codes.
I have my doubts about some parts of the Tennessee law, but not that part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473611</id>
	<title>Sexual: Check</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1245929520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exploitation: Check, probably.</p><p>Minor: Check.</p><p>Yep, seems like a tautology to me - he's guilty.  Note they didn't convict him of sexual abuse of a minor, or making child pornography, or anything like that.</p><p>Does this mean I think he should be convicted of a crime - maybe.  The problem is the use (I assume) of the word "exploitation" in a crime.  It can be interpreted to mean almost anything.  It's like being convicted of being "too douchy".  How douchy is too douchy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exploitation : Check , probably.Minor : Check.Yep , seems like a tautology to me - he 's guilty .
Note they did n't convict him of sexual abuse of a minor , or making child pornography , or anything like that.Does this mean I think he should be convicted of a crime - maybe .
The problem is the use ( I assume ) of the word " exploitation " in a crime .
It can be interpreted to mean almost anything .
It 's like being convicted of being " too douchy " .
How douchy is too douchy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exploitation: Check, probably.Minor: Check.Yep, seems like a tautology to me - he's guilty.
Note they didn't convict him of sexual abuse of a minor, or making child pornography, or anything like that.Does this mean I think he should be convicted of a crime - maybe.
The problem is the use (I assume) of the word "exploitation" in a crime.
It can be interpreted to mean almost anything.
It's like being convicted of being "too douchy".
How douchy is too douchy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475203</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting...and so's this!</title>
	<author>ross.w</author>
	<datestamp>1245935880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I blame it on the boogie</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I blame it on the boogie</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I blame it on the boogie</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474029</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting...and so's this!</title>
	<author>Reikk</author>
	<datestamp>1245931140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not true. They're currently trying an experimental transplant from his monkey Bubbles</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not true .
They 're currently trying an experimental transplant from his monkey Bubbles</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not true.
They're currently trying an experimental transplant from his monkey Bubbles</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473913</id>
	<title>Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245930840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but what about stick man midget porn?  what then, huh?  WHAT THEN?</p><p>and I swear to god the captcha for this post was "paranoia".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but what about stick man midget porn ?
what then , huh ?
WHAT THEN ? and I swear to god the captcha for this post was " paranoia " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but what about stick man midget porn?
what then, huh?
WHAT THEN?and I swear to god the captcha for this post was "paranoia".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28481351</id>
	<title>Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246027500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>David Carradine, is that you..?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>David Carradine , is that you.. ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>David Carradine, is that you..?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480915</id>
	<title>Re:Sexual: Check</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246025940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Check your definition of exploitation, dumbass.  It was not distributed.
<br> <br>
By your definition, I exploit your mom every night when I rub one out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Check your definition of exploitation , dumbass .
It was not distributed .
By your definition , I exploit your mom every night when I rub one out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check your definition of exploitation, dumbass.
It was not distributed.
By your definition, I exploit your mom every night when I rub one out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28481389</id>
	<title>Re:Sexual: Check</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246027680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.</p><p>Assuming the worst possible scenario.. this guy was making these pictures, and then he was distributing them around town and on the internet (And to be clear, the article in no way suggested this is the case). And further, lets assume this guy was really good at it (i.e. you couldn't tell they aren't real)</p><p>Had this been the case, in what way were these girls harmed? Its just maybe their reputations. That's all. That is not grounds to send someone to jail. It's just defamation of character. Maybe it would make it difficult to get a job or something.. then you sue the guy.</p><p>This is protected by the first amendment. If he keeps doing it and ruining reputations, keep suing, but, by God, he has a right to keep doing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No.Assuming the worst possible scenario.. this guy was making these pictures , and then he was distributing them around town and on the internet ( And to be clear , the article in no way suggested this is the case ) .
And further , lets assume this guy was really good at it ( i.e .
you could n't tell they are n't real ) Had this been the case , in what way were these girls harmed ?
Its just maybe their reputations .
That 's all .
That is not grounds to send someone to jail .
It 's just defamation of character .
Maybe it would make it difficult to get a job or something.. then you sue the guy.This is protected by the first amendment .
If he keeps doing it and ruining reputations , keep suing , but , by God , he has a right to keep doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.Assuming the worst possible scenario.. this guy was making these pictures, and then he was distributing them around town and on the internet (And to be clear, the article in no way suggested this is the case).
And further, lets assume this guy was really good at it (i.e.
you couldn't tell they aren't real)Had this been the case, in what way were these girls harmed?
Its just maybe their reputations.
That's all.
That is not grounds to send someone to jail.
It's just defamation of character.
Maybe it would make it difficult to get a job or something.. then you sue the guy.This is protected by the first amendment.
If he keeps doing it and ruining reputations, keep suing, but, by God, he has a right to keep doing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473923</id>
	<title>Original purpose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245930840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Originally, laws against child porn were passed under the assumption that a child was involved in a sex act "without their consent".<br>In other words, right up until back in the 70's, you could buy porn where "children" were "raped"<br>(note the use of quotations... both of those terms have changed since back then, a lot) in regular porn shops.</p><p>It was assumed, that spreading "child porn" meant that you had been involved in it's creation.<br>That's spurious to begin with, even 40 years ago.<br>The purpose of child porn laws was to prevent "sexual damage to children".</p><p>Soooo....<br>Now children aren't even needed... so there's no real crime (rape) being effected.</p><p>STOP!!!<br>I know that you're thinking.<br>"People who like to watch 'underage' porn can't be stopped from acting on what they've seen"...<br>Really?<br>How much porn have you watched?<br>How much of it have you gone out and re-enacted?<br>Truth of it all, you've jerked off tons of times, then looked at the screen (or even live pussy), and said "Nah... I'm done".<br>.<br>.<br>.<br>I'm hearing crickets here.</p><p>"It makes it harder for law enforcement."...<br>Yeah, that's the constitution smacking you in the face with it's dick.<br>It's SUPPOSED to be harder for "law enforcement"; distrust of government is encoded into the constitution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Originally , laws against child porn were passed under the assumption that a child was involved in a sex act " without their consent " .In other words , right up until back in the 70 's , you could buy porn where " children " were " raped " ( note the use of quotations... both of those terms have changed since back then , a lot ) in regular porn shops.It was assumed , that spreading " child porn " meant that you had been involved in it 's creation.That 's spurious to begin with , even 40 years ago.The purpose of child porn laws was to prevent " sexual damage to children " .Soooo....Now children are n't even needed... so there 's no real crime ( rape ) being effected.STOP ! !
! I know that you 're thinking .
" People who like to watch 'underage ' porn ca n't be stopped from acting on what they 've seen " ...Really ? How much porn have you watched ? How much of it have you gone out and re-enacted ? Truth of it all , you 've jerked off tons of times , then looked at the screen ( or even live pussy ) , and said " Nah... I 'm done " ....I 'm hearing crickets here .
" It makes it harder for law enforcement .
" ...Yeah , that 's the constitution smacking you in the face with it 's dick.It 's SUPPOSED to be harder for " law enforcement " ; distrust of government is encoded into the constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Originally, laws against child porn were passed under the assumption that a child was involved in a sex act "without their consent".In other words, right up until back in the 70's, you could buy porn where "children" were "raped"(note the use of quotations... both of those terms have changed since back then, a lot) in regular porn shops.It was assumed, that spreading "child porn" meant that you had been involved in it's creation.That's spurious to begin with, even 40 years ago.The purpose of child porn laws was to prevent "sexual damage to children".Soooo....Now children aren't even needed... so there's no real crime (rape) being effected.STOP!!
!I know that you're thinking.
"People who like to watch 'underage' porn can't be stopped from acting on what they've seen"...Really?How much porn have you watched?How much of it have you gone out and re-enacted?Truth of it all, you've jerked off tons of times, then looked at the screen (or even live pussy), and said "Nah... I'm done"....I'm hearing crickets here.
"It makes it harder for law enforcement.
"...Yeah, that's the constitution smacking you in the face with it's dick.It's SUPPOSED to be harder for "law enforcement"; distrust of government is encoded into the constitution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28482705</id>
	<title>Re:There is a 'harm' here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246031820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes it is illegal, when you do it to a minor its call bullying.  You will go to  jail.  Because a minor either doesnt know how to defend itself or is too afraid to do so and doesnt  understand his or her rights that nobody has the right to degrade them.   Go smear poo all over whatever pictures you want, post them all you want but be ready to be pay in court when i sue the living daylights out of you.  For all of you saying its ok to fictionalize child porn because your not acting on it.  Call your congress man to stop arresting crack addicts who try to make it in their own home.</p><p>Oh yeah.. to the person who related child porn use to a handicap like being blind or being in a wheel chair...  WTF is wrong with you???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it is illegal , when you do it to a minor its call bullying .
You will go to jail .
Because a minor either doesnt know how to defend itself or is too afraid to do so and doesnt understand his or her rights that nobody has the right to degrade them .
Go smear poo all over whatever pictures you want , post them all you want but be ready to be pay in court when i sue the living daylights out of you .
For all of you saying its ok to fictionalize child porn because your not acting on it .
Call your congress man to stop arresting crack addicts who try to make it in their own home.Oh yeah.. to the person who related child porn use to a handicap like being blind or being in a wheel chair... WTF is wrong with you ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it is illegal, when you do it to a minor its call bullying.
You will go to  jail.
Because a minor either doesnt know how to defend itself or is too afraid to do so and doesnt  understand his or her rights that nobody has the right to degrade them.
Go smear poo all over whatever pictures you want, post them all you want but be ready to be pay in court when i sue the living daylights out of you.
For all of you saying its ok to fictionalize child porn because your not acting on it.
Call your congress man to stop arresting crack addicts who try to make it in their own home.Oh yeah.. to the person who related child porn use to a handicap like being blind or being in a wheel chair...  WTF is wrong with you??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475735</id>
	<title>What about Inappropriate VR suit and glove sex?</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1245938880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about Inappropriate VR suit and glove sex?</p><p>One could commit all sorts of abominations with yourself and not involve children, animals or furries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about Inappropriate VR suit and glove sex ? One could commit all sorts of abominations with yourself and not involve children , animals or furries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about Inappropriate VR suit and glove sex?One could commit all sorts of abominations with yourself and not involve children, animals or furries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665</id>
	<title>the state is not required to prove the actual age</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245929760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA:</p><p> <i>For instance, Tennessee's laws state that in prosecuting the offense of sexual exploitation of a minor, "the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor."</i> </p><p>How can you prove that the person in a picture is a minor if you can't figure out their age? For a toddler, it's obvious, but what about someone in high school? Summer Glau, 27, played a 15 year old in Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles.  Nathalie Portman was 18 when she played a 13 year old in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.  Sarah Michelle Geller was 21 when she played a 15 year old Buffy Summers in Buffy: The Vampire Slayer.  There's a pretty wide margin of error if all you have to go by is a picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : For instance , Tennessee 's laws state that in prosecuting the offense of sexual exploitation of a minor , " the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor .
" How can you prove that the person in a picture is a minor if you ca n't figure out their age ?
For a toddler , it 's obvious , but what about someone in high school ?
Summer Glau , 27 , played a 15 year old in Terminator : The Sarah Conner Chronicles .
Nathalie Portman was 18 when she played a 13 year old in Star Wars : The Phantom Menace .
Sarah Michelle Geller was 21 when she played a 15 year old Buffy Summers in Buffy : The Vampire Slayer .
There 's a pretty wide margin of error if all you have to go by is a picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA: For instance, Tennessee's laws state that in prosecuting the offense of sexual exploitation of a minor, "the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor.
" How can you prove that the person in a picture is a minor if you can't figure out their age?
For a toddler, it's obvious, but what about someone in high school?
Summer Glau, 27, played a 15 year old in Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles.
Nathalie Portman was 18 when she played a 13 year old in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.
Sarah Michelle Geller was 21 when she played a 15 year old Buffy Summers in Buffy: The Vampire Slayer.
There's a pretty wide margin of error if all you have to go by is a picture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474917</id>
	<title>TennesSee</title>
	<author>BenjiTheGreat98</author>
	<datestamp>1245934560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It appears none of the mods mave noticed the big misspell in the title of the summary.  Tennessee has 2 S's.  Yes, I am from TN, so maybe it just seems more glaring to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears none of the mods mave noticed the big misspell in the title of the summary .
Tennessee has 2 S 's .
Yes , I am from TN , so maybe it just seems more glaring to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears none of the mods mave noticed the big misspell in the title of the summary.
Tennessee has 2 S's.
Yes, I am from TN, so maybe it just seems more glaring to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476363</id>
	<title>Re:Prosecuting thought crime not helping</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245942900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously. All they're going to do is scare people into forcing themselves to suppress these activities that they engage in. But the human mind will eventually give in and it will come out. This isn't something they can just one day decide to stop arousing them. Most of them don't choose one day to get aroused by kids. They know that its morally wrong thats why they hide it. If anything, acting out with this kind of porn is a way of suppressing them from actually acting out molestation of a child. Now that I think about it, this is probably even better because it creates a fictitious female that they would have a sexual fetish for. They'll never be able to find a child's head on a woman's body or vice versa in real life so they'll never be able to find someone to exploit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
All they 're going to do is scare people into forcing themselves to suppress these activities that they engage in .
But the human mind will eventually give in and it will come out .
This is n't something they can just one day decide to stop arousing them .
Most of them do n't choose one day to get aroused by kids .
They know that its morally wrong thats why they hide it .
If anything , acting out with this kind of porn is a way of suppressing them from actually acting out molestation of a child .
Now that I think about it , this is probably even better because it creates a fictitious female that they would have a sexual fetish for .
They 'll never be able to find a child 's head on a woman 's body or vice versa in real life so they 'll never be able to find someone to exploit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
All they're going to do is scare people into forcing themselves to suppress these activities that they engage in.
But the human mind will eventually give in and it will come out.
This isn't something they can just one day decide to stop arousing them.
Most of them don't choose one day to get aroused by kids.
They know that its morally wrong thats why they hide it.
If anything, acting out with this kind of porn is a way of suppressing them from actually acting out molestation of a child.
Now that I think about it, this is probably even better because it creates a fictitious female that they would have a sexual fetish for.
They'll never be able to find a child's head on a woman's body or vice versa in real life so they'll never be able to find someone to exploit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473651</id>
	<title>Idiot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245929700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He should have shopped adult heads on little girl bodies.  Then he could have told the cops they were super models.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He should have shopped adult heads on little girl bodies .
Then he could have told the cops they were super models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He should have shopped adult heads on little girl bodies.
Then he could have told the cops they were super models.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474205</id>
	<title>Re:When did it all go so wrong.</title>
	<author>registrar</author>
	<datestamp>1245931860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So he shouldn't be punished.  But society might well be justified in protecting itself from such a person. If so, 'something needs to be done' though certainly not through criminal law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So he should n't be punished .
But society might well be justified in protecting itself from such a person .
If so , 'something needs to be done ' though certainly not through criminal law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So he shouldn't be punished.
But society might well be justified in protecting itself from such a person.
If so, 'something needs to be done' though certainly not through criminal law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474215</id>
	<title>There is a 'harm' here...</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1245931920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off, the 'harm' that is caused by child porn is of many types:</p><p>- Obvious, physical abuse<br>- Ditto, emotional abuse<br>- Recognized in depictions later in life, more emotional abuse</p><p>Woops.  I wonder how the children, the pictures of whose faces were used, would feel if they were sent these photos.  Or if their parents received them.</p><p>This is harm.  He's gonna lose this one.</p><p>If nothing else, perhaps we need copyright law expanded to permit damages when someone uses images of you for specific profit, or penalties if used in the commission of a crime.  Ok, I like the second thing better.  Let's stick to that.</p><p>The reality is that this stuff is harmful, unless someone goes to the extent of creating a lifelike completely artificial child's face.  And then even you may create a face that is too close in appearance to a real child's face... And we go down the same road.</p><p>SCOTUS made a mess of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , the 'harm ' that is caused by child porn is of many types : - Obvious , physical abuse- Ditto , emotional abuse- Recognized in depictions later in life , more emotional abuseWoops .
I wonder how the children , the pictures of whose faces were used , would feel if they were sent these photos .
Or if their parents received them.This is harm .
He 's gon na lose this one.If nothing else , perhaps we need copyright law expanded to permit damages when someone uses images of you for specific profit , or penalties if used in the commission of a crime .
Ok , I like the second thing better .
Let 's stick to that.The reality is that this stuff is harmful , unless someone goes to the extent of creating a lifelike completely artificial child 's face .
And then even you may create a face that is too close in appearance to a real child 's face... And we go down the same road.SCOTUS made a mess of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, the 'harm' that is caused by child porn is of many types:- Obvious, physical abuse- Ditto, emotional abuse- Recognized in depictions later in life, more emotional abuseWoops.
I wonder how the children, the pictures of whose faces were used, would feel if they were sent these photos.
Or if their parents received them.This is harm.
He's gonna lose this one.If nothing else, perhaps we need copyright law expanded to permit damages when someone uses images of you for specific profit, or penalties if used in the commission of a crime.
Ok, I like the second thing better.
Let's stick to that.The reality is that this stuff is harmful, unless someone goes to the extent of creating a lifelike completely artificial child's face.
And then even you may create a face that is too close in appearance to a real child's face... And we go down the same road.SCOTUS made a mess of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480207</id>
	<title>Re:There is a 'harm' here...</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1246021800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  I wonder how the children, the pictures of whose faces were used, would feel if they were sent these photos. Or if their parents received them.

