Talk:Dwight Whorley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

It should also be added that the reason he was put in jail was NOT because he was looking at Japanese Lolicon images, which are legal, but because he was ALSO on probation for having REAL child porn. That is what got him in trouble, he wasn't supposed to have ANY sexually explicit material period. --Christopher1 17:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's true, that should be added to the article immediately. As it is, it seems that the guy was convicted basically for thought-crime. (Not that I wouldn't put that past America today, but one would hope that he really didn't get put in jail for looking at images that hurt nobody. After all, it's far better than the alternative - real images or real children - right?) zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs forums. It is getting all too newspeak here, chilling...

I have a question. The FBI link provided as source number two seems to indicate quite plainly that Mr. Whorley was arrested for having the lolicon. It says: "Because of a 2003 federal obscenity law, that’s illegal. The law, designed to help protect children from sexual exploitation, makes it a federal crime to produce or distribute obscene drawings, cartoons, paintings, or any other visual representations involving the sexual abuse of children."(http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march06/obscenity031006.htm) Doesn't this mean that lolicon is now illegal? --Noknokcpu 00:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

This article as it stands is confusinug, potentially contradictory, and seriously POV. The article should describe his conviction and the charges against him separately from the question of whether the law is legitimate. A Wikipedia article should never make unsupported claims that a version of events is "misleading". Who is doing the misleading? Why? That problem can be addressed with appropriate external citations. --Dhartung | Talk 10:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)