Author Topic: Score 1 for, umm, justice I guess (Read 1688 times)

SOB · « **on:** December 22, 2003, 04:04:23 PM »

http://www.avnonline.com/issues/200312/newsarchive/news_122003_1.shtml

Quote

December 20, 2003

BECKLEY, W.Va. - On Friday a federal judge sentenced the people behind an adult Website that sold defecation and urination videos and DVDs to jail terms, ending one of the first federal obscenity cases involving the Internet.

Michael J Corbett and his ex-wife Sharon Bates, who were married when running the site in question, had pled guilty to one count each of mailing obscene material in August.

The Associated Press reports that U.S. District Judge David Faber on Friday sentenced Corbett to 18 months in prison, a $30,000 fine and three years of supervised release. Bates was sentenced to 13 months in prison, a $10,000 fine and three years of probation.

The couple had run the Website GirlsPooping.com, where they sold titles such as Outdoor Pooping Paradise, which showed ten women defecating outdoors, and an enema tape called Simone’s Daddy’s Little Girl.

The Corbett’s had earned $70,000 in three months, shipping out six to 30 orders a day through the U.S. mail. GirlsPooping.com offered 53 titles.

United States Postal Service Inspectors were responsible for investigating Girlspooping.com, starting in January of this year. By March, they had enough information to obtain an indictment from a federal grand jury against everyone involved with the site.

Faber also sentenced the Webmasters for the site, Joseph Tanner and Randall Rogers, who maintained the site through their company Tdigital Services, Inc. The company shared in the profits of the Website.

Tanner will spend 13 months in prison and pay a $20,000 fine, while Rogers was sentenced to three years' probation.

Each of the charges could have led to five years in prison and fines up to $250,000.

According to the Associated Press, Faber cited both Rogers' minor role in the crime and a physical condition that confines him to a wheelchair as reasons for his lesser sentence.

Tanner and Rogers each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to mail obscene material and conspiracy to use the Internet for the purpose of sale and distribution of obscene material.

The Corbett and Bates had previously forfeited $15,010 seized from their bank accounts, the domain name associated with their website, and all obscene materials and equipment used to produce or manufacture obscene materials. They also agreed to pay the United States $60,000 in lieu of forfeiting their home, which was used in the sale of obscene materials.

Joseph Tanner forfeited $80,000 and all obscene materials and equipment used to produce obscene materials.

Thank jebus. If they weren't prosecuted, just think of all the people that would continue to not be harmed by this in any way. Money well spent, now lets go after the mainstream porn distributors, followed by Playboy...and frankly, Cosmo's covers are getting kinda kinky.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 22, 2003, 04:05:01 PM »

Your tax dollars at work...

midnight Target · « **Reply #2 on:** December 22, 2003, 04:08:24 PM »

It all started with the Ashcroft breast coverup.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 22, 2003, 04:10:03 PM »

DETH TO GREAT SHAITAN BOOSH!!!

Ripsnort · « **Reply #4 on:** December 22, 2003, 04:30:28 PM »

Fake sites set to trap pedophiles in international sting

Yep, tax dollars at work! ^^^

Nakhui · « **Reply #5 on:** December 22, 2003, 04:31:03 PM »

If there weren't buyers... there wouldn't be sellers.
As long as they pay their taxes - who cares.

SOB · « **Reply #6 on:** December 22, 2003, 04:41:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Fake sites set to trap pedophiles in international sting
Yep, tax dollars at work! ^^^

Not related to the subject of this thread, but that IS a good use for our tax dollars.

midnight Target · « **Reply #7 on:** December 22, 2003, 05:08:32 PM »

So.... (this is gonna be popular)....... if it's OK to entrap pedophiles, is it OK to entrap drug users? I mean... leave a joint lying on the sidewalk and arrest whoever picks it up? Or how about bank robbers... leave a few hundred laying on the counter?

Is this a slippery slope? Does anyone care?

After typing all that I decided I don't.... fry 'em.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 22, 2003, 05:11:41 PM »

I'm still trying to figure out how looking at images can be considered criminal.

Wlfgng · « **Reply #9 on:** December 22, 2003, 05:15:08 PM »

it HAS to be a crime to look at Michael Jackson..
please tell me it is.. please

Sixpence · « **Reply #10 on:** December 22, 2003, 05:40:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
I'm still trying to figure out how looking at images can be considered criminal.

Ask Pete Townsend

mrblack · « **Reply #11 on:** December 22, 2003, 05:59:37 PM »

What a bunch of CRAP:eek:

Gunslinger · « **Reply #12 on:** December 22, 2003, 06:11:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
So.... (this is gonna be popular)....... if it's OK to entrap pedophiles, is it OK to entrap drug users? I mean... leave a joint lying on the sidewalk and arrest whoever picks it up? Or how about bank robbers... leave a few hundred laying on the counter?

Is this a slippery slope? Does anyone care?

After typing all that I decided I don't.... fry 'em.

MT it wouldnt be entrapment if the website let the user know there information posted on the site is illeagel

Quote

Visitors to the site will be alerted that they are breaking the law and that their details could be circulated to law enforcement officers in a host of countries.

Sandman · « **Reply #13 on:** December 22, 2003, 06:40:33 PM »

What are the odds of this being thrown out on a first amendment appeal?

Lizking · « **Reply #14 on:** December 22, 2003, 06:57:28 PM »

Why would you appeal when you plead guilty?

Author Topic: Score 1 for, umm, justice I guess (Read 1688 times)

Nakhui