http://www.kcbs.com/KGO-Host-Indicted-on-Child-Porn-Charges/1296159

He is a former catholic priest. No big shocker about the child porn charges.

This guy is/was waaay out there but very entertaining. Sorry for the sake of KGO on this one--sort of right on the heels of Pete Wilson's death.

You guys are assuming he is guilty of the charges, shame on you, this is after all the USA.

From the link I provided:

Ward’s criminal attorney, Doran Weinberg, told KCBS that Ward was researching child pornography for a book three years ago. He said Ward's actions caught the attention of federal authorities then, but charges weren't filed until now.

“Even though their investigation has not uncovered any hint of involvement in child pornography by Bernie other than the accessing of these few images, they’ve none the less decided to proceed on the argument that he violated the law, whatever his purpose was,” said Weinberg.

You know how this country works, He is guilty until proven innocent.

You're only innocent until proven guilty in the legal system. In the court of public opinion, there are no such guarantees. If you're in a public position, you better keep your nose clean. Nobody's going to buy that you're "researching a book." Major screwup. Sorry for his family and colleagues at KGO.

If he gets off with this excuse, I guess any pedophile who wants an alibi can just say they're 'writing a book.'

Herb

And Herb wants to call himself a patriotic American? He doesn't believe in our Constitution or the principles on which our country was founded. What an idiot.

Didn't Pete Townshend use the same exuse a while back?

Two bits of experience on this. A decade ago in DC, a radio newsman was convicted of having child porn on his computer. He also used the 'doing a story' defense, but it was rejected.
On the other hand, one of my best friends is a former PDX cop who now consults on cyber crime. He has access to an entire library of kiddie porn. I wouldn't be surprised if some items are in his laptop's cache.
Who's guilty of what?
The jury's still out on Bernie.

"And Herb wants to call himself a patriotic American?"

Show where I'm not.

Herb

court of public opinion and judicialsystem courts are two differennt things,eoplethe news mediadoes thepublic opinion convictions all of the time.

a.k.a."the lion of the left"!!!

Sometimes that's the media's job. Nixon was never convicted of anything. Neither was Goldschmidt. Is there any doubt about the guilt of either? Can anyone disagree that the media played a vital role in hauling them before the court of public opinion?

Nixon was charged by the House Judiciary Committee under the Articles of Impeachment. Nixon was impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. It included four articles of impeachment to be sent to and examined by the U.S. Senate.

The Watergate Tapes, known as the "smoking gun" tape, was released on August 5, 1974, and revealed that Nixon authorized hush money to Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt, and also revealed that Nixon ordered the CIA to tell the FBI to stop investigating certain topics because of "the Bay of Pigs thing."

In light of his loss of political support and the near certainty of both his impeachment by the House of Representatives and his probable conviction by the Senate, he resigned on August 9, 1974. He never admitted to criminal wrongdoing, although he later conceded errors of judgment.


Goldschmidt has never been charged.

Nixon was never impeached, the house never held an impeachment vote!
Clinton was impeached by thte House, but the Senate voted not guilty.

Herbicide>>Show where I'm not.

Patriotism is much more the love of country. It also means love of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. You seem to be Nationalistic rather that Patriotic. You seem to not want to entertain the idea that he may be innocent of the crime or has extenuating circumstances. Bernie is a liberal, so to Herbicide he is automatically guilty. Believe me Herbicide, I would not be as uncharitable as you if Bernie were conservative Republican.

:..Nixon was impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors."

Nwokie beat me to it, but Mr. Nixon was never impeached.

Herbert Milhous

"Bernie is a liberal, so to Herbicide he is automatically guilty."

Don't lie about what I said. Read my post. I said:

'...IF he gets off with this excuse...any pedophile who wants an alibi can just say they're 'writing a book.'

Given the way case law works in this day of victimhood, that's exactly the defense pedophiles could use. I said nothing about the accused's guilt or innocence. The fact you resort to name-calling shows how few facts you have to work with.

Spin on.

Herb

Well it seems to me Herb, that Bernie Ward will have to do much more than just say he 'writing a book.' He will have to prove it in some way. For anyone to believe that the declaration,'writing a book' will get them off is just plain naive.

As for facts, I have at this moment very few. For all I know he might be as guilty as sin, but I am not willing to throw him under the bus, as you seem too.

Nixon resigned in disgrace to avoid impeachment. Spin that.

Nwokie beat me to it, but Mr. Nixon was never impeached.

But lived the rest of his natural life KNOWING that what he did was wrong. That was enough. And as Vit put it "Nixon resigned in disgrace to avoid impeachment."

What does Nixon have to do with Bernie Ward?

Take it to the other side, or better yet take it off the board completely, guys. Just because Nixon gets mentioned doesn't mean you have to come over here and hijack the thread to all-Nixon, as happens with so many threads on the politics side.

I'm not just talking to Herb either, but also a few others who can't keep the flaming and politics off the radio side of the board.

