Dr. Nicolas Dubin Caught by the FBI

Post Reply New Topic

How can we be sure?

But why would they chase after a pissant like dr porno? They have bigger fish to fry.

I think this is very true - there appear to be adults who are attracted to niche abuse material, and collect vast amounts of it, who are not themselves inclined to perform the abuse (and be sure, this is child sexual abuse material, the terms "child porn" or "kiddie porn" are almost friendly normalisations of grotesque behaviour). I would like to see some analysis of the adults who were caught up and prosecuted for child sexual abuse material (like operations Wonderland or Amethyst) but who did not have a history of paedophile offences. So perhaps he is not a paedophile abuser or risk to children in his care, but it is not a risk I would wish to take. In either case, using and distributing child sexual abuse imagery is both taking pleasure from and inciting the real abuse of children.

Much more worrying is the people rushing to defend him, like Phil Gluyas ("It’s likely that he downloaded the material found in order to further understand the bullying aspect that is associated with paedophilia. Pre-judging a person’s motives like the news services are is not smart. Of course, doing something illegal is not smart either, and pending the actual contents of the criminal process – I will be reviewing the GMP award."), without any feeling for the severity of the life-destroying experience of being sexually abused as a child.

My concern is how some people here seem to defend the viewers of child porn whether they paid for it or got for free they still sought out videos containing unlawfull sexual acts preformed on a child which is adhorent and disgusting. Makes you think what is on the defenders' computers.

I totally agree with you.

Are you taking the piss? Seriously. If he enjoys watching films of children having sex with an adult he is predisposed to having a sexual intrest in children. The man works with children who would be more at risk to be molested. Hell, bullies can not wait to make us victims why not child molesters autistics would be easier targets than NTs? I am sorry that you are incapable of seeing this. I guess not all Aspies think with a logical mind.

I think you're misunderstanding the term. "Child pornography" refers to pornographic material featuring children in sexual situations, aimed at an adult audience. It has nothing to do with people under 18 viewing mainstream pornographic material. The children in this situation are unwilling participants who are being shown exposed, exploited and sometimes raped by adults for the viewing pleasure of other adults.

I think you should stop attacking other members. If anything, you're the one acting emotionally which is clearly obvious from your responses -- rather than logically. Logically, I don't see how the viewing of pornography that isn't being payed for is furthering more child abuse because the person obtaining it isn't funding the provider of it. It would already be there in the first place.

I would certainly be less inclined to have this person working with children but to jump to the conclusion that someone is going to be molesting people or practicing what they watch isn't a good conclusion.

So you would let someone covicted of possessing child porn work alone around children especially when they will be the lone supervisor? So free child porn is good porn your really OK with that? If the guy does not pay for the child porn on his computer he is better then a person who paid for the child porn? He still searched it out for the intent to view a child having sex and willfully put it on his computer are you OK with this also? Please answer. Why am I the villian when you make excuses for pedophiles possessing child porn as long as they do not pay for it? This is not an attack its a simple clarification of your views.

Its sad you have to explain this to her. No one is this naive. I wonder how many autistic children he might of molested? What a freaking nightmare.

I am going to show this thread to my psychologists next Tuesday to see what he thinks. If he says I am wrong than I will apologize. But you know what this is so cut and dry sick I know I will not have apalogize to anyone.

It's not the viewing leading to crime that is the crime, otherwise that would be a thought crime, but that the person is helping the distribution and aiding the production of child pornography.

Possessing free child pornography is not a serious crime to me because it doesn´t imply the person is helping fund anybody producing child pornography and it also doesn´t imply that the person is molesting anybody. I'm not supporting child molesters. Something "better" than something else really doesn't have anything to do with it either. It's not better. It's just not funding or supporting child molesters that I can logically see.

Of course I know what child pornography is. I was comparing it to someone underage viewing pornography to demonstrate the fact that just because it is illegal doesn't mean they're going to practice what they saw on other individuals.