This is harm. He's gonna lose this one.</p></div><p>Life is fucking harm. If you stuck a picture of my face onto your fully clothed body I'd be pissed to, but I'd hardly expect you to go to jail. If this guy had sent the pictures to the kids I'm sure they could charge him with harassment, stalking, distributing porn to minors, corrupting youth, and distributing obscene materials through the post, etc., etc. There would be no need to expand the definition of child-porn in order to punish him, no reason to change the law with huge implications for the entire population because of one pathetic pervert.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how the children , the pictures of whose faces were used , would feel if they were sent these photos .
Or if their parents received them .
This is harm .
He 's gon na lose this one.Life is fucking harm .
If you stuck a picture of my face onto your fully clothed body I 'd be pissed to , but I 'd hardly expect you to go to jail .
If this guy had sent the pictures to the kids I 'm sure they could charge him with harassment , stalking , distributing porn to minors , corrupting youth , and distributing obscene materials through the post , etc. , etc .
There would be no need to expand the definition of child-porn in order to punish him , no reason to change the law with huge implications for the entire population because of one pathetic pervert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  I wonder how the children, the pictures of whose faces were used, would feel if they were sent these photos.
Or if their parents received them.
This is harm.
He's gonna lose this one.Life is fucking harm.
If you stuck a picture of my face onto your fully clothed body I'd be pissed to, but I'd hardly expect you to go to jail.
If this guy had sent the pictures to the kids I'm sure they could charge him with harassment, stalking, distributing porn to minors, corrupting youth, and distributing obscene materials through the post, etc., etc.
There would be no need to expand the definition of child-porn in order to punish him, no reason to change the law with huge implications for the entire population because of one pathetic pervert.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501</id>
	<title>So if he takes the head of Goofy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245928920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pastes it on the nude body of Nancy Pelosi.......</p><p>Wait a sec. I don't think I should go any further with this.......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pastes it on the nude body of Nancy Pelosi.......Wait a sec .
I do n't think I should go any further with this...... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pastes it on the nude body of Nancy Pelosi.......Wait a sec.
I don't think I should go any further with this.......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474033</id>
	<title>Haha...</title>
	<author>XPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1245931140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like how this story comes up right after MJ's death.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how this story comes up right after MJ 's death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how this story comes up right after MJ's death.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474305</id>
	<title>Re:It's a complicated issue</title>
	<author>Maestro4k</author>
	<datestamp>1245932160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, this really is a crime. Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child?</p></div><p>Well then, might as well throw the whole world in prison for "likely intending to rape" all those people they've fantasized about having sex with.  It's the same thing, without actual proof of intent it's a thought crime.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , this really is a crime .
Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child ? Well then , might as well throw the whole world in prison for " likely intending to rape " all those people they 've fantasized about having sex with .
It 's the same thing , without actual proof of intent it 's a thought crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, this really is a crime.
Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child?Well then, might as well throw the whole world in prison for "likely intending to rape" all those people they've fantasized about having sex with.
It's the same thing, without actual proof of intent it's a thought crime.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473617</id>
	<title>Prosecuting thought crime not helping</title>
	<author>hamburgler007</author>
	<datestamp>1245929520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you prosecute thought crime the same as if the person had actually committed the crime why would someone who engages in this type of behavior not commit the actual crime in the future?</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you prosecute thought crime the same as if the person had actually committed the crime why would someone who engages in this type of behavior not commit the actual crime in the future ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you prosecute thought crime the same as if the person had actually committed the crime why would someone who engages in this type of behavior not commit the actual crime in the future?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476575</id>
	<title>Re:Prosecuting thought crime not helping</title>
	<author>snwyvern</author>
	<datestamp>1245944280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thought crime ought not be prosecuted. At all. Ever. The fact that "we" can have a collective discussion about this AT ALL IN THE FIRST place-- granting some remote semblance of tenability to the argument for the enforcement of thoughtcrime-- means we have lost the game. We fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thought crime ought not be prosecuted .
At all .
Ever. The fact that " we " can have a collective discussion about this AT ALL IN THE FIRST place-- granting some remote semblance of tenability to the argument for the enforcement of thoughtcrime-- means we have lost the game .
We fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thought crime ought not be prosecuted.
At all.
Ever. The fact that "we" can have a collective discussion about this AT ALL IN THE FIRST place-- granting some remote semblance of tenability to the argument for the enforcement of thoughtcrime-- means we have lost the game.
We fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475187</id>
	<title>Lost Innocence</title>
	<author>unlametheweak</author>
	<datestamp>1245935820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A man was charged with "aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor" even though<br>- no minors were sexually exploited<br>- no minors were aggravated<br>- there was no sex portrayed in the pictures<br>- one of the girls whose face is in a picture is not even a child<br>- the person did not even know these girls and had no contact with them<br>- And, "... Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said Wednesday." And for some bizarre reason a person who is involved with "missing and exploited children" feels the need to comment about this matter, as if what he has to say is even relevant to the case.</p><p>The real stinger is in this comment:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"We see it all the time," Allen said. "It makes it harder for law enforcement. It makes it tougher for prosecutors."</p></div><p>, from the same fanatic of the NCMEC mentioned above. It's obvious that he just wants to see innocent people put in jail. No Logic, no Rationale; just mindless and hateful punishment. He is an obvious advocate for the penal colonies operated in the US. It's sick.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A man was charged with " aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor " even though- no minors were sexually exploited- no minors were aggravated- there was no sex portrayed in the pictures- one of the girls whose face is in a picture is not even a child- the person did not even know these girls and had no contact with them- And , " ... Ernie Allen , president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children , said Wednesday .
" And for some bizarre reason a person who is involved with " missing and exploited children " feels the need to comment about this matter , as if what he has to say is even relevant to the case.The real stinger is in this comment : " We see it all the time , " Allen said .
" It makes it harder for law enforcement .
It makes it tougher for prosecutors .
" , from the same fanatic of the NCMEC mentioned above .
It 's obvious that he just wants to see innocent people put in jail .
No Logic , no Rationale ; just mindless and hateful punishment .
He is an obvious advocate for the penal colonies operated in the US .
It 's sick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A man was charged with "aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor" even though- no minors were sexually exploited- no minors were aggravated- there was no sex portrayed in the pictures- one of the girls whose face is in a picture is not even a child- the person did not even know these girls and had no contact with them- And, "... Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said Wednesday.
" And for some bizarre reason a person who is involved with "missing and exploited children" feels the need to comment about this matter, as if what he has to say is even relevant to the case.The real stinger is in this comment:"We see it all the time," Allen said.
"It makes it harder for law enforcement.
It makes it tougher for prosecutors.
", from the same fanatic of the NCMEC mentioned above.
It's obvious that he just wants to see innocent people put in jail.
No Logic, no Rationale; just mindless and hateful punishment.
He is an obvious advocate for the penal colonies operated in the US.
It's sick.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28478453</id>
	<title>Re:There is a 'harm' here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246046640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please don't ever have children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do n't ever have children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please don't ever have children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28483725</id>
	<title>Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246035000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The story is from the USA (this time)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The story is from the USA ( this time )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The story is from the USA (this time)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477657</id>
	<title>Re:TennesSee</title>
	<author>PsychoElf</author>
	<datestamp>1245953100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That was the first thing I noticed also...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That was the first thing I noticed also.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was the first thing I noticed also...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476413</id>
	<title>Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245943140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you have proof of age on file? Mr Hangman looks kinda young to me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..... I mean, where's his shaving rash?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have proof of age on file ?
Mr Hangman looks kinda young to me ..... I mean , where 's his shaving rash ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have proof of age on file?
Mr Hangman looks kinda young to me ..... I mean, where's his shaving rash?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475127</id>
	<title>Re:It's a complicated issue</title>
	<author>vivaelamor</author>
	<datestamp>1245935400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the GP might hit a snag in their logic when they try to work out how to measure 'likely intent'. Another flaw in their perfect harm free world is how easy it is to fantasise without any material stimulus, or simply from looking at someone with clothes on. Even if you want to police peoples thoughts it's impossible, all you end up doing is pissing off those who believe a person is entitled to think whatever they damn well like. </p><p>My personal favourite issue with this kind of rhetoric is how the proponents tend to apply selective reasoning, the whole 'think of the children!' and 'the ends justify the means' nonsense that is always conflicted with their refusal to let anyone apply their logic to their own actions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the GP might hit a snag in their logic when they try to work out how to measure 'likely intent' .
Another flaw in their perfect harm free world is how easy it is to fantasise without any material stimulus , or simply from looking at someone with clothes on .
Even if you want to police peoples thoughts it 's impossible , all you end up doing is pissing off those who believe a person is entitled to think whatever they damn well like .
My personal favourite issue with this kind of rhetoric is how the proponents tend to apply selective reasoning , the whole 'think of the children !
' and 'the ends justify the means ' nonsense that is always conflicted with their refusal to let anyone apply their logic to their own actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the GP might hit a snag in their logic when they try to work out how to measure 'likely intent'.
Another flaw in their perfect harm free world is how easy it is to fantasise without any material stimulus, or simply from looking at someone with clothes on.
Even if you want to police peoples thoughts it's impossible, all you end up doing is pissing off those who believe a person is entitled to think whatever they damn well like.
My personal favourite issue with this kind of rhetoric is how the proponents tend to apply selective reasoning, the whole 'think of the children!
' and 'the ends justify the means' nonsense that is always conflicted with their refusal to let anyone apply their logic to their own actions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865</id>
	<title>Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245930600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>A game of hang man...<br><br>&nbsp; &nbsp;-----<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;|/ |<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;|&nbsp; 0<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;|<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/|\<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;|&nbsp; |<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;| / \<br>&nbsp; / \<br>===========<br><br>Or virtual snuff porn? You decide.<br><br>[Note to UK police officers reading this - Mr Hangman is at least 18 years of age.]<br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>A game of hang man...     -----     | / |     |   0     | / | \     |   |     | / \   / \ = = = = = = = = = = = Or virtual snuff porn ?
You decide .
[ Note to UK police officers reading this - Mr Hangman is at least 18 years of age .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A game of hang man...   -----   |/ |   |  0   | /|\   |  |   | / \  / \===========Or virtual snuff porn?
You decide.
[Note to UK police officers reading this - Mr Hangman is at least 18 years of age.
]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28495405</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting...and so's this!</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1246123200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I maintain that the Smooth Criminal scene from Moonwalker was better, even though the rest of the movie was just bad. Okay, except for the part where he turns into a giant robot and kills a dozen mooks. The cognitive dissonance is almost palpable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I maintain that the Smooth Criminal scene from Moonwalker was better , even though the rest of the movie was just bad .
Okay , except for the part where he turns into a giant robot and kills a dozen mooks .
The cognitive dissonance is almost palpable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I maintain that the Smooth Criminal scene from Moonwalker was better, even though the rest of the movie was just bad.
Okay, except for the part where he turns into a giant robot and kills a dozen mooks.
The cognitive dissonance is almost palpable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28479955</id>
	<title>Re:It's a complicated issue</title>
	<author>banana fiend</author>
	<datestamp>1246018740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope...

