posted on April 10, 2004 06:35:21 PM new
I purchased some stamps from China and instead I received two porn books. It was borderline child pornography. It came registered and half opened.. I signed for it and as I was walking out of the post office and opened it and was shocked.
I took it back to the postal clerk and said I cannot accept these and they were not what I ordered. He said he would send them to the Postal Inspector.
When I got home, I emailed the seller and told him what happened and he just said it was an error and would send the stamps out right away.
He also asked me to forward the books to another address in the US. He has repeatedly asked me to do so in 3 subsequent emails. I repeated to him that the Postal Inspectors have possession of the items. I also told him that I was offended that he'd send child porn to me and that this is illegal in the US.
I worried about two things... 1.) negative feedback 2.) federal authorities..
posted on April 10, 2004 06:42:11 PM new
You did exactly the right thing. If you can find the auction for that item, you might want to contact eBay as well. You don't have to worry about the federal authorities. You turned the book in and it's not in your possession.
posted on April 10, 2004 06:49:39 PM new
Do a search of his listings. If he is selling child porn, report him to Ebay pronto. That will take care of the possible neg as they will NARU him. As far as the Feds go, they probably won't contact you but you should keep a screenprint of the auction and copies of all correspondence between you and him. Do you have the name and address of the person he wants you to forward it to?
A $75.00 solid state device will always blow first to protect a 25 cent fuse ~ Murphy's Law
posted on April 10, 2004 07:09:12 PM new
You definitely did the right thing here. If you paid with paypal, you can always dispute the charge since you did not get what you ordered.
posted on April 10, 2004 08:04:54 PM new
I would also give that name and address to your Postmaster and ask him to forward it to the Postal Inspectors. We don't need this type of buyers or sellers on Ebay, nor the publicity that follows if the press gets ahold of it, and the sooner they are both shut down, the better.
A $75.00 solid state device will always blow first to protect a 25 cent fuse ~ Murphy's Law
posted on April 10, 2004 08:46:41 PM new
My only question since that since child porn is rarely professionally bound into books, what are you defining as "borderline child porn"? Before you make peoples lives hell here you probably should clarify that one, especially since you no longer hav e the book and people here are reccomending that you go to the post office and report strangers as pedophiles.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 11, 2004 05:46:50 AM new
Wow, twelve, we agree again. I have nothing against porn. You should be free to view it as long as the subjects are over 18. What I do object to is pornographers making these women up to look under age. IMO, that just fuels the fire. Grown men who get their jollies off of children should be punished in the most horrific way possible. In this country, that would be considered cruel and unusual punishment. But, what do you call the abduction, rape and killing of a child?
eBay should be notified. I've had auctions pulled for less than this as I'm sure others have. If it's not child pornography, the seller has nothing to worry about. Child pornography is not a crime in some other countries. However, it is here.
posted on April 11, 2004 10:14:00 AM new
Have to agree with Fenix on this one. The OP said that he/she considered it "borderline porn." What exactly was it? And if you aren't certain, reporting people to the feds is not the way to go. Would you want someone to do that to you?
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on April 11, 2004 11:04:55 AM newShe did not say it was "borerline porn", but "borderline child porn". There's a huge difference between the two.
Really? I don't see it at all.
I think one has to be careful to adhere to the law, but not to let one's passions be inflamed by the "child" modifier. We have, after all, had overzealous photo processing clerks turn in parents for taking in-the-buff pictures of their toddlers in wading pools.
posted on April 11, 2004 11:34:09 AM new
robbiec- you said you purchased from a seller in China. You also said that it was boderline child porn
Well, its all pretty much irrelevant if the guy is in China.
Yes, its good that you turned it in to the P.O., but after that, how much Federal authorities can do to a guy in China.
Here:
Authorities in the U.S. and U.K. say they are closing the net on online pedophiles, but the crackdown stops at China's borders where a legal bind is making child porn permissible.
It can stop at our border, but the seller, most likely won't get in any trouble... I doubt he was selling it on ebay, doubt that very much, probably newsgroups or some website.
Now the original buyer, if in the U.S., probably could get in trouble for this, so you should give the emails with the original recepients address, to help them stop this, if this is child porn. Porn alone, with girls or rather women over 18 is legal, and though I don't care for it, some do, and its ok here, but NOT child porn. (still trying to figure out what borderline child porn would be, or rather not, don't think I want to think about it)
Have a good weekend, I had time right now, cuz the other half isn't even ready yet!
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on April 11, 2004 11:47:35 AM new
Cheryl: She did not say it was "borerline porn", but "borderline child porn". There's a huge difference between the two.
