September 15

He pled guilty and is scheduled for sentencing soon. But I'm having a hard time finding (e.g. from Anthony Weiner sexting scandals) exactly what he did that got him charged in the first place. I get that there were dirty pictures involved and I have no desire to see them, but I'd like to find some kind of concrete text description of what was in them, e.g. "Picture #23 was Anthony Wiener standing butt nekkid on top of a refrigerator waving his bits around" or whatever.

Like if someone is admits to robbing a bank, I don't want to see "he pled guilty to statue XYZ against bank robbery"-- I want to see "he held up the Anytown National Bank, 123 Main Street, Anytown NY, at 2:15 PM on [date] by passing a note to the teller saying "give me all your quarters! while brandishing an Uzi submachine gun". I.e. the exact details of the offense. Those sorts of descriptions are seen in police and FBI complaints all the time (there were some good ones in the Cliven/Ammon Bundy sagas) but I haven't been able to find one for Wiener. The only thing I saw was a provocative picture of Wiener in bed in his underwear, way creepy under the circumstances, but not especially more explicit than stuff shown on TV all the time.

Thanks.

173.228.123.121 (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This (somewhat) answers your question. Did you see this: [1]? I don't think you will get specific and precise information about what exactly the photographs entailed. They simply say "sexually explicit images" in that document linked here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here is his plea agreement, which (like the document above) only offers legal mumbo-jumbo and not the specific details that you are inquiring about: [2]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The British news offers more sordid details than the American news market. See here: [3]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't seen the DOJ press release per se, but I saw some mentions of "obscene material", which (maybe I'm wrong) I thought in a context like that means material meeting all three prongs of the Miller test (ordinary pornography generally isn't considered obscene these days, despite being sexually explicit). The Daily Mail article adds some color and insinuates that the underage girl sent Wiener nude pics (child porn?) at his request, but doesn't actually say so afaict. It says the same stuff I heard before about Wiener with his shirt off, and schoolgirl outfits on the other person. There doesn't seem to have been any outright sex solicitation. Overall the stuff described is beyond icky, but I still find it hard to pinpoint Wiener's specific acts that triggered the criminal statutes. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added, yes, I did see the plea agreement earlier, and its lack of specifics was mostly what led me into posting the question in the first place. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reviewed the case thoroughly. But, I don't think that he was ever being charged with -- nor were there ever any allegations of -- him soliciting sex from a minor. The crime was simply sending the photos to a minor. That, in and of itself, constituted the crime. In other words, it is illegal to send to a minor sexually explicit photographs. That's it. And that's what he did. I don't think there were ever any instances of him actually soliciting sex from the young minors. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the crime that he committed. Or, rather, this is the statute that he violated. 18 U.S. Code § 1470 - Transfer of obscene material to minors - Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers obscene matter to another individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, knowing that such other individual has not attained the age of 16 years, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. So, simply sending the photos -- without any solicitation of sex -- was the criminal act, in and of itself. I assume he sent many photo's, not just one, by the way. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You stated: I still find it hard to pinpoint Wiener's specific acts that triggered the criminal statutes. The answer is: he sent emails or texts (or whatever) of sexually explicit photographs. And those specific acts are a violation of the federal statute that I cited above. Perhaps, news outlets (trying to get better ratings) erroneously stated -- or inferred -- that he was trying to solicit sex from these minors. Which, as far as I know, he did not. Or, at least, such was not alleged by the federal government. So, that might be the source of your confusion? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Above, you mentioned the definition of "obscenity" and how the U.S. Supreme Court defined it through case law (e.g., the "Miller test"). However, see this source from the U.S. Department of Justice: Citizen's Guide To U.S. Federal Law On Obscenity. It says: The standard of what is harmful to minors may differ from the standard applied to adults. Harmful materials for minors include any communication consisting of nudity, sex or excretion that (i) appeals to the prurient interest of minors, (ii) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable material for minors, (iii) and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. (I myself added the bold to the text.) So, what is considered "obscene" for (or harmful to) minors is not defined by the "Miller test". The standards are much lower (i.e., less restrictive; broader in scope). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh interesting, thanks, I didn't know about the differing obscenity standard for minors. But I still haven't seen anywhere a clear statement that he sent explicit material that actually says what the material was. We usually wouldn't charge someone with murder without saying who they killed and how they did it, so something is still missing or being treated specially here.