snip, snip:

That includes the minor engaging in simulated sexual activity.

It's the sexual activity that is simulated, not the minor.

Looks like we can't!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope.. . snip , snip : That includes the minor engaging in simulated sexual activity .
It 's the sexual activity that is simulated , not the minor .
Looks like we ca n't !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope...

snip, snip:

That includes the minor engaging in simulated sexual activity.
It's the sexual activity that is simulated, not the minor.
Looks like we can't!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473905</id>
	<title>oh noes! a \_picture\_ threatens society!</title>
	<author>UnknownSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1245930780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article doesn't even say how they found them in the first place, but why the hell do people get so bent out of shape what others look at? Its none of mine, or your fucking business.</p><p>Don't prosecutors have anything better to do, then pretend to be a nanny to some adult?</p><p>It's a \_picture\_. It's such threat to society that it threatens the heart of civilization! I mean look at all the killing, and raping it does!!!  Oh wait, \_people\_ do those things...<br>--<br>"<b>One man's fetish is another man's turnoff.</b>"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article does n't even say how they found them in the first place , but why the hell do people get so bent out of shape what others look at ?
Its none of mine , or your fucking business.Do n't prosecutors have anything better to do , then pretend to be a nanny to some adult ? It 's a \ _picture \ _ .
It 's such threat to society that it threatens the heart of civilization !
I mean look at all the killing , and raping it does ! ! !
Oh wait , \ _people \ _ do those things...-- " One man 's fetish is another man 's turnoff .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article doesn't even say how they found them in the first place, but why the hell do people get so bent out of shape what others look at?
Its none of mine, or your fucking business.Don't prosecutors have anything better to do, then pretend to be a nanny to some adult?It's a \_picture\_.
It's such threat to society that it threatens the heart of civilization!
I mean look at all the killing, and raping it does!!!
Oh wait, \_people\_ do those things...--"One man's fetish is another man's turnoff.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28481203</id>
	<title>Re:There is a 'harm' here...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1246026960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The reality is that this stuff is harmful, unless someone goes to the extent of creating a lifelike completely artificial child's face. </i></p><p>We've been creating photorealistic <a href="http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=1&amp;q=neoclassical+painting&amp;btnG=Search+images&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=" title="google.com">images</a> [google.com] since before there was photography, let alone photoshop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reality is that this stuff is harmful , unless someone goes to the extent of creating a lifelike completely artificial child 's face .
We 've been creating photorealistic images [ google.com ] since before there was photography , let alone photoshop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reality is that this stuff is harmful, unless someone goes to the extent of creating a lifelike completely artificial child's face.
We've been creating photorealistic images [google.com] since before there was photography, let alone photoshop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28486027</id>
	<title>face palm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246043820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah this prosecution makes sense.  As much sense as me getting charged for animal cruelty for target practicing with printout targets of farm animals.  Maybe for ther encore these prosecutors would like to take up the serious loopholes with regards to "Assault with intent to do serious physical harm" or "attempted murder" laws that those dastardly crash test engineers use to avoid prosecution for placing human likenesses (IE Crash Test Dummies) in vehicles that are about to be slammed into a wall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah this prosecution makes sense .
As much sense as me getting charged for animal cruelty for target practicing with printout targets of farm animals .
Maybe for ther encore these prosecutors would like to take up the serious loopholes with regards to " Assault with intent to do serious physical harm " or " attempted murder " laws that those dastardly crash test engineers use to avoid prosecution for placing human likenesses ( IE Crash Test Dummies ) in vehicles that are about to be slammed into a wall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah this prosecution makes sense.
As much sense as me getting charged for animal cruelty for target practicing with printout targets of farm animals.
Maybe for ther encore these prosecutors would like to take up the serious loopholes with regards to "Assault with intent to do serious physical harm" or "attempted murder" laws that those dastardly crash test engineers use to avoid prosecution for placing human likenesses (IE Crash Test Dummies) in vehicles that are about to be slammed into a wall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474269</id>
	<title>Re:the state is not required to prove the actual a</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245932040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How can you prove that the person in a picture is a minor if you can't figure out their age? For a toddler, it's obvious, but what about someone in high school? Summer Glau, 27, played a 15 year old in Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles. Nathalie Portman was 18 when she played a 13 year old in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. Sarah Michelle Geller was 21 when she played a 15 year old Buffy Summers in Buffy: The Vampire Slayer. There's a pretty wide margin of error if all you have to go by is a picture.</p></div><p>Which is probably why the bit you quoted says the law doesn't require them to either prove identity or age.  They can just claim they're underage and go after you. Feeling worried yet?  This is a horrid law, it basically allows the cops to charge you with child porn/child sexual exploitation based on their whims, not actual evidence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you prove that the person in a picture is a minor if you ca n't figure out their age ?
For a toddler , it 's obvious , but what about someone in high school ?
Summer Glau , 27 , played a 15 year old in Terminator : The Sarah Conner Chronicles .
Nathalie Portman was 18 when she played a 13 year old in Star Wars : The Phantom Menace .
Sarah Michelle Geller was 21 when she played a 15 year old Buffy Summers in Buffy : The Vampire Slayer .
There 's a pretty wide margin of error if all you have to go by is a picture.Which is probably why the bit you quoted says the law does n't require them to either prove identity or age .
They can just claim they 're underage and go after you .
Feeling worried yet ?
This is a horrid law , it basically allows the cops to charge you with child porn/child sexual exploitation based on their whims , not actual evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you prove that the person in a picture is a minor if you can't figure out their age?
For a toddler, it's obvious, but what about someone in high school?
Summer Glau, 27, played a 15 year old in Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles.
Nathalie Portman was 18 when she played a 13 year old in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.
Sarah Michelle Geller was 21 when she played a 15 year old Buffy Summers in Buffy: The Vampire Slayer.
There's a pretty wide margin of error if all you have to go by is a picture.Which is probably why the bit you quoted says the law doesn't require them to either prove identity or age.
They can just claim they're underage and go after you.
Feeling worried yet?
This is a horrid law, it basically allows the cops to charge you with child porn/child sexual exploitation based on their whims, not actual evidence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473829</id>
	<title>When did it all go so wrong.</title>
	<author>lattyware</author>
	<datestamp>1245930480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>These laws are meant to be there to protect children. No children were harmed in the making of these images. This is essentially thought-crime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These laws are meant to be there to protect children .
No children were harmed in the making of these images .
This is essentially thought-crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These laws are meant to be there to protect children.
No children were harmed in the making of these images.
This is essentially thought-crime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477583</id>
	<title>Re:the state is not required to prove the actual a</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245952500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not really, there is a girl who is 16 who still has the body of an infant.  she simply doesn't age.  in many municipalities she could star in pornography based on her age.  (she has the mentality of an infant too, which would make it illegal to be sexually involved with her, though).  in two years she will be legal everywhere (based solely on age) but still appear as an infant.</p><p>but i agree.  no one should go to jail unless a court can actually prove they did something that harmed another.  people forget our legal system (U.S.) was set up specifically to allow guilty people go free in some circumstances in order to prevent the courts from having the ability to jail the innocent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not really , there is a girl who is 16 who still has the body of an infant .
she simply does n't age .
in many municipalities she could star in pornography based on her age .
( she has the mentality of an infant too , which would make it illegal to be sexually involved with her , though ) .
in two years she will be legal everywhere ( based solely on age ) but still appear as an infant.but i agree .
no one should go to jail unless a court can actually prove they did something that harmed another .
people forget our legal system ( U.S. ) was set up specifically to allow guilty people go free in some circumstances in order to prevent the courts from having the ability to jail the innocent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not really, there is a girl who is 16 who still has the body of an infant.
she simply doesn't age.
in many municipalities she could star in pornography based on her age.
(she has the mentality of an infant too, which would make it illegal to be sexually involved with her, though).
in two years she will be legal everywhere (based solely on age) but still appear as an infant.but i agree.
no one should go to jail unless a court can actually prove they did something that harmed another.
people forget our legal system (U.S.) was set up specifically to allow guilty people go free in some circumstances in order to prevent the courts from having the ability to jail the innocent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541</id>
	<title>Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245929160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are a purveyor of stick-man pornography, please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD make your stick men big!  Drawing a little stick-man might get you into trouble.</p><p>Oh!  And be sure to include scale objects in your drawing so that everybody knows that you're drawing a big stick man.  Ummm . . . I mean scale objects extrinsic to the stick man.</p><p>Now, go on and enjoy your stick-man / stick-woman pornography!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are a purveyor of stick-man pornography , please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD make your stick men big !
Drawing a little stick-man might get you into trouble.Oh !
And be sure to include scale objects in your drawing so that everybody knows that you 're drawing a big stick man .
Ummm .
. .
I mean scale objects extrinsic to the stick man.Now , go on and enjoy your stick-man / stick-woman pornography !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are a purveyor of stick-man pornography, please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD make your stick men big!
Drawing a little stick-man might get you into trouble.Oh!
And be sure to include scale objects in your drawing so that everybody knows that you're drawing a big stick man.
Ummm .
. .
I mean scale objects extrinsic to the stick man.Now, go on and enjoy your stick-man / stick-woman pornography!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474085</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting...and so's this!</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1245931440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>and kiddie fondling, you have to admit...</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Well HE certainly never admitted to it.... only doled out a lot of cash, twice, but that's not an admission of guilt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and kiddie fondling , you have to admit.. .       Well HE certainly never admitted to it.... only doled out a lot of cash , twice , but that 's not an admission of guilt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and kiddie fondling, you have to admit...
      Well HE certainly never admitted to it.... only doled out a lot of cash, twice, but that's not an admission of guilt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480423</id>
	<title>Re:There is a 'harm' here...</title>
	<author>dotar</author>
	<datestamp>1246023300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- Recognized in depictions later in life, more emotional abuse</p><p>Woops.  I wonder how the children, the pictures of whose faces were used, would feel if they were sent these photos.  Or if their parents received them.</p><p>This is harm.</p></div><p>a)Obviously photoshopped pics that b)no one would have ever seen if not for the prosecution of the case.

