Famous actors in child porn scandal

unclehobart

New Member
Actors Charged in Child Pornography Investigation

By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Comedian Paul Reubens (news), best known as children's television favorite "Pee-wee Herman," and veteran character actor Jeffrey Jones were charged Friday in related child pornography cases, prosecutors said.

Reubens, whose career was nearly derailed in 1991 by a lewd conduct scandal, faces a misdemeanor count of possessing child pornography stemming from a search of his home by police in November 2001, a spokesman for the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office said.

Jones, an acquaintance of Reubens who played a malevolent Puritan in "The Crucible" and a school principal in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," was charged with a felony count of using a minor for sex acts and misdemeanor possession of child pornography.

The felony count relates to allegations he hired a 14-year-old boy to pose for sexually explicit photographs between September 2000 and May of last year, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.

Spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said the charges do not involve any sex act being performed or any video or film being taken.

Charges against the performers grew out of searches conducted by police at their homes in related investigations. While prosecutors declined to specify how the two cases were linked, a spokeswoman for Reubens said the probes resulted from accusations made by a teenager against both men.

Reubens' attorney, Blair Berk, said the charge against the comedian were untrue. The charge carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail and $2,500 fine.

HANDFUL OF IMAGES

At issue in Reubens' case were a "handful of images" from "an extensive collection of vintage physique art photography" seized at his home by police, a spokeswoman for Reubens told Reuters. Berk said Reubens was unaware that the collection contained anything improper.

Jones' attorney, Jeff Brodey, could not immediately be reached for comment, but he was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying the charges against his client involve only pictures, not physical contact. "This is all about photos. There's not allegations of any touching or any improper acts with a minor," Brodey told the Times, adding that Jones "is a very decent guy, and his life shouldn't be ruined."

Jones, 55, surrendered to authorities on Thursday and was released on $20,000 bail. If convicted, he faces up to three years in prison and would have to register for life as a sex offender.

The district attorney declined to file any charges against Reubens but his spokeswoman said the City Attorney's Office waited until the last day possible under the statute of limitations to bring its misdemeanor case.

Officials said Reubens allegedly took photographs of the same boy as Jones, but prosecutors declined to bring charges against him because his photos were not found to be sexually explicit.

Reubens, best known for his nerdy, man-child Pee-wee Herman persona, had his career nearly destroyed in 1991 when he was arrested for allegedly masturbating in an adult movie theater. But he gradually has made a comeback with various offbeat character roles for television and film.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=638&ncid=762&e=1&u=/nm/20021116/en_nm/crime_porn_dc
 
I really thought Jones was funny as hell in that Ferris Bueller movie. Makes me sad to think it. :(
 
Even murderers need people to look down on. It's just a safe bet not to have any questionable material at all.
 
Art is not pornography. There is a distinct difference. What's wrong with questionable material? And, more importantly, who's questiopning it?
 
All i'm saying is that ultimately, if you might end up going to jail and having to register as a sex offender then fine lines make no difference. Besides, we're talking about peewee here, do you actually think he was admiring fine art?
 
I want to know why two grown men were taking pictures of a boy?
 
Robert Mapelthorpe's photography is on display at the Guggenheim on 5th Avenue in NYC. Saw it a few weeks ago... I didn't look at it as porn but they weren't pictures of 14 year old boys either. Stories like this make me sick to my stomach.
 
ihcra said:
what's wrong with child porography?

objective answers only please
Well, if you can't answer that for yourself... :rolleyes:

To me, hmm... Kids under a certain age do not have the mental capacity or maturity level to decide if they want to engage in sexual activity or not. They pretty much follow the adult and never give consent to any type of sexual activity. Later when they mature, they might be sorry about it and regret everything they have done. To avoid that, don't let adults molest children that are not old enough to decide for themselves.

Now to come back to kiddie porn, well, that shows non-consentual sex which I think is bad.
 
It goes like this...

Art...................Black and white photos done in tasteful poses that do not arouse sexually

Pornography.....Color photos usually found in Penthouse, Hustler, et al...
 
LastLegionary said:
Well, if you can't answer that for yourself... :rolleyes:

nice of you to imagine that i cant - i asked you!

to which you responded:
LastLegionary said:
To me, hmm... Kids under a certain age do not have the mental capacity or maturity level to decide if they want to engage in sexual activity or not.

what age?

LastLegionary said:
They pretty much follow the adult and never give consent to any type of sexual activity. Later when they mature, they might be sorry about it and regret everything they have done. To avoid that, don't let adults molest children that are not old enough to decide for themselves.

without repeating myself about your defining THE age at which maturity occurs may i offer some thought?

in summary you suggest that anything that YOU consider might be wrong for someone else then YOU see fit to remove them from that risk. interestingly the soviet system removed children from the homes of the parents because they did not see that the family was a suitable environment to bring up children.

its a matter of where lines of drawn of course, as always, hence i posed the original question

i await patiently for an elaboration from yourself
 
So kiddie porn that shows concentual sex is good?



EDIT: You editted your post. My reply was regarding the last line of your post where you wrote that kiddie porn with non-consentual sex is bad.
 
Last Legionary said:
EDIT: You editted your post. My reply was regarding the last line of your post where you wrote that kiddie porn with non-consentual sex is bad.

which in itself was a remnant from me quoting you - i apologise
 
ah ok. I'm not going to argue, suffice to say that if any stranger "plays" with my kids he will get shot and I would be prepared to take the rap for it.
 
Last Legionary said:
ah ok. I'm not going to argue, suffice to say that if any stranger "plays" with my kids he will get shot and I would be prepared to take the rap for it.

really - not even defending yourself in court

how noble

and how much better for your children should they feel any distress about the event that they then witness their own father shoot and kill another man and then their father be for evermore be taken away from them.

its a crude form of counselling but if that is the way of righteuous justice so be it
 
Dude, don't go there. I did not say I would shoot him in front of kids. You're putting words where there aren't words. And yes, I would defend myself in courts, but the nature of our laws these days would rather see a child molester have free reign than someone kill that sicko.

Now why do you defend pedophelia like that? I mean, its just sick.
 
Last Legionary said:
Dude, don't go there. I did not say I would shoot him in front of kids.

ok i'll amend it

"and how much better for your children should they feel any distress about the event that they then witness their own father evermore be taken away from them for shooting and killing another man."

better?

Last Legionary said:
And yes, I would defend myself in courts

that's surprising - difficult to do when it would be a premeditated openly admitted desire to murder someone isnt it? i'd be very interested to hear you line of defence

Last Legionary said:
but the nature of our laws these days would rather see a child molester have free reign than someone kill that sicko.

good to see though you would expect no to win and blame that on others - good call - wouldnt want to lose face in sight of your kids now

Last Legionary said:
Now why do you defend pedophelia like that?

pray point that defence out to me that i have made? i have made no assertion in either diretion enither have i declared an interest in neutrality. to pose a question may be directly and honestly to canvas for answers - its politicians and journolists who ask questions with no desire to hear the answer - for the time being i am neither

Last Legionary said:
I mean, its just sick.

well reasoned

still wondering - what age did you say was the absolute and definitive point of maturity?
 
Back
Top