And I believe you making comments like "Its sad you have to explain this to her... no one is this naive" are attacks, and are also false. You're reacting emotionally. And that is all I'm going to say, because it is pointless to discuss a topic when people react emotionally to sensitive topics rather than looking at them logically (and also when they imply things that aren't there -- comments like "I wonder how many autistic children he might of molested? What a freaking nightmare. " because there was no evidence that I'm aware of that suggests he molested anyone)

You know what if you were caught with child porn on your computer you would get in trouble regardless if you paid for it. The majority of convicted child molesters had some form of child porn at home or made attempts to locate it. Does it really matter if they have a conviction for molesting a child they might have not gotten caught yet? There are different stages a child molester will go thru the first one is seeking out child porn. Its better to catch a potential child molester at the stage they are viewing or seeking out child porn before they get the urge to step up their sexual intrest in children by actually molesting a child. Its a good thing to catch them viewing or possessing child porn so they could get help in jail to prevent further victims before they happen. At least the authorities can get them on a sex offender list so parents can keep an eye out for them.

Buryuntime could you please answer these question I put forth.

Fortunately, law makers and law enforcers believe that the depiction of sexual abuse of children is a serious crime, whether actual abuse, simulated or hand-drawn cartoons. There is no first amendment protection either. An adult who is attracted to imagery of children being abused must be assumed to be a danger to children, which is presumably the end of this man's career.

Whether child abuse imagery is free or purchased is irrelevant.

It said on the article that he was also distributing child pornography and possibly involved in the production of it as well. It's fair enough to suspect that someone so involved in child pornography might be a danger to children. And while I understand that viewing pornography doesn't automatically make you a rapist, the fact that someone is seeking sexual gratification from the suffering and exploitation of children obviously should be kept away from people in general (especially vulnerable people....like children!).

Child pornography is a totally different thing to the pornography that you can view legally. Child pornography is not fantasy and the participants have been manipulated and abused and forced into what they are doing (or what is happening to them). Would you condone the viewing of a snuff film? Normal, legal pornography is all fantasy and the participants are willing, old enough to participate and physically/mentally mature enough to make their own decisions. They are not allowed to show actual torture or rape (or even implied torture or rape in some cases). I would know - I look at the BBFC's website all the time. And, hey - I know every country is different, but I would imagine they have a similar criteria.

Honestly, get your head checked.

Well, viewing porn isn't the same as bonking a child (or whatever else they get up to), but it's enough to flag the viewer as a potential danger. Apart from very rare circumstances, it's fairly valid to assume that the viewer gets off on the idea of child sex, and folks feel safer if such people are behind bars. Not exactly fair to punish somebody who hasn't done any "real" harm, and I'm sure some of them would remain harmless, but given the severity of the damage some pedophiles do, I think it's wise to play it safe and take them out of the game. It's not so much the viewing of the material, it's what it suggests about the person's sexual orientation. Pedophilia does NOT confine itself to consenting adults.

actually, the "hand-drawn cartoons" thing is not illegal, so long as it's not based on an actual child. it's just looked down upon.
just saying...

Pornography involving sexual assault of adults is quite common, there is a lot of it around and it isn't illegal because the depictions involve actors. It still proves that they are aroused by the thought of assault or of being assaulted, as are the many, many people into sado-masochistic fantasies. Do we have to make a new law that everyone who views pornography depicting sexual assault of adults, or who gets involved in S&M must be imprisoned as well because of what it reveals about which ideas sexually arouse them? If they're aroused by the idea, there's always a chance they'll act on it, so do we have to punish them just in case?

Yes that is indeed grossly unfair thinking. I'm sure people aren't queuing up in the world to be born paedophiles (ie people who are attracted to children, this is not synonymous with child molesters), there's nothing in it for them. Why not just lock up everyone with a contagious disease in prison instead of hospital, all the time we're thinking about what's the most convenient solution for the more fortunate majority, just to 'play it safe', instead of about what's fair?

By that same logic if there were a biological test at birth for neurological wiring that in the future would produce paedophilic attraction, we should put them in prison as children just to make sure they pose no threat. Not a hospital or other safe haven, just a prison, even though they've done nothing wrong.