No, there's not. "borderline" indicates an uncertainty whatever type of porn it is.
These days people make the most amazing leaps in accounting something "child pornography." Some have been brought upon charges merely for taking pictures of their child in the bathtub or in diapers. Two children hugging each other is called "porn" by some people. Hey, that trainer pant commercial showing the toddler running nude through a party after ripping off his diaper--some folks would consider that "pornography."
I still say that siccing the Feds on someone for something you aren't even certain of isn't the way to go.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on April 11, 2004 01:45:14 PM new
Obviously an old group. God forbid anyone challenge your preconceptions. At this moment you have all had nothing to base your attitudes on except the doubtful and dicily chosen words of the OP. But since you agree to find this action repugnant, lets criminalize it. The tyranny of the majority over the minority is a much ballyhooed concept among the constipated.
Yes, I have a mother, a sister, a wife, two daughters, and a granddaughter. I fear for my freedom from the over-zealous law makers more than I fear for their abuse at the hands of those you seek to forsake.
posted on April 11, 2004 03:26:38 PM new
"The tyranny of the majority over the minority is a much ballyhooed concept among the constipated."
Yep...Ballyhooing is a tell-tale symptom of a constipated majority...On a still night, you can hear it for miles.
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them."- John Wayne/The Shootist"(from the novel by Glendon Swarthout)
posted on April 11, 2004 04:22:46 PM new
The OP decided not to take a chance and I don't see anything wrong with that. Where I live, we have had many child abductions. In fact, there is a 14 year old missing right now less than a mile from my home. I live two streets away from a convicted rapist. He spent 20 years in prison for raping 5 women. Three doors down is a man who was convicted for child rape. He raped a young boy. I'm surrounded by it and if my statements sound over-zealous, maybe they are for a reason. They may have served their time, but I don't feel better knowing they live so close to my 5 year old granddaughter.
Fluffy - glad to hear you prefer "kitty" porn.
Oh, and most people don't take pictures of their children naked and then have them published in a magazine and most producers of kiddie porn don't take them to a photo mat to be developed. I would, however, rather have people on alert than not alert at all. And, if that means some people go through hell because something was misinterpreted, I say better safe than sorry. What is more important, protecting our children or protecting the rights of those who wish to photograph their children in a bathtub? The answer seems rather obvious to me.
posted on April 11, 2004 04:30:53 PM new
::They investigate, not child porn... no problem... if it is... this person is stopped.
Why do you seem to be against investigating? ::
Because the report of recieving child poragraphy without an example and as a seperate case opens up the doors to a possible witch hunt that can destroy someones life.
The OP used the term "borderline" well, shouldn't there be some establishment of what they consider to be "borderline"? Or do you think that FBI investigations should be launched based on reports of "borderline" porn when the example is not accompanied?
People have lost their children and spent thousands trying to get them back because of a knee jerk reaction and yet not a single person here asked what the OP defined as borderline before reccomending that their name and address be given to the FBI?
Remember - There are people that consider Anne Geedes to be borderline child porn.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 11, 2004 04:37:59 PM new
Cheryl - are you going to feel the same if your granddaughter was taken into th custody of child protective services because of a couple swimming pond shots on one of your campping trips where she perhaps had no top? Would youe feel the same as your child is investigated and has to hire lawyers to protect herself and to regain custody of her child. You really feel that this is all OK because of a knee jerk reaction? Somehow I think we would see more than a couple ranting posts about the idiot purist clerk that turned your family in.
The fact remains - not a single person asked for the definition of borderline porn before reccommending that the intended recipent be turned in.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 11, 2004 04:41:51 PM new
I disagree fenix... they are paid to investigate, the OP, in my opinion did the right thing... Postal Inspectors are not FBI...
And they need all the information to conduct a fast and reasonable investigation... the original intended receipents address is part of that.
They get paid to do the investigating... not us...
In today's world not reporting suspicious behavior is inviting trouble.
I already said it is probably young asian girls who do look "child like" however I would rather see someone's life destroyed for ordering porn than to pass by this and then some young child pay the price... sorry if that bothers you but you know what they call that? Tough.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on April 11, 2004 05:01:26 PM new
Re-read the OP's first post. He merely returned it to the clerk at the Post Office. It was the clerk that made the decision to turn it over to the Postal Inspectors. Two people have seen it so far and feel that it wasn't quite right. The postal inspectors office is much more experienced at determining what is illegal than a Vendio poster. If they determine it's kiddie porn, they will in turn forward it to a U.S. attorney or the F.B.I. for review. Then, someone has to gather enough evidence to convince a Federal judge to issue a search warrent for the intended recipient. This person has more safeguards against frivoulous prosecution than a motorist in front of a traffic cop. If it does turn out to be kiddie porn, the OP did the right thing in getting it out of his possession as fast as possible. If it's not, it won't make it past the postal inspector.