The charging of the "criminal" has caused the crime, in this case... Probably not where you want to be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- Recognized in depictions later in life , more emotional abuseWoops .
I wonder how the children , the pictures of whose faces were used , would feel if they were sent these photos .
Or if their parents received them.This is harm.a ) Obviously photoshopped pics that b ) no one would have ever seen if not for the prosecution of the case .
The charging of the " criminal " has caused the crime , in this case... Probably not where you want to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Recognized in depictions later in life, more emotional abuseWoops.
I wonder how the children, the pictures of whose faces were used, would feel if they were sent these photos.
Or if their parents received them.This is harm.a)Obviously photoshopped pics that b)no one would have ever seen if not for the prosecution of the case.
The charging of the "criminal" has caused the crime, in this case... Probably not where you want to be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473657</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting...and so's this!</title>
	<author>rev\_g33k\_101</author>
	<datestamp>1245929700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So assuming that pedophilia is a kin to vampirism...</p><p>

The original has died, now the others go back to being "regular" people?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So assuming that pedophilia is a kin to vampirism.. . The original has died , now the others go back to being " regular " people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So assuming that pedophilia is a kin to vampirism...

The original has died, now the others go back to being "regular" people?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480755</id>
	<title>Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246025220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude - that guy is *HUNG*.  Definitely snuff porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude - that guy is * HUNG * .
Definitely snuff porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude - that guy is *HUNG*.
Definitely snuff porn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474721</id>
	<title>Re:So if he takes the head of Goofy</title>
	<author>Penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1245933720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Pastes it on the nude body of Nancy Pelosi.......</p><p>Wait a sec. I don't think I should go any further with this.......</p></div><p>Well, if there isn't a law against this, there <b>should</b> be!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pastes it on the nude body of Nancy Pelosi.......Wait a sec .
I do n't think I should go any further with this.......Well , if there is n't a law against this , there should be !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pastes it on the nude body of Nancy Pelosi.......Wait a sec.
I don't think I should go any further with this.......Well, if there isn't a law against this, there should be!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480179</id>
	<title>Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>dotar</author>
	<datestamp>1246021320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Drawing a little stick-man might get you into trouble.</p></div><p>DAMMIT!!