I know about the underwear pic but I'd have a hard time calling that explicit. And he did send an explicit pic (to a non-minor) a few years earlier in the "Carlos Danger" saga, and the press didn't have trouble reporting the details that time. It seems almost like a cover-up where the person pleads to a fictitious lesser charge to avoid getting prosecuted for something they did that was even worse. (Not saying I believe that theory, just that it would explain some things). 173.228.123.121 (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments. One: Perhaps, if you could find the federal government's (prosecutor's) charging documents, they might outline more clearly what they meant by "explicit photographs". I looked for them (very quickly), but I could not find them online. Two: I believe that some photographs involved him having an erection. It was "covered" (e.g., underneath his underwear or boxers or such), but it was still clearly an erection visible. I assume that "counts" as explicit or obscene for these purposes. Three: There was a settlement reached. Which means that, regardless of what evidence the prosecutors did -- or did not -- put forth, Weiner himself agreed that his photographs were obscene/explicit. So, if Weiner himself agrees to that point, there is no further need for the prosecutors to prove that point. That is, there is no need for them to disclose or publish the photographs or even any descriptions of them. It is a "done deal" that Weiner himself agrees that the photographs were explicit/obscene. Because he agreed to the settlement. That is, he agreed that he violated that statute. So, these are just some points to ponder. If you really want to get the explicit details, your best bet is to find the charging document. Even then, it might simply be an affidavit from a detective stating: "I saw the photographs and they were obscene", without detailing what exactly was in the photographs. All this being said, I think that whatever information is already "out there" (for example, that British Daily Mail article) more or less gives us the "flavor" of what types of photographs he was sending. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as usual; I wasn't able to find the charging docs with some web searches, but I did see the plea agreement, and I knew that Wiener admitted sending obscene material, but without saying what it was as far as I can tell. IMHO that created more sense of mystery rather than less, and the mystery was what led me to look into the question. It's like a Mafia member signing a plea deal admitting that he killed someone but not saying who he killed. What exactly is going on?

The boner pic in the underwear is imho dubious for meeting an obscenity standard given that there is even underwear advertising like that[4] (warning: direct picture link). And another ex-congressmember, Dennis Hastert, did some jail time nominally for drawing too much cash out of the bank without notifying the IRS, but the underlying situation (he drew the money to pay off one of his child molestation victims) wasn't originally disclosed. So I still have to wonder if something is going on with the Weiner case that doesn't meet the eye. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Some thought and comments. One: I am not quite sure what you are "looking for". Do you want a statement that indicates what the photo depicts? Do you want a statement that indicates to whom he sent the photo? I am not sure what specific info you would like. Two: I would suspect that an erection photo would easily fit the (looser and more relaxed) standards for minors. Three: That advertisement for underwear was from Germany, not the USA, I believe. Four: What nefarious things do you suspect are going on? Are you wondering if the federal government is trying to "help" Weiner by not disclosing too many embarrassing details? I think that ship has long since sailed. So, I am not sure what you think might be being "covered up" and by whom? And to what end? It seems illogical that the FBI would be on Weiner's "side", helping him in any way. They are, after all, sending him to prison. They are adding him to the Sex Offender Registry. And, if they really had wanted to, they could have chosen to not pursue anything at all here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as some specifics: The Daily Mail article (here: [5]) states that the female victim says that Weiner sent her pornographic videos and also nude photographs of himself. Those two items would certainly violate the statute in question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more legal documents -- 22 pages -- but they don't say much: [6]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a 71-page legal memo: [7]. Very interesting. It delves into the history/life of Weiner. And it talks at length about his crime. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do research studies say?Uncle dan is home (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, you can read the Rape and the Causes of sexual violence articles. Both articles discuss the topic of your concern. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can also Google these "search terms" and get a million results. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This is the subject of the ITV drama series Liar, of which the first episode aired last Monday (available on catchup). See Thordis Elva. 92.8.176.91 (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think they have to be mutually exclusive? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.137.12 (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I am sure that, in some rape cases, it's about power/control. And I am sure that, in other rape cases, it's about sexual gratification. (Two things that, generally speaking, overlap considerably.) And, in other rape cases, I am sure that it's a combination of these two factors. And, of course, there are a myriad of other reasons (beyond power/control and sexual gratification) that can be thrown into the mix. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rape is about forced sex. Anything beyond that is an opinion or point of view. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So if force = power, and sex = gratification, then you're just saying the same thing as the others. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I take "force = power" but "sex = short for sexual intercourse, forced or unforced, with or without gratification". When shortened, there seems to be slight change in meaning, that sex only refers to voluntary sex. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching the travails of the

