“A 34-year-old man who sent an indecent image of the hotel heiress Paris Hilton over his mobile phone to a 13-year-old boy has been placed on the sex offenders register. Pictures of Paris Hilton have been circulating over mobile networks across the world since the beginning of the year, after her T-Mobile account in the US was hacked into. The man’s actions were described at Selkirk Sheriff Court in Scotland as more ’stupidity rather than any malice’. The offence came to light after the boy’s family complained to the police. The man was found guilty of using lewd and libidinous behaviour towards the child, and had his sentence deferred for nine months. Sheriff Kevin Drummond said, ‘You have engaged in bringing the culture of the building site and workplace into a private home, and now recognise it was a serious lack of judgment.’ The sheriff told the man that he would be admonished if he was of good behaviour for the next nine months. His name will remain on the sex offenders register until then.” —Computer Weekly (US)

Unfortunately, very little information about this case has made its way into the press. This story did not even give the perp’s name. One other story did identify the perp, but his name is so common that googling it doesn’t accomplish much. You’re just left with a bunch of unanswered questions: What prior relationship (if any) did this perp have with the boy or his family? What motivated the guy to share this video with a thirteen-year-old? Was it a simple case of indiscretion or poor judgement? After all, it’s not unheard of for older men to sometimes take a benevolent attitude toward the prurient interests of youths. A guy is not necessarily a pedophile if he gives a teen a pornographic magazine or lectures him on the importance of condoms. Maybe this was an episode like that. The teen was curious about the Hilton video (which is rather tame, after all). The older man thought it wouldn’t be a big deal to forward him a still from it. End of story.

Or is it? If you look closely at the story, one thing stands out: the fact that the boy’s family notified the police. This suggests that they didn’t quite trust the motives of the perp. Think about it. Suppose a colleague or a neighbor gave your thirteen-year-old kid a can of beer at a party. You disapprove. What do you do? Do you go to the police? Or do you approach the guy and say, “Hey, that’s not cool. My kid’s growing up fast enough without any help from you. Don’t do it again.” You’d think that, in most cases, you would take the latter approach — unless you had reason to be suspicious of the guy anyway. If he was habitually plying kids with alcohol, you might be leery of his motives. And a similar line of reasoning pertains to this case. The very fact that the parents called the police suggest that there might be more to this story than anyone is reporting…

VideoBox

It's like the iTunes Music Store for Porn. Download unlimited high-quality video for only $9.95/month.