Does This Man Look Like A Child Molester? [Pic]

Submitted by: orange_panty 6 years ago in Funny

According to the Sudbury Star newspaper, the answer is... maybe?
There are 50 comments:
Male 1,045
I don`t know about pedophile, but when i saw him my butt cheeks clenched tight.
0
Reply
Female 779
@Bongsmoke: It is 100% illegal to own, support, create, and distribute. You have something you want to tell us?
0
Reply
Male 290
WAIT! HOLD THE PHONE!

he was arrested and jailed for POSSESSING child pornography? That`s illegal? I thought it was only illegal if you`re respobsible for creating the material.

someone, please clarify.
0
Reply
Male 347
is that Mike Birbiglia?
0
Reply
Male 414
haha, people here get years in jail for kiddie porn
0
Reply
Male 453
Short answer: potentially.
0
Reply
Male 2,619
Guilty as charged. Fuc*ing A&F T-shirt :(
0
Reply
Male 876
By Jove, I believe Yap71 may be on to something.
0
Reply
Male 1,735
I`ve been to Sudbury, Toronto is far worse, on all accounts.
0
Reply
Female 6
0
Reply
Female 144
hahaha, sucks to be that guy
0
Reply
Male 150
I think thats Mike Birbiglia in the picture (a hilarious comedian)
0
Reply
Female 1,356
the picture and the article are unrelated....

I went to sudbury to visit family. If you can get past the mines and smoke chimney`s, it`s a very beautiful city.
0
Reply
Male 43
OMFG, thats my City...you guys have any Idea how messed up my city is? its the worst place in Canada...
0
Reply
Male 12,365
It`s a bit surprising that he was only charged with possession, as UK law is written in such a way that most possession can also be counted as creation. If someone downloads an illegal picture from the internet, that can be counted as creation (because they created a copy on the device they downloaded it to).
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]in the US, you can get $3,000,000 for spilling coffee on yourself.[/quote]

Bad example. The infamous coffee case was actually a legit case - a business knowingly, deliberately and repeatedly sold a dangerous product that was unfit for purpose and as a result hundreds of customers were severely injured before one of the most badly injured ones sued. 3rd degree burns over 16% of her body, 2 years of medical treatment required, permanent scarring. She got $640,000, not $3,000,000, and 2 years of medical treatment in the USA is rather expensive.

There are some silly litigation cases, but that isn`t one of them.
0
Reply
Male 3,331
"He wouldnt get anything. As long as a publication prints an apology or correction somewhere in the print, then they have done all they are required to do by law."

Of course, this is the UK we`re dealing with here, but in the US, you can get $3,000,000 for spilling coffee on yourself. I`m sure in the US this guy could get something. Also, set the bar low enough, and settling without accepting blame or fault, or admitting guilt, can be cheaper than fighting it in court.

If it were me, I`d ask for that days sales, not profits, and a front page above the fold apology.
0
Reply
Male 4,902
Hahahaha
0
Reply
Male 8
That`s Mike Birbiglia, not a pedo, just a funny guy
0
Reply
Male 25,416
I think these are not related
0
Reply
Male 92
Those are two separate articles aren`t they?
The pic is under the light blue box entitled "Tons of Fun" while the other is under "Court"

Misleading pic >.<
0
Reply
Male 2,033
Damn Sudburians.
0
Reply
Female 3,696
He wouldnt get anything. As long as a publication prints an apology or correction somewhere in the print, then they have done all they are required to do by law.

Sure, that`s if he decided to press criminal charges, but if he goes for a civil suit with defamation of character or some business like that, he could get some moneys
0
Reply
Female 3,696
"One can be in possession without promoting it."

The whole terrible situation of it is called `supply and demand` of course you want to go after the source of it first- That`s where the most of the real hurt and danger starts from but it`s only such a lucrative business because there is demand for it. Cut out the demand- why make the supply?
0
Reply
Male 10,440
Wow, you people sure are emotional, reactionary and stupid. You`re not going to stop it by removing the possessors. There are a thousand ways to "possess" any sort of porn without anyone`s notice. If some pervert is turned on by this sort of thing, it won`t matter what sort of law is in place. Furthermore what if someone had some sort of genetic defect that attracted them to children, what then?