I'm wondering -- is there relevant mainstream theory here? I mean, well, first off, is there any truth to the claims of Jewish predominance at CNN, but more importantly, if there are a large number of Jewish employees, then what is the prevailing theory, law, or opinion about whether "affirmative action" should be taken to increase diversity, whether on behalf of blacks, whites, or Christians? Is there a difference between a company with a statistically improbable excess of Moonies and one with an improbable excess of Lutherans? Wnt (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's two questions here, assuming the best of faith; 1) Has anyone taken the data necessary to produce an answer for your question and 2) Is there any compelling reason for anyone to have taken that data. Any number of "studies" could have been undertaken regarding data for a population of people; the number of left-handed people, or people born in July, or people whose middle toe is slightly longer than their second toe. Hypothetically, if we were to find a disproportionate number of July birthdates among upper management at CNN, should it then lead us to conclude a systematic problem or deliberate attempt to put July-born people in positions in control over the media? If that seems patently ridiculous, that's why such a study has never been done. Replace "July-born" with "Jewish" and it becomes no less stupid. Any such accusation is anti-semitic at its core; because the notion that it's data which if it were known would lead to any meaningful conclusion about media bias is, at its core, anti-semtic. So no, the data doesn't exist, and if it did, it wouldn't mean anything. --Jayron32 18:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Who is a Jew? and http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions that on the surface seem ridiculous may not actually be so. Top athletes' birthdays are not evenly distributed across the year, see Relative age effect; and as for fingers (or who knows, maybe toes too) there is "a correlation between the 2D:4D digit ratio and various physical and behavioral traits", according to digit ratio. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Relative age effect is a function of the systems for selecting athletes rather than because the athletes themselves are conspiring to keep out people with the wrong birthdates. The implication that because such an effect exist therefore we should worry about Jewish people working for CNN seems spurious at best. --Jayron32 19:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of correlation, possibly causation, not conspiracy. Quakers used to be brewers and bankers; now they are teachers and social workers (in Britain, at least [9]). I would hope that sociologists of industry can study such phenomena without being accused of conspiracy theories. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they can. So long as they aren't trying to be bigots. --Jayron32 03:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: I'm not really following your argument above. Are you suggesting that all ethnic hiring bias is unlikely, so that affirmative action can be avoided in every case, or are there certain groups who participate in it and others who do not, or should be assumed not to? I mean, there are multiple explanations for bias, but I wouldn't think that one hypothesis for such bias would be exceptionally unlikely or mysterious: that all people in charge have a tendency to hire by who they know or even (like certain Presidents) who they are related to, and this skews the frequencies. For example, if you look at any high profile scientific journal, you'll see various lab groups in the U.S. with last authors (typically the bosses) from China, Russia, India and so on. If you look at the list of names for the other authors from that lab group, do you expect them to be random, or to be pretty much of the same ethnicity as their boss? Try it if you aren't sure what to expect. Wnt (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any argument. --Jayron32 03:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further, another possibility is exogenous bias. For example, Trumped! (book), writing in 1991, claimed that Donald Trump had told the author "And isn’t it funny, I’ve got black accountants at the Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. No one else." [10] The quote is second hand, but Jerusalem Post dug into this one in interesting ways, [11] calling it "affirmative prejudice" or "philosemitism"; it says that the distinction between philosemitism and antisemitism can be subtle, but at the same time points out that Fred Trump was attested, by multiple agents, to have disqualified blacks as tenants while encouraging "Jews and executives". Wnt (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Morgan Freeman says it best when he says "Stop talking about it." That takes place in this interview. And I don't think the point is the literal one. One can talk about anything. But the preternatural focus on race and religion and ethnicity