A $75.00 solid state device will always blow first to protect a 25 cent fuse ~ Murphy's Law
posted on April 11, 2004 06:34:33 PM new
Sparx - you are right - the OP merely turned the book over to the postal clerk however you - having not seen the book in your second post stated that ebay did not need this type of seller or buyer and wants them both shut down have absolutely no information other than the words "borderline child porn" from someone you do not know and therefore annot judge the true meaning of.
This would be a good example of Knee Jerk Reaction
::He merely returned it to the clerk at the Post Office. It was the clerk that made the decision to turn it over to the Postal Inspectors. Two people have seen it so far and feel that it wasn't quite right.::
This is also an assumption - While it could be that the cllerk was also offended for all we know they could have walked in the back with a "you are not going to believe this one" roll of the eyes.
Don't get me wrong - I am not defending child pornography - I am saying that before everyone here passes judgement and encourages this person to be locked up, kicked off ebay and so forth wouldn't it make at least a little sense to clarify the OP's definition?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Apr 11, 2004 06:36 PM ]
posted on April 11, 2004 06:49:55 PM new
Fenix...It would not make the least bit of sense to ask the OP to clarify or to describe what was in that book. He saw it. The postal clerk saw it. It is not the OP's responsibility to define "borderline" "under the border" or "over the border". That is the responsibility of the postal inspectors. They are very well versed in the law as it pertains to child pornography. That is what they get paid to do. Robiec doesn't. He did the right thing by taking a suspicious item and reporting it. It's now in the hands of those who are paid to handle these matters. No different than reporting a suspicious person or vehicle in your neighborhood at night. If you see a stranger carrying a stereo out of your neighbor's house when he's gone, are you going to ignore it? Unfortunately, many people would. I wouldn't. I'd not hesitate to call the police. If the guy had a right to remove that stereo, it would be a routine incident that would soon be forgotten. If not, bingo, you've got a burglar off the street.
A $75.00 solid state device will always blow first to protect a 25 cent fuse ~ Murphy's Law
posted on April 11, 2004 08:44:12 PM new
This is really going right over your head isn't it. I did not say that the OP did anything wrong. I said that the judgements made on this board - such as your that the seller and buyer should be kicked of ebay and others that the FBI and postal inspector should be informed of the intended recipients address were knee jerk reaction made by people with only the vaguest piece of information with no request whatsoever for clarification or definition.
What I am trying to say is that before giving someone advice on how to go about destroying a persons life and reputation as we all know that even the vaguest hint of pedophilia can do, perhaps you should ask for clarification.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 12, 2004 03:13:28 AM new
knee jerk reaction?
Not hardly, but then again I believe in letting those we pay do their jobs... it is after all Postal Inspectors jobs to investigate suspect items in the mail.
In order to do that they need ALL the information... why do you not approve of letting the people we pay do thier jobs?
You're way off track with your statment... vigilence is now the way, like it or not fenix.
posted on April 12, 2004 05:14:37 AM newCheryl - are you going to feel the same if your granddaughter was taken into th custody of child protective services because of a couple swimming pond shots on one of your campping trips where she perhaps had no top?
First off, we have taken photos of her in the tub and crawling around naked when she was an infant. Cases of over-zealous photo clerks are rare. It is media hype that makes it appear as though every clerk out there is reporting photos taken by parents. An astute clerk can tell the difference between photos taken by a parent for posterity and those taken by a child pornographer. Like I said, it's very rare that a pornographer takes his photos into CVS for processing.
Secondly, to put it another way, how would I feel if a strange man was taking photos of my granddaughter and a neighbor did not report it because he didn't want her to be taken away from us and put into protective custody? I'd be absolutely outraged. Our home was once robbed under the protective eyes of our neighbors.
Maybe what the OP got was not child porn. The clerk made the decision to take it to the inspector general not the OP. These people don't have time to play around with false accusations. Our courts don't have time for it either. These pictures will be scrutinized before any action is taken.
In these days post 9/11, we are being told to report things that seem not quite right. We're all a bit more on the alert for everything seemingly not right. Perhaps pre-9/11 this might not have been much of an issue. What if the OP did forward the book to the rightful bidder and it turned out to be illegal porn? That would have put the OP right smack in the middle of a mess.
