...that's a fucking surprise!

Just wondering aloud......

I think there might be some people in the FBI, or higher up, who would prefer that von Brunn go down in history as as sick a freak as possible. All the better to argue that outside influences were completely irrelevant to what he did.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, fine. But how does an octogenarian find kiddie porn when my mom, twenty years younger, can't find the "Empty Trash" menu item?

He was computer literate and clearly web savvy. He had an account on Wikipedia for the purpose of writing and editing articles, he maintained his own website/domain, and he posted on forums all over the web. It really does not seem so far-fetched that he could look for and find porn, even illegal porn.

If the myth that all people born before some date are computer illiterate were true, there'd be no computers.

Don't most redkneck bigots end up marrying thier own daughters anyway?

Holy crap, what's next? Skinned puppies and kittens to make a throw rug?

to an octogenarian, naked pictures of a 60 year old are kiddy porn.

The whole child porn issue is generally overplayed. While few are immune to the magnetism of porn, it's all pretty vulgar and repellent when you come right down to it. Though one might consider pornography a type of liberation through which moderns have had to pass, it remains an aspect of human experience which is pretty pathetic, and always sleazy. On the other hand, erotic content lifted to the level of fine art is another matter. Personally, the term 'porn' I reserve for classifying the tasteless and inept. In my judgment, erotic subject matter enlisted in the pursuit of beauty and inspiration would not properly be dismissed as porn.

When it comes to children, this is one of those buzz words arousing intense reaction but little rationality. In human culture many of our young are sexualized at an early age under circumstances which are, in reality, quite beautiful. While these experiences rarely find vocal confession they are more common than one might imagine. Too, a thoughtful person cannot turn a forgetful mind to customs among Arabic peoples which have been in venerable tradition for centuries. Americans who have had occasion to live in the Middle East for periods - we hear and read - often find that their righteousness is suddenly missing along their lost baggage. In fact, one of the most riveting scenes from Lawrence Durrell's The Alexandria Quartet revolved around precisely this subject.

While there is no doubt, von Brunn's exhibition at the museum falls in the category of psychopathy, within that context, one can't deny, the man contrived a perfect metaphor for his beliefs. Being of an artistic persuasion von Brunn staged a world-class 'happening', to communicate his vision of current politics. Something in the manner of artists who dis-inhibit themselves with substances, this individual shook off the fetters of moral restraint. Being neither aggressive enough to embrace violence, nor so clever at symbolism, I do recognize perfect self-expression when I see it.

See: http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/overview.html

Other than the "Ick!" factor, in what way is this relevant? Also, be aware that these days there are all kinds of things that the government considers child porn which, once you are aware, might make you go "Huh?" Example: There was a case recently where a guy who collected Japanese manga was arrested for child porn because of the comic book depictions of what some people say (and others dispute) are children in sexual activities. There are also cases where people surfing the net looking for one thing happen upon something they weren't looking for at all which then remains in their browser's cache which in turn, as far as the government is concerned, makes them guilty of possessing the stuff they weren't looking for and don't want.

I'm not defending Vonn Brunn. The guy's a whacko way, way out there in the weeds. I'm just saying that I don't see how child porn on his hard drive is relevant, and I'm also saying that just 'cause the government says it, it doesn't necessarily make the charge true in the sense that many might think even if those files are there.

Roman Berry has a point. This isn't really terribly important. And the government's definition of 'child pornography' is...occasionally insane. I recall a comic fan artist getting arrested (and released) not to long ago because the subect wasn't explicitely stated to be 18 or over. A fictitious character of undefined age (who looked about 18) topless, was enoygh for 'Child Pornography' charges.

Frankly, since Von Brunn seems to be a complete abomination of a human being, his possession of -actual- child porn wouldn't come as a surprise, but there is a difference between a cached image and a folder full of jpegs of naked 8 year olds. I rather hope for the former just because I don't want to believe a human being can be deviant in that many ways...even if I know the opposite to be true.

Plus, if he did have actually kiddy porn, I'm disappointed that he got shot in the wrong head.

Is anyone raising an issue about Von Brunn's competence? Anyone familiar with the governing law, that is, and not representing him? Basically, you are competent to stand trial if you know where you are and you can express yourself to your attorney. And the decision is likely to made, for all practical purposes, by a psychologist who makes his bread and butter by finding people competent to stand trial. (That is, unless you can afford to finance your own defense -- which almost nobody can.)

In this case there may be a motive for foot-dragging in the hope that the defendant will die of natural causes and save everybody a lot of trouble. But if the issue gets litigated, the smart money -- without knowing any details at all -- is on him being found competent. Almost everybody is, however loony.

As for child porn -- that would be a much better story if he were one of the anti-abortion assassins. It's hard to see much of a surprise in somebody being at once anti-Semitic, pedophilic, and voyeuristic. I suspect many of Hitler's top advisors shared those characteristics too. Which isn't to posit any necessary connection. But child pornography -- real child pornograpy, not cartoons (whose criminalization is a major inroad on the First Amendment) -- can only be arousing to somebody with an above-average ability to objectify their fellow humans. And that's a trait I think you'd find in all bigots, too. So it's not surprising if there's some correlation.