and gender and sexual orientation is its own problem. In other words if you don't have anything intelligent to say it may be better to shut up. Bus stop (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So when people tell me they are being systematically discriminated against and seem to offer numbers to back it up, which ones do I pay attention to and which ones do I tell to shut up? I mean, reverse racism claims seem worth taking seriously, though not necessarily siding with, even when the minority group in question is historically disadvantaged and underrepresented in an industry. But in this example it is not immediately obvious that either of these things is the case - therefore, wouldn't a refusal to evaluate the claim seriously have the effect of contributing to racism rather than opposing it? Wnt (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not telling you to shut up though I can understand it sounds like that and I apologize for that unintended implication. Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse racism claims are not to be taken seriously. It's merely the unjustified whining of people who have enjoyed the benefits of bigotry for so long that when others get access to what they have, they feel resentful. --Jayron32 23:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to avoid editorializing, but I feel like we're doing more shadow-boxing than analysis here. I'm at little risk of surviving an "alt-right" utopia, but I think that is all the more reason to listen to what they say. Potentially we might have (unwisely) ignored them for decades, but a pattern of escalating censorship is rapidly propelling them into the mainstream. If we want to stop them at all we need to make a pre-emptive ideological raid - go into their content, steal any valid complaints they can make, and address those with a more sensible and careful liberal ideology (such as formulations of affirmative action that avoid any explicit racial bias in how it is applied) -- before the Stormer or something like it is sold in every supermarket. Censorship is the purest expression of injustice, and presages terrible things, but one thing it never does is actually succeed at whatever it claims to be its purpose. Wnt (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two points 1) You're the only one speaking of censorship here 2) Free speech means that people get to criticise the assholes of the world too. It only protects those assholes from legal ramifications, it does NOT protect them from social ones, and private individuals can, and should, be empowered to shout down bigotry when they encounter it. Just because the government cannot stop hate speech, doesn't mean that the people need to tolerate it without criticism or reaction. Fighting bigotry is not censorship. --Jayron32 12:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My reference to censorship in this context was mainly that it is making it more urgent to consider these issues. But I should note that I'm not talking about the vast numbers of peaceful counter-protesters who showed up to promote the opposing point of view; rather I'm speaking a) of official actions (such as Charlottesville's decision to shut down the right-wing rally while allowing the other side to move into city streets without a permit, which successfully provoked a violent attack that otherwise may well have never happened) and (b) of corporate actions, such as the DNS cancellations and a long trail of miscellaneous incidents against various racists or maybe-racists perpetrated by companies supposedly to express their opposition to racism --- though Daily Stormer, needless to say, eagerly seizes on each one and plays it to the hilt! Which is not what you would expect if these were in fact a productive strategy.

In short, I would say that censorship can be public or private, and it is a bad idea in either case. Obviously the aspect of injustice applies more to a government that incarcerates people than to a neighbor who yells insults and nonsense to drown out a speaker, but neither approach will succeed in educating the public. And the relish with which corporations discover the pleasures of exerting private and arbitrary power as oligopolies is unhealthy - unhealthy to people with any cause or belief (e.g. Colin Kaepernick). It is also unhealthy in that the Chinese Harmonious Society with a single fount of censorship would appear to have an economic advantage over a society in which your DNS provider, your cab company, your local football team, maybe tomorrow your supermarket all have to go over your social media postings and decide who is a bad person and what policy distinctions they have to make because of it. I mean, there's no way the United States can compete against China at doing censorship cheaply and efficiently, and the result is an endless series of corporate black eyes and apologies because some Google employee thinks nutty things about women or some Facebook advertising term went unnoticed. Wnt (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]