What am I supposed to do about my midget stickman porn collection???</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Drawing a little stick-man might get you into trouble.DAMMIT ! !
What am I supposed to do about my midget stickman porn collection ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drawing a little stick-man might get you into trouble.DAMMIT!!
What am I supposed to do about my midget stickman porn collection??
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473731</id>
	<title>Old news!</title>
	<author>bassling</author>
	<datestamp>1245930060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a similar case in Australia earlier this year:</p><p><a href="http://www.areanews.com.au/news/local/news/general/griffith-man-guilty-on-child-porn-charges/1403310.aspx" title="areanews.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.areanews.com.au/news/local/news/general/griffith-man-guilty-on-child-porn-charges/1403310.aspx</a> [areanews.com.au]</p><p>Different laws obviously but this bloke was found guilty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a similar case in Australia earlier this year : http : //www.areanews.com.au/news/local/news/general/griffith-man-guilty-on-child-porn-charges/1403310.aspx [ areanews.com.au ] Different laws obviously but this bloke was found guilty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a similar case in Australia earlier this year:http://www.areanews.com.au/news/local/news/general/griffith-man-guilty-on-child-porn-charges/1403310.aspx [areanews.com.au]Different laws obviously but this bloke was found guilty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474125</id>
	<title>Re:Prosecuting thought crime not helping</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1245931620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you suggest that someone who thinks about the nature of crime would actually commit the crime, that doesn't help either.  How about just saying that prosecuting people for thinking is something only done by those afraid of thinking?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you suggest that someone who thinks about the nature of crime would actually commit the crime , that does n't help either .
How about just saying that prosecuting people for thinking is something only done by those afraid of thinking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you suggest that someone who thinks about the nature of crime would actually commit the crime, that doesn't help either.
How about just saying that prosecuting people for thinking is something only done by those afraid of thinking?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28483499</id>
	<title>Hmmmm....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246034220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So out of curiosity, if someone took, lets say, a picture of a naked woman's body, and pasted a dog's head over her head, and obviously in the process of "getting it on", would it be considered bestiality?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So out of curiosity , if someone took , lets say , a picture of a naked woman 's body , and pasted a dog 's head over her head , and obviously in the process of " getting it on " , would it be considered bestiality ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So out of curiosity, if someone took, lets say, a picture of a naked woman's body, and pasted a dog's head over her head, and obviously in the process of "getting it on", would it be considered bestiality?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474273</id>
	<title>Re:Miley Cyrus REAL 20 year old boyfriend</title>
	<author>mark\_hill97</author>
	<datestamp>1245932040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because nobody has lodged a formal complaint with the police. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the crime nor anyone that will testify. Just because the guy dated her doesn't mean they had sex either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because nobody has lodged a formal complaint with the police .
Furthermore , there is no evidence of the crime nor anyone that will testify .
Just because the guy dated her does n't mean they had sex either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because nobody has lodged a formal complaint with the police.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of the crime nor anyone that will testify.
Just because the guy dated her doesn't mean they had sex either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473709</id>
	<title>It's a complicated issue</title>
	<author>malevolentjelly</author>
	<datestamp>1245930000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is certainly a mens rea of harm to a minor involved when someone has the faces of children pasted on adult bodies such as in this case. So, the actual reason we have child pornography laws in the first place (to protect minors) is served by this case. In fact, using the child's face even fits the actual crime of "exploitation" of a minor. It's even aggravated</p><p>However, this really is a crime. Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child?</p><p>Well...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(a) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly promote, employ, use, assist, transport or permit a minor to participate in the performance of, or in the production of, acts or material that includes the minor engaging in:<br>(1) Sexual activity; or<br><b>(2) Simulated sexual activity that is patently offensive.</b><br>(b) A person violating subsection (a) may be charged in a separate count for each individual performance, image, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, videocassette tape, or other pictorial representation.<br>(c) In a prosecution under this section, the trier of fact may consider the title, text, visual representation, Internet history, physical development of the person depicted, expert medical testimony, expert computer forensic testimony, and any other relevant evidence, in determining whether a person knowingly promoted, employed, used, assisted, transported or permitted a minor to participate in the performance of or in the production of acts or material for these purposes, or in determining whether the material or image otherwise represents or depicts that a participant is a minor.<br>(d) A violation of this section is a Class B felony. Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting prosecution for any other sexual offense under this chapter, nor shall a joint conviction under this section and any other related sexual offense, even if arising out of the same conduct, be construed as limiting any applicable punishment, including consecutive sentencing under &#194; 40-35-115, or the enhancement of sentence under &#194; 40-35-114.<br>(e) In a prosecution under this section, the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor.<br>(f) A person is subject to prosecution in this state under this section for any conduct that originates in this state, or for any conduct that originates by a person located outside this state, where the person promoted, employed, assisted, transported or permitted a minor to engage in the performance of, or production of, acts or material within this state.</p><p>[Acts 1990, ch. 1092, &#194; 7; 2005, ch. 496, &#194; 4.]</p></div><p>Well, looks like we can!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is certainly a mens rea of harm to a minor involved when someone has the faces of children pasted on adult bodies such as in this case .
So , the actual reason we have child pornography laws in the first place ( to protect minors ) is served by this case .
In fact , using the child 's face even fits the actual crime of " exploitation " of a minor .
It 's even aggravatedHowever , this really is a crime .
Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child ? Well... ( a ) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly promote , employ , use , assist , transport or permit a minor to participate in the performance of , or in the production of , acts or material that includes the minor engaging in : ( 1 ) Sexual activity ; or ( 2 ) Simulated sexual activity that is patently offensive .
( b ) A person violating subsection ( a ) may be charged in a separate count for each individual performance , image , picture , drawing , photograph , motion picture film , videocassette tape , or other pictorial representation .
( c ) In a prosecution under this section , the trier of fact may consider the title , text , visual representation , Internet history , physical development of the person depicted , expert medical testimony , expert computer forensic testimony , and any other relevant evidence , in determining whether a person knowingly promoted , employed , used , assisted , transported or permitted a minor to participate in the performance of or in the production of acts or material for these purposes , or in determining whether the material or image otherwise represents or depicts that a participant is a minor .
( d ) A violation of this section is a Class B felony .
Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting prosecution for any other sexual offense under this chapter , nor shall a joint conviction under this section and any other related sexual offense , even if arising out of the same conduct , be construed as limiting any applicable punishment , including consecutive sentencing under   40-35-115 , or the enhancement of sentence under   40-35-114 .
( e ) In a prosecution under this section , the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor .
( f ) A person is subject to prosecution in this state under this section for any conduct that originates in this state , or for any conduct that originates by a person located outside this state , where the person promoted , employed , assisted , transported or permitted a minor to engage in the performance of , or production of , acts or material within this state .
[ Acts 1990 , ch .
1092 ,   7 ; 2005 , ch .
496 ,   4 .
] Well , looks like we can !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is certainly a mens rea of harm to a minor involved when someone has the faces of children pasted on adult bodies such as in this case.
So, the actual reason we have child pornography laws in the first place (to protect minors) is served by this case.
In fact, using the child's face even fits the actual crime of "exploitation" of a minor.
It's even aggravatedHowever, this really is a crime.
Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child?Well...(a) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly promote, employ, use, assist, transport or permit a minor to participate in the performance of, or in the production of, acts or material that includes the minor engaging in:(1) Sexual activity; or(2) Simulated sexual activity that is patently offensive.
(b) A person violating subsection (a) may be charged in a separate count for each individual performance, image, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, videocassette tape, or other pictorial representation.
(c) In a prosecution under this section, the trier of fact may consider the title, text, visual representation, Internet history, physical development of the person depicted, expert medical testimony, expert computer forensic testimony, and any other relevant evidence, in determining whether a person knowingly promoted, employed, used, assisted, transported or permitted a minor to participate in the performance of or in the production of acts or material for these purposes, or in determining whether the material or image otherwise represents or depicts that a participant is a minor.
(d) A violation of this section is a Class B felony.
Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting prosecution for any other sexual offense under this chapter, nor shall a joint conviction under this section and any other related sexual offense, even if arising out of the same conduct, be construed as limiting any applicable punishment, including consecutive sentencing under Â 40-35-115, or the enhancement of sentence under Â 40-35-114.
(e) In a prosecution under this section, the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor.
(f) A person is subject to prosecution in this state under this section for any conduct that originates in this state, or for any conduct that originates by a person located outside this state, where the person promoted, employed, assisted, transported or permitted a minor to engage in the performance of, or production of, acts or material within this state.
[Acts 1990, ch.
1092, Â 7; 2005, ch.
496, Â 4.
]Well, looks like we can!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474769</id>
	<title>Total thoughtcrime, already ruled free speech</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1245933960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is bullshit. What a waste of time.</p><p>The supreme court has already ruled that this is protected free speech. Why the hell is anybody wasting time harrassing this man?  You can't charge people with a crime because you don't like their taste in art.</p><p>You can't say "Oh, this means that he's a pedophile, and even though he hasn't done anything to anyone, we think he's thinking about it."</p><p>It makes me want to create children faces (or maybe use famous child actors) with their faces affixed to nude bodies (maybe generated ones) in politcal parody cartoons about this  and mail it to these backwards asshole prosecutors. See what they do with two controversial activities already ruled as protected.</p><p>People  who say things like "the guy is clearly a pedophile and should be removed from society" have it totally wrong, you can't charge someone based on a personal assumption - for good reason...That kind of shit would make it easier for all of us to lose our rights and people who say such things have a very limited understanding of freedom and the law.</p><p>It's fucking irrelevant what you or I think of how tasteful or disgusting his "art" is - the fact is that he should have the right to create it.  Maybe he is a pedophile, maybe he isn't - but you can't brand him that because of "art."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is bullshit .
What a waste of time.The supreme court has already ruled that this is protected free speech .
Why the hell is anybody wasting time harrassing this man ?
You ca n't charge people with a crime because you do n't like their taste in art.You ca n't say " Oh , this means that he 's a pedophile , and even though he has n't done anything to anyone , we think he 's thinking about it .
" It makes me want to create children faces ( or maybe use famous child actors ) with their faces affixed to nude bodies ( maybe generated ones ) in politcal parody cartoons about this and mail it to these backwards asshole prosecutors .
See what they do with two controversial activities already ruled as protected.People who say things like " the guy is clearly a pedophile and should be removed from society " have it totally wrong , you ca n't charge someone based on a personal assumption - for good reason...That kind of shit would make it easier for all of us to lose our rights and people who say such things have a very limited understanding of freedom and the law.It 's fucking irrelevant what you or I think of how tasteful or disgusting his " art " is - the fact is that he should have the right to create it .
Maybe he is a pedophile , maybe he is n't - but you ca n't brand him that because of " art .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is bullshit.
What a waste of time.The supreme court has already ruled that this is protected free speech.
Why the hell is anybody wasting time harrassing this man?
You can't charge people with a crime because you don't like their taste in art.You can't say "Oh, this means that he's a pedophile, and even though he hasn't done anything to anyone, we think he's thinking about it.
"It makes me want to create children faces (or maybe use famous child actors) with their faces affixed to nude bodies (maybe generated ones) in politcal parody cartoons about this  and mail it to these backwards asshole prosecutors.
See what they do with two controversial activities already ruled as protected.People  who say things like "the guy is clearly a pedophile and should be removed from society" have it totally wrong, you can't charge someone based on a personal assumption - for good reason...That kind of shit would make it easier for all of us to lose our rights and people who say such things have a very limited understanding of freedom and the law.It's fucking irrelevant what you or I think of how tasteful or disgusting his "art" is - the fact is that he should have the right to create it.
Maybe he is a pedophile, maybe he isn't - but you can't brand him that because of "art.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28482303</id>
	<title>Re:illeagle because its offensive?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246030680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Relax,   Go out friday night and use him as a baby sitter... its ok, he doesnt victimize children, he just pretends to.  Im sure that he'll babysit for free.  Its a win win situation.  You get to go watch a movie star on the big screen and your kid might be  movie star on the small screen.  I dare you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Relax , Go out friday night and use him as a baby sitter... its ok , he doesnt victimize children , he just pretends to .
Im sure that he 'll babysit for free .
Its a win win situation .
You get to go watch a movie star on the big screen and your kid might be movie star on the small screen .
I dare you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Relax,   Go out friday night and use him as a baby sitter... its ok, he doesnt victimize children, he just pretends to.
Im sure that he'll babysit for free.
Its a win win situation.
You get to go watch a movie star on the big screen and your kid might be  movie star on the small screen.
I dare you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474135</id>
	<title>Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>Marko DeBeeste</author>
	<datestamp>1245931620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're a real sticko.  Besides with that middle name, the poor dweeb is doomed  <a href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/the-middle-name-wayne-strikes-again/" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/the-middle-name-wayne-strikes-again/</a> [nytimes.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a real sticko .
Besides with that middle name , the poor dweeb is doomed http : //freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/the-middle-name-wayne-strikes-again/ [ nytimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a real sticko.
Besides with that middle name, the poor dweeb is doomed  http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/the-middle-name-wayne-strikes-again/ [nytimes.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477339</id>
	<title>What if...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245950040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now what if this man was a 13 year old girl who was accused of having this pictures and stuffing them in her underwear, should her school officials be allowed to strip search her, and should she go to jail????</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now what if this man was a 13 year old girl who was accused of having this pictures and stuffing them in her underwear , should her school officials be allowed to strip search her , and should she go to jail ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now what if this man was a 13 year old girl who was accused of having this pictures and stuffing them in her underwear, should her school officials be allowed to strip search her, and should she go to jail???
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476135</id>
	<title>Show the harm, please</title>
	<author>Qubit</author>
	<datestamp>1245941220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Investigators do not believe Campbell had any contact with the three girls, but "when you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman, it's going to be the state's position that this is for sexual gratification and that this is simulated sexual activity," Assistant District Attorney Dave Denny said</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>"It's definitely on the increase," said Justin Fitzsimmons, a former prosecutor and senior attorney with the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse, part of the National District Attorneys' Association. "People are trying to come up with creative ways to continue to sexually exploit children using digital evidence."</p></div><p>Great story, but I'm confused about what he did and what he's being charged with. Has the DA described the victim and explained how they're negatively affected in this case? Was this man trying to <em>distribute</em> the mashed-up pictures? Was this man found with the pictures on a personal computer? What happened here?</p><p>The whole reason we have laws prohibiting sex with children or erotic photography of children is that we believe that they are immature and are unable to make clear, well-thought-out, rational decisions about their actions. Well, that and the fact that we're a country descended from Puritans and a bunch of churchgoing folk. When considering similar cases in the past, SCOTUS took the eminently reasonable stance that depictions of child pornography that did not involve actual children were legal. This case is very interesting, as it does involve photos of underage children, but as long as the man did not try to distribute the pictures and took reasonable steps to do so, then what persons were harmed?</p><p>This case is also very interesting as it seems to hinge on taking two completely legal, distributable components -- a picture of a child and a picture of pornography -- and making something illegal by blending the two. This distinction has an important legal distinction with physical objects all the time, as it is illegal to distribute large quantities of explosives such as ANFO, but legal to distribute fuel oil and fertilizer unblended and separate. With pictures and print, aside from possible slander/libel charges due to misrepresentation, I can't think of any situation in which the mashup of two legally distributable documents would be found to be illegal.</p><p>It will be very interesting to see how the court deals with this case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Investigators do not believe Campbell had any contact with the three girls , but " when you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman , it 's going to be the state 's position that this is for sexual gratification and that this is simulated sexual activity , " Assistant District Attorney Dave Denny said " It 's definitely on the increase , " said Justin Fitzsimmons , a former prosecutor and senior attorney with the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse , part of the National District Attorneys ' Association .
" People are trying to come up with creative ways to continue to sexually exploit children using digital evidence .
" Great story , but I 'm confused about what he did and what he 's being charged with .
Has the DA described the victim and explained how they 're negatively affected in this case ?
Was this man trying to distribute the mashed-up pictures ?
Was this man found with the pictures on a personal computer ?
What happened here ? The whole reason we have laws prohibiting sex with children or erotic photography of children is that we believe that they are immature and are unable to make clear , well-thought-out , rational decisions about their actions .
Well , that and the fact that we 're a country descended from Puritans and a bunch of churchgoing folk .
When considering similar cases in the past , SCOTUS took the eminently reasonable stance that depictions of child pornography that did not involve actual children were legal .
This case is very interesting , as it does involve photos of underage children , but as long as the man did not try to distribute the pictures and took reasonable steps to do so , then what persons were harmed ? This case is also very interesting as it seems to hinge on taking two completely legal , distributable components -- a picture of a child and a picture of pornography -- and making something illegal by blending the two .
This distinction has an important legal distinction with physical objects all the time , as it is illegal to distribute large quantities of explosives such as ANFO , but legal to distribute fuel oil and fertilizer unblended and separate .
With pictures and print , aside from possible slander/libel charges due to misrepresentation , I ca n't think of any situation in which the mashup of two legally distributable documents would be found to be illegal.It will be very interesting to see how the court deals with this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Investigators do not believe Campbell had any contact with the three girls, but "when you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman, it's going to be the state's position that this is for sexual gratification and that this is simulated sexual activity," Assistant District Attorney Dave Denny said"It's definitely on the increase," said Justin Fitzsimmons, a former prosecutor and senior attorney with the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse, part of the National District Attorneys' Association.
