Welcome..... Wissup??


Copyright (c) 2009 Ginny Maziarka. All rights reserved.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Jackson man tries to lure child with internet porn

So let's see. It is not okay for a 14-year-old child to view sexually explicit material, but it is okay for the same said child to view it at the library. Because the ALA says so. Got it.

West Bend - A 21-year-old Jackson man has been charged with trying to get what he thought was a 14-year-old girl to view sexual activity over the Internet.

According to a criminal complaint, Brent W. Wallace contacted a Door County Sheriff's Department investigator posing as the girl in an online chat room and sent sexually explicit video and messages to her. He also asked her to mail him a sexually explicit video of herself to him.
On Monday, Jackson police and a postal inspector executed a search warrant and seized computer equipment and a camera and took Wallace into custody and charged him on Wednesday.

Wallace is free on a $2,500 signature bond. A condition of bail is that he not use a computer.
If convicted, Wallace could be imprisoned up to three years. He is next due in court June 3.


Mike said...

Could you possibly reach any further to make your point than you just did? My god, there is no child involved here. The connection between your crusade and this article is non-existent.

West Bend Citizen Advocate said...

Ah, Mike... I did not have to reach. It just fell onto the page.

Dylan said...

I, too, don't find the correlation between actively exposing a child to pornography of yourself for purpose of self-stimulation and gratification and passively placing books on a shelf where it could possibly be reached by a child?

Parental supervision is a necessity both online and in the library, I believe and both incidents could be avoided by parental accompaniment. That being said I know very few parents that wouldn't trust a 14-year old on the internet alone, so in that case it's probably the fault of the child for allowing the situation to get that far. However, the parents are responsible to for failing to educate their child on internet safety. The man had malicious intent though, and as the saying goes "intent is 9/10ths of the law".

Could you elaborate on how this incident relates specifically to explicit materials being available via a library?

DollB said...

C'mon now, the correlation is this: This person was trying to get a 14-year-old girl to view sexually explicit material, and he was arrested for that because it's illegal for a 14-year-old to view such content... so how come it's not against the law to have sexually explicit books available to that same 14-year-old right in our library? There is a direct correlation there! Sexually explicit materials are against the law for anyone under 18, and books with this same questionable content are readily available in the YA section of the library.

Anonymous said...

Sexually explicit materials are against the law for anyone under 18, and books with this same questionable content are readily available in the YA section of the library.SOME sexually explicit materials are against the law for people under 18. However, an eight-year-old can walk into Barnes and Noble and buy a Harlequin romance novel, no problem. The books in question are no more explicit than the average romance novel or grocery store magazine. The content in home-made pornographic videos is NOT the same thing at all. The library doesn't rent out pornographic videos, which is what's at issue here.

Does that mean I think eight-year-olds should be reading Danielle Steele? Of course not. I just think that in the bookstore, as in the grocery store, as in the library, parents need to monitor their children. There is nothing criminal about a kid reading about puberty - it just may not be in their best interest, and no one is capable of determining that except the child's parent.