Point of Record:

Posting child pornography on someone else's blog only proves that you have child pornography on your computer. 

On an unrelated note, as soon as I can figure out how to disable commenting, I'm going to.  They will be turned back on at some point in the future.  If you have something you'd like to say, shoot me an email and I'll add it to the post itself.

UPDATE: I have been told not to turn off the comments, and to leave any subsequent ones up for the time being, so that the person who leaves them may be confronted by his words.  I apologize in advance for the crudity of the comments being left, and I'll delete them once I'm told it's prudent.

Comments

[History Geek]

I'm sorry this troll is bother you, Scott. Best wishes.

[Anthony]

Seriously Scott, what is this guy's problem? I'm also sorry he's hounding you and echo History Geek's good wishes.

[apostropher]

My goodness. He just doesn't understand the whole "stop digging" thing, does he? At this point, I think a visit from the FBI would be a valuable learning experience for him.

[Jonathan]

I also disagree with your take on the Scull article, but the poetic commenter above takes it a bit too far.

[Belle Lettre]

That is TERRIBLE. WTF is this guys' problem?

I'm writing my thesis on the federal regulation of child pornography. If this guy is using your website to post child pornography, that's a serious offense. There are ways of tracking by ISP, and he's violating the Child Online Protection Act and the Protection Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 2005. Using computers and the internet to transmit or view child pornography count as using "channels of interstate commerce", and that invokes federal regulation. And CHILD pornography, by the way, is NOT protected speech, not at all. There are both state and federal laws regulating such behavior, and whatever state he's doing this from will have its own criminal penalties.

I'm sorry you had to deal with this Scott.

And, Sick Bastard, check out the relevant law:

Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252----000-.html

Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252---A000-.html

Misleading domain names on the Internet: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252---B000-.html

(Sorry Scott that I never learned how to embed hyperlinks)

[SEK]

So, I should probably post something, as this looks very confusing to many people, but I can't at this time. It goes without saying that I pissed someone off and that he is now unhinged. Without divulging too much information, let me say this: I had to make an extraordinarily difficult decision regarding someone else's marriage, and now one of those parties is extremely upset with me. I'm not sure how to say this, but needless to say, I'm on the side of angels here. I did the right thing, as this person's subsequent behavior demonstrates that in addition to the motivating incident, he is not a stable or sane individual. I wish I could say more, as I like to think of Acephalous as a comfortable, casual place in which things like death threats (and worse) don't regularly pop up, but I'm not comfortable doing so at this time. Maybe later. (Or, alternatively, you can wait for the inevitable movie. For a shut-in who never leaves the house -- who barely even moves from his desk -- I seem to have a knack for being pulled into other people's sex lives.)

That said, Meg and I are fine, albeit a little worried, naturally.

[Jonathan Dresner]

"have been told": by whom?

If it's not giving too much away, what sort of "authorities" are you dealing with?

[John Emerson]

well, it's better than finishing a stupid dissertation.

[SEK]

Now is not the time to be insulting my dissertation, Mr. Emerson.

[John Emerson]

I'm just worried that you'll provoke a Mideast war just to have a more compelling reason to procrastinate. This latest escalation is pretty impressive.

[DaveL]

No, Dick Cheney is the heartless guy, not the headless guy.

[Rich Puchalsky]

I've been saying nothing since advice is probably worse than useless, but ... I hope that whichever authorities you reported this guy to (and hopefully you did) are taking it seriously.

[bitchphd]

John's right. I hereby declare that you have set the all-time world record for best dissertation procrastination technique, ever.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Sorry for stating the obvious -- but dealing with death threats against oneself and one's family is not a good procrastination technique, those who make them are not "trolls", etc. We're witnesses to a crime.

[Clio Bluestocking]

If you did what I think you did, you are not just on the side of the angels, you ARE an angel. This guy's behavior is reprehensible and needs to be off of the street and out of the intertubes. I hope the authorities are zeroing in on him. All my sympathies to your family.

[The Constructivist]

Yeesh, I've been so busy trading jokes about war crimes at WAAGNFNP and the state of my bowels at Mostly Harmless I missed all the recent, uh, (criminal) action here. Glad I came after the deletions, though. Even gladder it wasn't a deranged Foucault fan who was threatening you for your previous post. I hope.

[Jane Dark]

Ick; though it's to be expected, I'm sorry that you're still dealing with the fallout. Best of luck as you proceed.