All I can say about Bernie is he'd better have a book written, or mostly written prior to a court date that contains the "research" in question.

Nixon was never impeached, but he was guilty as sin, and his loss of political support--in other words, his de facto conviction in the court of public opinion--and the resultant certainty that he would be impeached and convicted if he stayed--led to his resignation.

Goldschmidt was never charged because the statute of limitations ran out. But he, too, was guilty of what Nigel Jaquiss in WW reported.

(Clinton was impeached, but public opinion was strongly against his removal from office. His approval rating shortly after his acquittal in the Senate was over 70%--compared to the current occupant, who's in the low 30's.)

In both the Goldschmidt and Nixon cases, journalists exposed wrongdoing and led to a public demand for accountability. It's not a matter of right or left, it's a matter of right or wrong.

What I'm saying is that it's common to hear people complaining about the media depriving suspects of the right to a presumption of innocence, but there are times when they're getting what they deserve.

BTW there's a guy in Denver radio named Scott Cortelyou, a superior news guy, who was arrested for internet sexual exploitation of a minor. I think he's on probation. He didn't try the book defense, but it probably wouldn't fly for him, either.

>>but there are times when they're getting what they deserve.

Good point, and largely true, but many cases go the other way and big headlines of guilt are followed by a small article of innocence buried in the back of the newspaper. Speculation of Rick Nelson free-basing cocaine comes to mind. When the claims were unfounded there was little publicity about the conclusion of the case.

(Eastwood, my previous chiding was not aimed at you, but at a few of the Politics side regulars.)

Yep. Too true. Even when the headlines are about charges that are filed, and not about convictions, people aren't always discerning enough to realize the difference. Sometimes, though, the dropping of charges are as big a story as the original alleged crime--half of death row in Illinois, for example.

Back to Bernie: anyone notice on KGO last night--he was described as being "on vacation, returning next Wednesday?"

If he gets off with this excuse...
That's why there's such a thing as trials. Perhaps he can provide proof.
Please note that I'm not defending the action of him or the government or anyone else.

there was mention of this situationon philhendrie show last nigght

Has anyone ever been able to successfully use the "writing a book" defense? If found guilty, what kinds of penalties might Mr. Ward face?

Jeanette Boudreau, Ward's business attorney, said Ward described on his Web site as "unabashedly liberal" told her he wanted to show that some Republicans and members of the religious right are public moralists who don't practice what they preach in the privacy of their homes.


Boy isn't that the truth?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3980105&page=1

We need a talk show host to prove that point? After Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, that crossing-dressing legislator from Ridgefield, Mark Foley, and all the rest of those daytime moralists/nighttime party boys? Pretty weak.

The above link answers my question: doing research for journalistic or academic purposes is not a legally valid excuse for possession of these types of images. If convicted, Ward could face five years in prison.

Exactly. It sounds to me like he was seeking vigilante justice. As much as I would have liked him to catch those "public moralists", his defense of what he's accused of won't stand up in court because by definition his defense is an admission of guilt as the law currently stands.

The question now is, will people believe that he received and distributed the child porn because he was seeking vigilante justice, or will people believe he is a sick pervert lying through his teeth?

I don't think there are *any* excuses. A post or two above mentioned a cop doing work on child porn cases. He's actually at risk as a few others have gotten into trouble with the images!

Bet they have a procedure to handle that, but it's scary work, IMHO. Lots can (and does) happen.

Say he ends up not guilty. Think he's back to the same old same old again?

I suspect not, and that's rough all the way around. If it were me, I'm not sure I would use computers, connected to me personally without:

sharply limiting use to not that many things (keep it clean)

serious consulting to establish a very solid environment.

IMHO, the stiff law is warranted. Really, there just shouldn't be that many excuses. Profound ignorance maybe being one, but book research kind of rules that out, compared to grandma getting virus'ed up and running afoul of the law that way. This one does not look pretty.

I know this is probably uncouth, but who actually needs to research kiddie porn anyway? Following who, how, why can be done without actually consuming the porn, and if it can't, maybe direct testimony from those so convicted is a far better approach than to just go looking for something that is simply not permitted for any reason.

Given that, anybody doing that kind of research is just ASKING for trouble, double big time.

Does anybody know if that kind of activity can be cleared and witnessed? Maybe to establish a chain of custody for the images, such that they can be viewed, used for analysis, etc... without violating the law?

There have got to be some on file somewhere as evidence right? If so, then that's really the correct way to engage this topic, not fishing and hoping...

From what was said in the ABC News story linked above, if a journalist wants to "play it safe" when investigating child pornography, he or she must work under the supervision of the police. Viewing the child pornography is not against the law, but storing or transmitting it in any way is. Therefore, as stated in the ABC News story, police departments confiscate child pornographic material and store it for use as evidence. Attorneys and journalists may view the material at law enforcement facilities, but they are not allowed to take it out of those facilities or to make copies.