"People are trying to come up with creative ways to continue to sexually exploit children using digital evidence.
"Great story, but I'm confused about what he did and what he's being charged with.
Has the DA described the victim and explained how they're negatively affected in this case?
Was this man trying to distribute the mashed-up pictures?
Was this man found with the pictures on a personal computer?
What happened here?The whole reason we have laws prohibiting sex with children or erotic photography of children is that we believe that they are immature and are unable to make clear, well-thought-out, rational decisions about their actions.
Well, that and the fact that we're a country descended from Puritans and a bunch of churchgoing folk.
When considering similar cases in the past, SCOTUS took the eminently reasonable stance that depictions of child pornography that did not involve actual children were legal.
This case is very interesting, as it does involve photos of underage children, but as long as the man did not try to distribute the pictures and took reasonable steps to do so, then what persons were harmed?This case is also very interesting as it seems to hinge on taking two completely legal, distributable components -- a picture of a child and a picture of pornography -- and making something illegal by blending the two.
This distinction has an important legal distinction with physical objects all the time, as it is illegal to distribute large quantities of explosives such as ANFO, but legal to distribute fuel oil and fertilizer unblended and separate.
With pictures and print, aside from possible slander/libel charges due to misrepresentation, I can't think of any situation in which the mashup of two legally distributable documents would be found to be illegal.It will be very interesting to see how the court deals with this case.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474481</id>
	<title>Brass Eye did it first</title>
	<author>ymgve</author>
	<datestamp>1245932820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brass Eye <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA07Tw4iEFw" title="youtube.com">put the head of a child on a nude body.</a> [youtube.com] Arrest them!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brass Eye put the head of a child on a nude body .
[ youtube.com ] Arrest them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brass Eye put the head of a child on a nude body.
[youtube.com] Arrest them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474927</id>
	<title>Cool</title>
	<author>Saysys</author>
	<datestamp>1245934560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, just paste an Of-Age woman's face on a child's body and BAM no more is it illegal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , just paste an Of-Age woman 's face on a child 's body and BAM no more is it illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, just paste an Of-Age woman's face on a child's body and BAM no more is it illegal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476803</id>
	<title>the poor pixels</title>
	<author>JackSpratts</author>
	<datestamp>1245946080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>they might as well skip the show trial and go right to stake burning. they're moving in that direction anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>they might as well skip the show trial and go right to stake burning .
they 're moving in that direction anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they might as well skip the show trial and go right to stake burning.
they're moving in that direction anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28478039</id>
	<title>Re:So if he takes the head of Goofy</title>
	<author>Meski</author>
	<datestamp>1245956460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Close down the photoshop app and back away, hands in sight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Close down the photoshop app and back away , hands in sight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Close down the photoshop app and back away, hands in sight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28512941</id>
	<title>There is more to the story than this...</title>
	<author>tekshogun</author>
	<datestamp>1246283940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look up news outlets from Chattanooga and look this person up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look up news outlets from Chattanooga and look this person up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look up news outlets from Chattanooga and look this person up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480415</id>
	<title>Re:So if he takes the head of Goofy</title>
	<author>spartacus\_prime</author>
	<datestamp>1246023240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Keep going, I'm not done yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep going , I 'm not done yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep going, I'm not done yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476821</id>
	<title>Quack, quack</title>
	<author>NicknamesAreStupid</author>
	<datestamp>1245946200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be pornography," Clarence Thomas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck , then it must be pornography , " Clarence Thomas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be pornography," Clarence Thomas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477161</id>
	<title>What about Feregi kids face on Klingon's body?</title>
	<author>bronney</author>
	<datestamp>1245948780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wait I need a shower.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wait I need a shower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wait I need a shower.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475045</id>
	<title>Mod parent pukebait</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1245935100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny?  People think Pelosi Porn is funny? More like disgusting and perverted!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny ?
People think Pelosi Porn is funny ?
More like disgusting and perverted !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny?
People think Pelosi Porn is funny?
More like disgusting and perverted!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473901</id>
	<title>Re:It's a complicated issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245930780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once again, however, article (2) appears to be in direct contradiction to the 2002 SCOTUS decision, which ruled that simulated pornography is protected speech. So a conviction seems doubtful, especially if appealed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , however , article ( 2 ) appears to be in direct contradiction to the 2002 SCOTUS decision , which ruled that simulated pornography is protected speech .
So a conviction seems doubtful , especially if appealed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, however, article (2) appears to be in direct contradiction to the 2002 SCOTUS decision, which ruled that simulated pornography is protected speech.
So a conviction seems doubtful, especially if appealed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473723</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting...and so's this!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245930060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Iran is in a state of anarchy, North Korea wants to nuke Hawaii, and you slashtards are concentrating on a dead pedophile?  Get some priorities you twats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Iran is in a state of anarchy , North Korea wants to nuke Hawaii , and you slashtards are concentrating on a dead pedophile ?
Get some priorities you twats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Iran is in a state of anarchy, North Korea wants to nuke Hawaii, and you slashtards are concentrating on a dead pedophile?
Get some priorities you twats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476859</id>
	<title>Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>NicknamesAreStupid</author>
	<datestamp>1245946560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This REALLY looks like virtual snuff porn.  You should be virtually convicted of virtually snuffing the virtual hang man.  A virtual life sentence!  Such virtue!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This REALLY looks like virtual snuff porn .
You should be virtually convicted of virtually snuffing the virtual hang man .
A virtual life sentence !
Such virtue !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This REALLY looks like virtual snuff porn.
You should be virtually convicted of virtually snuffing the virtual hang man.
A virtual life sentence!
Such virtue!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474255</id>
	<title>tip of the iceberg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245931980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This are only charges.</p><p>Last year someone already got 20 years for something similar: <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28319199" title="msn.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28319199</a> [msn.com]</p><p>Upheld by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.</p><p>Also, this is not just a US thing, it's happening everywhere in the West.</p><p>Example from The Netherlands <a href="http://tweakers.net/nieuws/52376/eerste-nederlandse-veroordeling-wegens-virtuele-kinderporno.html" title="tweakers.net" rel="nofollow">here</a> [tweakers.net].</p><p>They claim there images could be used to persuade children into engaging in sexual contacts.</p><p>If you're ever wondering why we're all saying goodbye to our privacy, look no further:</p><p><a href="http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/materials/Sexual\_Fascism\_in\_Progressive\_America.php" title="reformsexo...erlaws.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/materials/Sexual\_Fascism\_in\_Progressive\_America.php</a> [reformsexo...erlaws.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This are only charges.Last year someone already got 20 years for something similar : http : //www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28319199 [ msn.com ] Upheld by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.Also , this is not just a US thing , it 's happening everywhere in the West.Example from The Netherlands here [ tweakers.net ] .They claim there images could be used to persuade children into engaging in sexual contacts.If you 're ever wondering why we 're all saying goodbye to our privacy , look no further : http : //www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/materials/Sexual \ _Fascism \ _in \ _Progressive \ _America.php [ reformsexo...erlaws.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This are only charges.Last year someone already got 20 years for something similar: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28319199 [msn.com]Upheld by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.Also, this is not just a US thing, it's happening everywhere in the West.Example from The Netherlands here [tweakers.net].They claim there images could be used to persuade children into engaging in sexual contacts.If you're ever wondering why we're all saying goodbye to our privacy, look no further:http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/materials/Sexual\_Fascism\_in\_Progressive\_America.php [reformsexo...erlaws.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28479629</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting...and so's this!</title>
	<author>Bender Unit 22</author>
	<datestamp>1246014540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought it was one of the usual xxx is dead .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) and only now i find out it was not</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it was one of the usual xxx is dead .
: ) and only now i find out it was not</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it was one of the usual xxx is dead .
:) and only now i find out it was not</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28484185</id>
	<title>Will this count as Exploitation of a minor?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246036800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>science.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?id=4989379&amp;op=view</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>science.slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? id = 4989379&amp;op = view</tokentext>
<sentencetext>science.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?id=4989379&amp;op=view</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475315</id>
	<title>What is wrong with this guy?</title>
	<author>davevr</author>
	<datestamp>1245936540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't he make his child porn in Sims 3 like a normal person?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't he make his child porn in Sims 3 like a normal person ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't he make his child porn in Sims 3 like a normal person?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473499</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting...and so's this!</title>
	<author>poormanjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1245928920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>He may be dead, but he will be immortalized by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thriller\_(music\_video)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow"> Thriller</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>He may be dead , but he will be immortalized by Thriller [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He may be dead, but he will be immortalized by  Thriller [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474187</id>
	<title>Re:illeagle because its offensive?</title>
	<author>PsychoSlashDot</author>
	<datestamp>1245931860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is like that hentai guy.  I think material like this may be grounds for investigating someone to see if they have actual illegal porn.  But I don't see how this is a crime.  I don't want thought police, but there should be no gray area when actual children are involved.</p></div><p>Is seeing a man with a bunch of gold chains walking around in a slum grounds for investigating him to see if he's got stolen goods?  Rich guy in poor area?  Maybe follow him home and search his house.  Where there's smoke, there's fire, right?</p><p>Wrong.  Teach your children that when someone says or does something sexual, they tell you.  Go from there.  That's really all that needs be done.  Stop inventing opportunity thought TV shows.  Stop freaking out about Internet predators when the vast majority of sexual abusers are relatives and close family friends.</p><p>When you've got evidence of a crime, investigate.  When you've got evidence of what you think might possibly suggest a mind-set of criminal nature... relax.  Paranoia State does more harm than good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like that hentai guy .
I think material like this may be grounds for investigating someone to see if they have actual illegal porn .
But I do n't see how this is a crime .
I do n't want thought police , but there should be no gray area when actual children are involved.Is seeing a man with a bunch of gold chains walking around in a slum grounds for investigating him to see if he 's got stolen goods ?
Rich guy in poor area ?
Maybe follow him home and search his house .
Where there 's smoke , there 's fire , right ? Wrong .
Teach your children that when someone says or does something sexual , they tell you .
Go from there .
That 's really all that needs be done .
Stop inventing opportunity thought TV shows .
Stop freaking out about Internet predators when the vast majority of sexual abusers are relatives and close family friends.When you 've got evidence of a crime , investigate .
When you 've got evidence of what you think might possibly suggest a mind-set of criminal nature... relax. Paranoia State does more harm than good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is like that hentai guy.
I think material like this may be grounds for investigating someone to see if they have actual illegal porn.
But I don't see how this is a crime.
I don't want thought police, but there should be no gray area when actual children are involved.Is seeing a man with a bunch of gold chains walking around in a slum grounds for investigating him to see if he's got stolen goods?
Rich guy in poor area?
Maybe follow him home and search his house.
Where there's smoke, there's fire, right?Wrong.
Teach your children that when someone says or does something sexual, they tell you.
Go from there.
That's really all that needs be done.
Stop inventing opportunity thought TV shows.
Stop freaking out about Internet predators when the vast majority of sexual abusers are relatives and close family friends.When you've got evidence of a crime, investigate.
When you've got evidence of what you think might possibly suggest a mind-set of criminal nature... relax.  Paranoia State does more harm than good.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28482695</id>
	<title>Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1246031760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news, Randall Munroe was arrested today, due to this comic:<br><a href="http://xkcd.com/584/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/584/</a> [xkcd.com]</p><p>The comic in question was deemed to be potentially referring to minors in panels 4 and 5, and thus was child pornography.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , Randall Munroe was arrested today , due to this comic : http : //xkcd.com/584/ [ xkcd.com ] The comic in question was deemed to be potentially referring to minors in panels 4 and 5 , and thus was child pornography .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, Randall Munroe was arrested today, due to this comic:http://xkcd.com/584/ [xkcd.com]The comic in question was deemed to be potentially referring to minors in panels 4 and 5, and thus was child pornography.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475479</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting...and so's this!</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1245937440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot: celebrity death news for nerds.  News that you wouldn't hear any other place.  Nice job reporting there, Gizzmonic.</p><p>Guys, if you happen to have a facebook or twitter account, PLEASE let everyone know.  We really need to get this news out there.  There's a lot of chatter about some protests in Iran, but we really need to show them what the web is actually for: trivial celeb gossip.~</p><p>(Not to be insensitive to MJ or his family, but in all honesty, this is fake news, not real news.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot : celebrity death news for nerds .
News that you would n't hear any other place .
Nice job reporting there , Gizzmonic.Guys , if you happen to have a facebook or twitter account , PLEASE let everyone know .
We really need to get this news out there .
There 's a lot of chatter about some protests in Iran , but we really need to show them what the web is actually for : trivial celeb gossip. ~ ( Not to be insensitive to MJ or his family , but in all honesty , this is fake news , not real news .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot: celebrity death news for nerds.
News that you wouldn't hear any other place.
Nice job reporting there, Gizzmonic.Guys, if you happen to have a facebook or twitter account, PLEASE let everyone know.
We really need to get this news out there.
There's a lot of chatter about some protests in Iran, but we really need to show them what the web is actually for: trivial celeb gossip.~(Not to be insensitive to MJ or his family, but in all honesty, this is fake news, not real news.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475055</id>
	<title>Re:Prosecuting thought crime not helping</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1245935100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or, alternatively, if photoshopped child porn is indistinguishable from the real variety then you assume that all porn is photoshopped because no one who wants to make child porn would go through the trouble of abusing children.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , alternatively , if photoshopped child porn is indistinguishable from the real variety then you assume that all porn is photoshopped because no one who wants to make child porn would go through the trouble of abusing children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, alternatively, if photoshopped child porn is indistinguishable from the real variety then you assume that all porn is photoshopped because no one who wants to make child porn would go through the trouble of abusing children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28489145</id>
	<title>Re:When did it all go so wrong.</title>
	<author>visible.frylock</author>
	<datestamp>1246015320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were never there to protect children. The patriot act isn't there to counter terrorism. The (now in committee) cybersecurity bills aren't there to stop crackers, spammers, or counter legitimate threats against our infrastructure. The dmca isn't there to stop piracy.</p><p>We didn't invade Iraq because they posed a threat to us, nor Afghanistan. We weren't warmongering wrt Iran because they pose any threat to us.</p><p>If you think about it, this all goes back quite a long way: Vietnam, war on drugs, Korean war, gun control, WW1,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>We did those things because they benefited someone, and the people, who commit their money, conviction, and their lives to supporting those actions, are dumb enough to believe in lies, are cowards, and have a very immoral character (thus the witch hunts).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were never there to protect children .
The patriot act is n't there to counter terrorism .
The ( now in committee ) cybersecurity bills are n't there to stop crackers , spammers , or counter legitimate threats against our infrastructure .
The dmca is n't there to stop piracy.We did n't invade Iraq because they posed a threat to us , nor Afghanistan .
We were n't warmongering wrt Iran because they pose any threat to us.If you think about it , this all goes back quite a long way : Vietnam , war on drugs , Korean war , gun control , WW1 , ...We did those things because they benefited someone , and the people , who commit their money , conviction , and their lives to supporting those actions , are dumb enough to believe in lies , are cowards , and have a very immoral character ( thus the witch hunts ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were never there to protect children.
The patriot act isn't there to counter terrorism.
The (now in committee) cybersecurity bills aren't there to stop crackers, spammers, or counter legitimate threats against our infrastructure.
The dmca isn't there to stop piracy.We didn't invade Iraq because they posed a threat to us, nor Afghanistan.
We weren't warmongering wrt Iran because they pose any threat to us.If you think about it, this all goes back quite a long way: Vietnam, war on drugs, Korean war, gun control, WW1, ...We did those things because they benefited someone, and the people, who commit their money, conviction, and their lives to supporting those actions, are dumb enough to believe in lies, are cowards, and have a very immoral character (thus the witch hunts).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473811</id>
	<title>Short Adobe (ADBE)!</title>
	<author>Punk CPA</author>
	<datestamp>1245930480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Next, the maker of Photoshop is indicted for aiding and abetting DIY kiddie porn.  This is just stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Next , the maker of Photoshop is indicted for aiding and abetting DIY kiddie porn .
This is just stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next, the maker of Photoshop is indicted for aiding and abetting DIY kiddie porn.
This is just stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475179</id>
	<title>Re:There is a 'harm' here...</title>
	<author>QCompson</author>
	<datestamp>1245935700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>First off, the 'harm' that is caused by child porn is of many types:

