sriracha john Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Man arrested after child porn found in luggage (03-26) 12:19 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A cruise-ship employee has been charged in federal court with possessing child pornography after customs agents said they found sexually explicit videos in his luggage after he flew into San Francisco International Airport from Thailand, court records show. Charkon Chansaem, 32, arrived at the airport about 9:15 a.m. Friday aboard a United Airlines flight from Tokyo Narita airport in Japan, authorities said. Chansaem entered the United States on a visa for "seamen working on cruise ships," Senior Special Agent Brian Kawabata of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement wrote in an affidavit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Chansaem's employer wasn't identified in the court documents. Chansaem cleared customs and exited the federal inspection area without his luggage, authorities said. A U.S. Customs and Border Protection agriculture specialist received unclaimed luggage from the United flight and discovered illegal food items and DVDs and CD-ROMs with suspected pornography featuring children as young as 6 years old, the affidavit said. Chansaem acknowledged in a written declaration that the luggage belonged to him and that he knew child pornography was illegal in the United States, Kawabata wrote. "I got porn child but I swear never have sex with another children," Chansaem said, according to the affidavit. - San Francisco Chronicle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave111223 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 "I got porn child but I swear never have sex with another children," Chansaem said, according to the affidavit. Ohhhh, thats ok then! Better let him go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullx8 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I swear never have sex with another children just with the ones on the DVD's ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fognsnow Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 He may very well have had child porn (images of children have sex, according to the most common definition of the man on the street) in his lugagge. However, 'child pornography' has a very broad definition in the USA. It includes... 1. images where there is no sex, actual or simulated ['lascivious display of the genitals' is enough. See below] 2. Images where there are no children [if the adult appears to be under18] 3. Images where there are no genitals shown [An American named Knox is in prison for possessing, not creating, a video that featured girls flashing their panties playfully because the videographer zoomed in on the panties. Thus completely covered pubic area is now classified as 'genitals' Did you get that?] To broaden the subject... In Canada, 'child porn' is classified as advocating and counselling sex with minors. Thus, in Canada even words are now classified as 'child pornography'. So, next time you hear that phrase, ask hard questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
November Rain Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I don't think no.2 is a possibility in this case, fogsnow. The OP clearly states "children as young as 6"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britmaveric Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Obvious - he was carrying it for someone for sale or for his own profit. Sick regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nebukanezar Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 "I got porn child but I swear never have sex with another children," Chansaem said, according to the affidavit. Ohhhh, thats ok then! Better let him go! Yeah I should try that with like 780 vials of crack cocaine in my bag "I have rock crack but I no hit pipe I swear!" Send his ass to OZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurgen Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 <deleted> him which is exactly what's gonna happen when the "boys" wearing orange get him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
backflip Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 "Images where there are no children [if the adult appears to be under18]" With few exceptions - emancipated minors, for example - people under 18 in the US are considered children. Adults are 18 and older. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toptuan Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 "I got porn child but I swear never have sex with another children," Chansaem said "...but I never inhaled..." B.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andook Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 He'll be popular in prison over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sriracha john Posted March 29, 2007 Author Share Posted March 29, 2007 He may very well have had child porn (images of children have sex, according to the most common definition of the man on the street) in his lugagge. However, 'child pornography' has a very broad definition in the USA. It includes...1. images where there is no sex, actual or simulated ['lascivious display of the genitals' is enough. See below] 2. Images where there are no children [if the adult appears to be under18] 3. Images where there are no genitals shown [An American named Knox is in prison for possessing, not creating, a video that featured girls flashing their panties playfully because the videographer zoomed in on the panties. Thus completely covered pubic area is now classified as 'genitals' Did you get that?] To broaden the subject... In Canada, 'child porn' is classified as advocating and counselling sex with minors. Thus, in Canada even words are now classified as 'child pornography'. So, next time you hear that phrase, ask hard questions. Could you please share with us the source of these "definitions" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai-Spy Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 He may very well have had child porn (images of children have sex, according to the most common definition of the man on the street) in his lugagge. However, 'child pornography' has a very broad definition in the USA. It includes...1. images where there is no sex, actual or simulated ['lascivious display of the genitals' is enough. See below] 2. Images where there are no children [if the adult appears to be under18] 3. Images where there are no genitals shown [An American named Knox is in prison for possessing, not creating, a video that featured girls flashing their panties playfully because the videographer zoomed in on the panties. Thus completely covered pubic area is now classified as 'genitals' Did you get that?] To broaden the subject... In Canada, 'child porn' is classified as advocating and counselling sex with minors. Thus, in Canada even words are now classified as 'child pornography'. So, next time you hear that phrase, ask hard questions. Could you please share with us the source of these "definitions" ? Derived in large measure from (and possible misinterpretations of) the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 and the PROTECT Act of 2003. Some parts of each have been struck down as unconstitutional and others are being challenged in the US courts at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now