From the point of view of a journalistic investigation, I think that there would be value in researching how child pornography is created and distributed and to whom this stuff is appealing. However, the notion that a journalist would need to participate in the trading of child pornographic materials in order to conduct the research seems a very fishy to me. Wouldn't the people trafficking this stuff do whatever they could to conceal their identities, both because of legalities and social norms? How much useful information for a "expose of public moralists" could possibly be gained from conducting illicit activities with people hiding behind screen names?

>>>Missing_kskd
"IMHO, the stiff law is warranted."

For somebody who has been a steady consumer of this material or has a large collection, I completely agree. However, Bernie Ward is alleged to have transferred 3 photos. The minimum sentence for each photo is 5 years in the slammer - that means he could face 15 years in prison. That's cruel and unusual punishment in my view.

From the link above:

Though it is illegal even for journalists to trade or possess child pornography as part of their work, Ward's attorneys argue that there should be some leeway for legitimate research into the subject.

So Bernie was "researching a book," huh? How many times have we heard that excuse?

Well, Bernie...

1) Where's the book? (doesn't exist)
2) Who's your publisher? (doesn't exist)

Gotcha, Bernie. One less creep on the landscape.

I'm afraid I just can't go there. The law, as it stands right now, is totally defensible.

If one wants to research this subject, we've plenty of morbid evidence on file, and consumers of it in the slammer to interview.

The truth is, if we allow *any* leeway on this material, kids somewhere are harmed, period. That's the reason for the law as written. It is to address a known harm, linked to the images themselves.

Normally, I am all for very permissive expression. Most expression is not linked to a known harm, and on that basis alone, there exists a very strong case for light to no regulation. Our current level of regulation on most all expression forms reflects this nicely, as it should.

That's the democracy 101.

Kiddie porn is an interesting case in that if it exists in photographic form, some where, some how, a kid or kids suffered harm, period. That's really the entire justification for our current law.

That is setting aside the virtual kiddie porn, currently moving through the courts right now. (actually, some decisions may have been made --I've not looked at the cases for a while now.)

Virtual visual forms of this porn are not linked to a known harm, in that a photo does not require a kid be harmed to produce. Will be interesting to see how that one shakes out.

Anybody willing to push the first amendment issues, really are put to the test on virtual kiddie porn. Technically, it should be permitted as other expression forms are using known harm as a test, but it's morbid and could be seen to encourage that behavior --and is highly likely to encourage that behavior.

Normally, those things are not enough to suppress expression. Lots of case law to support that. However, we've near universal disdain for kiddie porn, and that might see things go down differently. IMHO, the near universal bias on this is more than enough to permit a pure moral play on the law that nobody will complain about, despite it being contrary to established legal tests. We will see.

Getting back to ordinary, real kiddie porn then, it's a very differentiated case! Where most forms of expression, no matter how uncouth they may be, end up being permitted on the basis of not being linked to known harm (among other things), kiddie porn is absolutely linked in this way and therefore cannot be directly compared to most all other controversial expression forms.

Ward's attorneys are taking the best stand they can, given the nature of the case, however it's a largely empty defense! There are legitimate avenues for research.

The problem is simply that we may find that Ward did not make use of them! If that is the case, he's in some big trouble, however noble his stated intentions may be.

This kind of thing is done fairly often to produce publications that are permitted, but difficult to produce within the established framework of law. At times, these publications are aimed at change to the law as well.

No matter the end result desired, violating the law is a means to an end, and as such carries significant risk. If, in fact, Ward took such a risk, perhaps he may be acquitted. However that shakes out, he still did take that risk, and remains subject to the law in effect at the time of said risk.

IMHO, that research defense could be enough to sway a jury, but it's a heavy burden! Nobody likes this stuff. That near universal bias puts anyone mixed up with the porn in a dark light.

In my mind, it's extremely difficult to get around the rather obvious question: "Why not consult the authorities and establish a chain of trust and supervision that insures the research is legimitate, given the very high risks involved?"

If he can get around that one, he's got a shot; otherwise, he's gonna see some time in the slammer.

>>Bleeding:
So Bernie was "researching a book," huh? How many times have we heard that excuse?

Well, Bernie...

1) Where's the book? (doesn't exist)
2) Who's your publisher? (doesn't exist)

Gotcha, Bernie. One less creep on the landscape.

Agreed here.

It does not look good, from where I stand. However, he's innocent until he's gone through his due process.

Major bummer too. In prison there is a class system in play. One might be in there for any number of things. What one did, or was convicted of doing, matters some, but the why one did it matters more!

People, locked up for kid abuse / harm offenses have a particularly hard time of it, because most criminals share our almost universal boundary around kids. Child molesters / abusers / murderers get singled out pretty huge.

IMHO, that's a very significant deterrent, above and beyond the sentence itself. This means those so convicted really do have some core problems and really are likely to have caused and continue to exhibit the potential to cause significant harm.