- Obvious, physical abuse
- Ditto, emotional abuse
- Recognized in depictions later in life, more emotional abuse

Woops. I wonder how the children, the pictures of whose faces were used, would feel if they were sent these photos. Or if their parents received them.

This is harm. He's gonna lose this one.</p></div></blockquote><p>

So if I photoshopped a picture of a minor and smeared virtual poop on his/her face that would also be emotional abuse?  Or if I photoshopped the photo of a skinny girl's head on a fat girl's body?  I suppose that would qualify as harm as well.
<br> <br>
Do you support outlawing any visual image which may possibly cause emotional harm?  Including editorial cartoons of course, as well as any altered picture on the internet which could conceivably be construed as insulting.
<br> <br>
The reality is that this stuff is <b>not</b> harmful unless you consider that a bunch of small-minded control-freaks like yourself want to imprison people for creating derivative artistic works.  SCOTUS did not make a mess of this, and people like you scare the hell out of me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , the 'harm ' that is caused by child porn is of many types : - Obvious , physical abuse - Ditto , emotional abuse - Recognized in depictions later in life , more emotional abuse Woops .
I wonder how the children , the pictures of whose faces were used , would feel if they were sent these photos .
Or if their parents received them .
This is harm .
He 's gon na lose this one .
So if I photoshopped a picture of a minor and smeared virtual poop on his/her face that would also be emotional abuse ?
Or if I photoshopped the photo of a skinny girl 's head on a fat girl 's body ?
I suppose that would qualify as harm as well .
Do you support outlawing any visual image which may possibly cause emotional harm ?
Including editorial cartoons of course , as well as any altered picture on the internet which could conceivably be construed as insulting .
The reality is that this stuff is not harmful unless you consider that a bunch of small-minded control-freaks like yourself want to imprison people for creating derivative artistic works .
SCOTUS did not make a mess of this , and people like you scare the hell out of me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, the 'harm' that is caused by child porn is of many types:

- Obvious, physical abuse
- Ditto, emotional abuse
- Recognized in depictions later in life, more emotional abuse

