Talk:Dwight Whorley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Reason 2 Rewrite 3 Picture 4 Additional Info From FOIA Document 5 Prisoner contact

[edit] Reason

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)

That is not true, Christopher1. Whorley was convicted, among other things, under 1466A(a)(1) independently of violating his parole, on 20 counts of accessing Miller Test obscene Japanese cartoons depicting fictional minors engaging in sexually explicit behavior. You might not agree with this law or its interpretation, but he was indeed convicted for possessing Miller Test obscene "lolicon". Please read the FOIA-requested document I discovered further down if you doubt this. The DOJ document write for government prosecutors enthusiastically documents this precedent and recommends it be used in the future for prosecution of possession of these materials. If you possession Miller Test obscene "lolicon" material, you are in violation of this federal law, and if caught and convicted, would face a minimum of 5 years in prison. This is not something you should screw around with. Under 1466A, unless the Whorley precedent is overturned, possessing Miller Test obscene "lolicon" is as serious an offense as possessing actual child pornography. dircha 02:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

People having sex or being naked in the first place shouldn't be obscene at all. That's how we all are naturally. But by now we have to hide what we look like and what we say and look at, and eventually even our thoughts. In the words of Ronald Reagen, Government is in place to protect us from each other but where government has gone beyond its limits is deciding to protect us from ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.164.146 (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2008 (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)

[edit] Picture

That's not Mr. Whorley. That's an incredibly sexy man.

Fixed, but damn, you're right. I'd bang that dude.

Creep. I hate that bitch, I mean look at his eyes..

Loli fans: Don't watch lolicon. You may end looking like this guy x)

In all fairness, I think it would be best not to include the picture of Mr. Whorley that is currently uploaded within this article. It serves no purpose, and could only create bias if viewed by certain people. What does everyone else think? Please voice your opinion. Homologeo 06:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Info From FOIA Document

pp. 49-52 Describes the exact statutes he was convicted under and how many accounts as well as the recommendation to use this strategy for future prosecutions. The doc makes it clear that he was convicted for, among other things, 20 counts of possessing some kind of obscene Japanese cartoons.

I have already updated the "lolicon" article with this information. Someone may wish to update this article as well. I've discovered that this article and the "lolicon" article are being cited around the internet as authoritative sources, so it is important that they reflect legal realities. dircha 01:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prisoner contact

Does anyone know if he has any access to virtual communication in prison, how that goes about? -Anon