Woops.
I wonder how the children, the pictures of whose faces were used, would feel if they were sent these photos.
Or if their parents received them.
This is harm.
He's gonna lose this one.
So if I photoshopped a picture of a minor and smeared virtual poop on his/her face that would also be emotional abuse?
Or if I photoshopped the photo of a skinny girl's head on a fat girl's body?
I suppose that would qualify as harm as well.
Do you support outlawing any visual image which may possibly cause emotional harm?
Including editorial cartoons of course, as well as any altered picture on the internet which could conceivably be construed as insulting.
The reality is that this stuff is not harmful unless you consider that a bunch of small-minded control-freaks like yourself want to imprison people for creating derivative artistic works.
SCOTUS did not make a mess of this, and people like you scare the hell out of me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473599</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting...and so's this!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245929400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ironic that (AFAIK) the first time this well-known<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. meme/troll is actually true, it still gets modded flamebait. I only have one mod point left, or I'd mod you up Informative lol.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironic that ( AFAIK ) the first time this well-known / .
meme/troll is actually true , it still gets modded flamebait .
I only have one mod point left , or I 'd mod you up Informative lol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironic that (AFAIK) the first time this well-known /.
meme/troll is actually true, it still gets modded flamebait.
I only have one mod point left, or I'd mod you up Informative lol.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474389</id>
	<title>Re:Miley Cyrus REAL 20 year old boyfriend</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245932400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikipedia (and the article, for that matter) tells me <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miley\_Cyrus" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Miley Cyrus</a> [wikipedia.org] is 16 years old. She grew up in Tennessee and now appears to live in California. According to Wikipedia, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages\_of\_consent\_in\_North\_America#State\_laws" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">age of consent laws</a> [wikipedia.org] in both of those states do indeed put her below the age of consent (18 in both states). Wow, I thought California was liberal. 18 is ridiculously high for age of consent. It is 16 in most states (although some have special rules like in Pennsylvania anyone 13+ is fine as long as the age difference is under 4 years).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia ( and the article , for that matter ) tells me Miley Cyrus [ wikipedia.org ] is 16 years old .
She grew up in Tennessee and now appears to live in California .
According to Wikipedia , the age of consent laws [ wikipedia.org ] in both of those states do indeed put her below the age of consent ( 18 in both states ) .
Wow , I thought California was liberal .
18 is ridiculously high for age of consent .
It is 16 in most states ( although some have special rules like in Pennsylvania anyone 13 + is fine as long as the age difference is under 4 years ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia (and the article, for that matter) tells me Miley Cyrus [wikipedia.org] is 16 years old.
She grew up in Tennessee and now appears to live in California.
According to Wikipedia, the age of consent laws [wikipedia.org] in both of those states do indeed put her below the age of consent (18 in both states).
Wow, I thought California was liberal.
18 is ridiculously high for age of consent.
It is 16 in most states (although some have special rules like in Pennsylvania anyone 13+ is fine as long as the age difference is under 4 years).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28482373</id>
	<title>Re:There is a 'harm' here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246030860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if this guy had written obviously fictional stories about having sexual encounters with these real girls?</p><p>Would you still have him sent to prison? I feel like most authorities would just call this guy a sicko and be on their way. Some might go so far as to investigate whether there was any kernel of truth to them (even if they were blatantly fictional (e.g. took place on the moon)), but ultimately, he would not be tried or sent to prison.</p><p>But then why would he for pictures? The constitution is supposed to protect our right to express our ideas, whether it is in writing, a painting, OR a crudely done photoshop job.</p><p>You have to recognize that there is a huge difference between <i>expressing</i> an idea, and <i>acting</i> based on that idea. Raping little girls is acting based on an idea; Writing a song about raping little girls is an expression.</p><p>Any law that seeks to imprison us for the expression of our thoughts and ideas is fucking scary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if this guy had written obviously fictional stories about having sexual encounters with these real girls ? Would you still have him sent to prison ?
I feel like most authorities would just call this guy a sicko and be on their way .
Some might go so far as to investigate whether there was any kernel of truth to them ( even if they were blatantly fictional ( e.g .
took place on the moon ) ) , but ultimately , he would not be tried or sent to prison.But then why would he for pictures ?
The constitution is supposed to protect our right to express our ideas , whether it is in writing , a painting , OR a crudely done photoshop job.You have to recognize that there is a huge difference between expressing an idea , and acting based on that idea .
Raping little girls is acting based on an idea ; Writing a song about raping little girls is an expression.Any law that seeks to imprison us for the expression of our thoughts and ideas is fucking scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if this guy had written obviously fictional stories about having sexual encounters with these real girls?Would you still have him sent to prison?
I feel like most authorities would just call this guy a sicko and be on their way.
Some might go so far as to investigate whether there was any kernel of truth to them (even if they were blatantly fictional (e.g.
took place on the moon)), but ultimately, he would not be tried or sent to prison.But then why would he for pictures?
The constitution is supposed to protect our right to express our ideas, whether it is in writing, a painting, OR a crudely done photoshop job.You have to recognize that there is a huge difference between expressing an idea, and acting based on that idea.
Raping little girls is acting based on an idea; Writing a song about raping little girls is an expression.Any law that seeks to imprison us for the expression of our thoughts and ideas is fucking scary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28478783</id>
	<title>Does this pass the sniff test?</title>
	<author>Troggie87</author>
	<datestamp>1246049460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Generally the best way to evaluate a difficult problem in any field is to look at extremely similar events as well.  If you come to radically different conclusions on nearly identical issues your thought process is likely flawed.  So lets try another one...</p><p>1.)I know a douchebag.  Occasionally, after being in his presence, I imagine myself punching him.  I cant help it, primal rage at his douchebagginess forces these thoughts.</p><p>2.)In an attempt to relieve said rage, I photoshop a picture of me punching a punching-bag onto a picture of said douchebag, thereby making it look like I punched him.</p><p>3.)One day, I actually punch the douchebag in the face.</p><p>Is number 2 assault?  Definitely no.  Are number 2 and 3 remotely equivalent?  I think most would argue no.  Would number 2 be enough to get a restraining order against me?  Probably.</p><p>This doesn't seem to pass the sniff test, as a similar situation fails in equivalency.  If the parties involved feel threatened or defamed they have other private legal recourse.</p><p>On a personal note, I think this is a bit creepy, and I might not want to hang around that guy.  I somewhat understand the prosecutors discomfort with whats being done here.  But thats no excuse for some zealot to bend moral equivalency to the breaking point.  I suspect those pushing this know darn well they are legally crippled, and are instead trying to spread fear by ruining this mans life with a high profile case.  After all, something doesn't have to be illegal (or even have to have taken place) if simply being accused of it will destroy your life.  Thats as good a deterrent as any legislation.  A lot of witches found that out, as did homosexuals.  If there is justice in the world these law enforcement officials will lose their jobs, but we are talking about Tennessee...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally the best way to evaluate a difficult problem in any field is to look at extremely similar events as well .
If you come to radically different conclusions on nearly identical issues your thought process is likely flawed .
So lets try another one...1 .
) I know a douchebag .
Occasionally , after being in his presence , I imagine myself punching him .
I cant help it , primal rage at his douchebagginess forces these thoughts.2 .
) In an attempt to relieve said rage , I photoshop a picture of me punching a punching-bag onto a picture of said douchebag , thereby making it look like I punched him.3 .
) One day , I actually punch the douchebag in the face.Is number 2 assault ?
Definitely no .
Are number 2 and 3 remotely equivalent ?
I think most would argue no .
Would number 2 be enough to get a restraining order against me ?
Probably.This does n't seem to pass the sniff test , as a similar situation fails in equivalency .
If the parties involved feel threatened or defamed they have other private legal recourse.On a personal note , I think this is a bit creepy , and I might not want to hang around that guy .
I somewhat understand the prosecutors discomfort with whats being done here .
But thats no excuse for some zealot to bend moral equivalency to the breaking point .
I suspect those pushing this know darn well they are legally crippled , and are instead trying to spread fear by ruining this mans life with a high profile case .
After all , something does n't have to be illegal ( or even have to have taken place ) if simply being accused of it will destroy your life .
Thats as good a deterrent as any legislation .
A lot of witches found that out , as did homosexuals .
If there is justice in the world these law enforcement officials will lose their jobs , but we are talking about Tennessee.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally the best way to evaluate a difficult problem in any field is to look at extremely similar events as well.
If you come to radically different conclusions on nearly identical issues your thought process is likely flawed.
So lets try another one...1.
)I know a douchebag.
Occasionally, after being in his presence, I imagine myself punching him.
I cant help it, primal rage at his douchebagginess forces these thoughts.2.
)In an attempt to relieve said rage, I photoshop a picture of me punching a punching-bag onto a picture of said douchebag, thereby making it look like I punched him.3.
)One day, I actually punch the douchebag in the face.Is number 2 assault?
Definitely no.
Are number 2 and 3 remotely equivalent?
I think most would argue no.
Would number 2 be enough to get a restraining order against me?
Probably.This doesn't seem to pass the sniff test, as a similar situation fails in equivalency.
If the parties involved feel threatened or defamed they have other private legal recourse.On a personal note, I think this is a bit creepy, and I might not want to hang around that guy.
I somewhat understand the prosecutors discomfort with whats being done here.
But thats no excuse for some zealot to bend moral equivalency to the breaking point.
I suspect those pushing this know darn well they are legally crippled, and are instead trying to spread fear by ruining this mans life with a high profile case.
After all, something doesn't have to be illegal (or even have to have taken place) if simply being accused of it will destroy your life.
Thats as good a deterrent as any legislation.
A lot of witches found that out, as did homosexuals.
If there is justice in the world these law enforcement officials will lose their jobs, but we are talking about Tennessee...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28481003</id>
	<title>Re:illeagle because its offensive?</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1246026240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, if I was a cop and saw a guy walking around a slum wearing gold chains, I absolutely would investigate him as a possible drug dealer (not arrest, investigate). The OP was right, these pictures would be the basis for investigating this guy for actual child pornography. It might even cross the line into being the basis for a search warrant to check his computer for child porn (although it is certainly a point that I can understand being the subject of serious discussion and argument). <br>
Sexual abuse of children is a serious crime. The authorities should not wait until they have clear evidence of such a crime to investigate. There was a case in Delaware a few years ago where a young woman went missing. She had been having an affair with a rich and powerful man. There was no evidence that he had done anything. There was no evidence that she had not just up and moved away. However, the police investigated. It turns out the guy had killed her and dumped her body at sea. If the police had waited for evidence that something criminal had happened, the man would still be a powerful member of the political establishment of the state of Delaware. Instead he is serving a life sentence with no chance of parole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , if I was a cop and saw a guy walking around a slum wearing gold chains , I absolutely would investigate him as a possible drug dealer ( not arrest , investigate ) .
The OP was right , these pictures would be the basis for investigating this guy for actual child pornography .
It might even cross the line into being the basis for a search warrant to check his computer for child porn ( although it is certainly a point that I can understand being the subject of serious discussion and argument ) .
Sexual abuse of children is a serious crime .
The authorities should not wait until they have clear evidence of such a crime to investigate .
There was a case in Delaware a few years ago where a young woman went missing .
She had been having an affair with a rich and powerful man .
There was no evidence that he had done anything .
There was no evidence that she had not just up and moved away .
However , the police investigated .
It turns out the guy had killed her and dumped her body at sea .
If the police had waited for evidence that something criminal had happened , the man would still be a powerful member of the political establishment of the state of Delaware .
Instead he is serving a life sentence with no chance of parole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, if I was a cop and saw a guy walking around a slum wearing gold chains, I absolutely would investigate him as a possible drug dealer (not arrest, investigate).
The OP was right, these pictures would be the basis for investigating this guy for actual child pornography.
It might even cross the line into being the basis for a search warrant to check his computer for child porn (although it is certainly a point that I can understand being the subject of serious discussion and argument).
Sexual abuse of children is a serious crime.
The authorities should not wait until they have clear evidence of such a crime to investigate.
There was a case in Delaware a few years ago where a young woman went missing.
She had been having an affair with a rich and powerful man.
There was no evidence that he had done anything.
There was no evidence that she had not just up and moved away.
However, the police investigated.
It turns out the guy had killed her and dumped her body at sea.
If the police had waited for evidence that something criminal had happened, the man would still be a powerful member of the political establishment of the state of Delaware.
Instead he is serving a life sentence with no chance of parole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474317</id>
	<title>Re:So if he takes the head of Goofy</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1245932160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Pastes it on the nude body of Nancy Pelosi.......</p><p>Wait a sec. I don't think I should go any further with this......."</p><p>DON'T STOP!<br>I'm not finished yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Pastes it on the nude body of Nancy Pelosi.......Wait a sec .
I do n't think I should go any further with this....... " DO N'T STOP ! I 'm not finished yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Pastes it on the nude body of Nancy Pelosi.......Wait a sec.
I don't think I should go any further with this......."DON'T STOP!I'm not finished yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28484051</id>
	<title>Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246036320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that the guy being hanged there appears to be black so now you're in violation of hate crime laws!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that the guy being hanged there appears to be black so now you 're in violation of hate crime laws !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that the guy being hanged there appears to be black so now you're in violation of hate crime laws!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480261</id>
	<title>Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT!</title>
	<author>PeeAitchPee</author>
	<datestamp>1246022340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like David Carradine to me.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like David Carradine to me .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like David Carradine to me.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28479589</id>
	<title>Re:the state is not required to prove the actual a</title>
	<author>testadicazzo</author>
	<datestamp>1246013880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That makes an interesting question for the cops prosecuting this case:  If the perp had taken a photograph of the 15 year old Buffy (played by the 21 year old SMG), and used her head shot on a nude model, would that be child porn?  What about if he pasted the 15 year old buffy onto a nude photo of the 21 year old SMG?  Creepy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That makes an interesting question for the cops prosecuting this case : If the perp had taken a photograph of the 15 year old Buffy ( played by the 21 year old SMG ) , and used her head shot on a nude model , would that be child porn ?
What about if he pasted the 15 year old buffy onto a nude photo of the 21 year old SMG ?
Creepy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That makes an interesting question for the cops prosecuting this case:  If the perp had taken a photograph of the 15 year old Buffy (played by the 21 year old SMG), and used her head shot on a nude model, would that be child porn?
What about if he pasted the 15 year old buffy onto a nude photo of the 21 year old SMG?
Creepy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480631</id>
	<title>Re:There is a 'harm' here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246024620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell is wrong with you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell is wrong with you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell is wrong with you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475013</id>
	<title>Re:So if he takes the head of Goofy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245934920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rule 34 FTL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rule 34 FTL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rule 34 FTL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473729</id>
	<title>Scary CNN Video</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245930060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The CNN video on the subject: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/06/25/jvm.miley.scare.cnn" title="cnn.com">http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/06/25/jvm.miley.scare.cnn</a> [cnn.com] shows not only the sensationalism of television, but people's willingness to ignore ideas of free speech to "protect the children".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The CNN video on the subject : http : //www.cnn.com/video/ # /video/bestoftv/2009/06/25/jvm.miley.scare.cnn [ cnn.com ] shows not only the sensationalism of television , but people 's willingness to ignore ideas of free speech to " protect the children " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CNN video on the subject: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/06/25/jvm.miley.scare.cnn [cnn.com] shows not only the sensationalism of television, but people's willingness to ignore ideas of free speech to "protect the children".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28484423</id>
	<title>Already Happened in Florida.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246037700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>John Stelmack, elementary school principal, found guilty of child porn for pasting pictures of students faces onto adult nude bodies. He faces up to 25 years at his sentencing July 25,2009.</p><p><a href="http://www.theledger.com/article/20090612/NEWS/906125074/1005/NEWS02?Title=Stelmack-Guilty-in-Porn-Trial" title="theledger.com" rel="nofollow">Read about it here.</a> [theledger.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>John Stelmack , elementary school principal , found guilty of child porn for pasting pictures of students faces onto adult nude bodies .
He faces up to 25 years at his sentencing July 25,2009.Read about it here .
[ theledger.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>John Stelmack, elementary school principal, found guilty of child porn for pasting pictures of students faces onto adult nude bodies.
He faces up to 25 years at his sentencing July 25,2009.Read about it here.
[theledger.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28481351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28485195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28478983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28478079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28481003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28478215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28481203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28511655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28482303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28478039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28483725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28479955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28495405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28479397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28487867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28482373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28489145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28484051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28481389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28482695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28478453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28482705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28479629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28484611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_25_229251_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28479589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473415
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474125
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28481389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473923
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473499
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28495405
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28479629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475775
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28484611
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28487867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28479589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473987
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28479397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477865
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28489145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28478215
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28478039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28485195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480415
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477657
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473981
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28479955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474305
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474157
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473901
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28482303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28481003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475179
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477117
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28482705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28481203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28478453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28482373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480207
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474769
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28475187
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_25_229251.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28482695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28473865
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28477071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28478983
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476823
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476413
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28484051
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28476859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28481351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28478079
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28511655
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28483725
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480755
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28474427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_25_229251.28480179
</commentlist>
</conversation>