A person who makes it also does so for profit.

The only way to actually protect children is to remove the source. ...and isn`t protecting children the whole point?

[quote] Possession is wrong since you are promoting it [/quote]
One can be in possession without promoting it.
0
Reply
Male 3,477
Aim for the red dot! FIRE!
0
Reply
Male 3,646
I get what LazyMe84 is saying. Punish the publisher, not the pocession of. Sort of like how it`s illegal to grow tobacco, without a license, but not illegal to pocess tobacco.

But I disagree with what he`s saying. I would say that if you are the creation of child porn, then you are in pocession of it; ultimately covering the bases.
0
Reply
Male 1,093
"I don`t get why possession of child porn is such a crime. Nobody is being harmed by possession alone. Shouldn`t they be going after the creators of child porn instead? Stupid laws. We have them too in Canada. "

Possession is wrong since you are promoting it, but i do have to agree we should focus more on the source of where thee sick things are coming from.
0
Reply
Male 1,008
lazyme484 i just gotta assume you are trying to troll or something no one can be that stupid , even in canada
0
Reply
Male 928
"I don`t get why possession of child porn is such a crime. Nobody is being harmed by possession alone. Shouldn`t they be going after the creators of child porn instead? Stupid laws. We have them too in Canada.

This one is easy to bypass though."

You are actually going to defend the possession of child porn? The reason you can`t posses it is because if you posses it then you are into it and last I checked being into kids like that was considered sick and illegal. So why shouldn`t it be a crime to posses kiddie porn? Please explain to us instances where it would be acceptable.
0
Reply
Male 807
Lazyme-I hope you are kidding-if there wasn`t sickos out there for this crap then you wouldn`t need to worry about it being created
0
Reply
Male 10,440
I don`t get why possession of child porn is such a crime. Nobody is being harmed by possession alone. Shouldn`t they be going after the creators of child porn instead? Stupid laws. We have them too in Canada.

This one is easy to bypass though.
0
Reply
Male 46
go sudbury...
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Bad positioning
0
Reply
Male 169
Unfortunate image placement. Poor guy.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
wonder how much money he`s going to get in the settlement. I would certainly contact a lawyer, because you know the correction will be buried somewhere in the paper and be a little one liner that no-one reads.
-----------

He wouldnt get anything. As long as a publication prints an apology or correction somewhere in the print, then they have done all they are required to do by law.
0
Reply
Male 1,920
"also why are we only just seeing this now? April 5th... finger way off the pulse there buddy!"

Links by schuey63
(schuey63 has not added any links)

We were kinda hoping you schuey63 would man up and submit it, but we got tired of waiting for you.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
If you actually look at the picture, you`ll notice that`s a picture for the upcoming comedy festival, unrelated to the article about the molester.
0
Reply
Male 346
Ah. I see it now.

RACHEL PUNCH. What a great name.
0
Reply
Male 3,331
"I wonder how many times this poor clown got harassed because of this stuff up."

I wonder how much money he`s going to get in the settlement. I would certainly contact a lawyer, because you know the correction will be buried somewhere in the paper and be a little one liner that no-one reads.

0
Reply
Male 179
also why are we only just seeing this now? April 5th... finger way off the pulse there buddy!
0
Reply
Male 133
I thought that was Patch Adams!!!
0
Reply
Male 137
I feel like some people who cmomented didn`t get it. This was bad editing, the picture doesn`t relate to the headline (you can see on top of the picture that it is in another category than the headline).
0
Reply
Male 41
that isn`t the child molester... (I suppose I`m going to get shouted out my man i-am-boreders for not realizing the sarcasm?)
0
Reply
Male 70
newspaper editing lesson #1:
Make the picture on the front page match the headline & not be related to some other story.

I wonder how many times this poor clown got harassed because of this stuff up.
0
Reply
Male 390
Whether or not the man pictured is a pedo, why did the man in the article itself only get 90 days?
0
Reply
Male 346
According to the paper, it`s definitely.
0
Reply
Male 405
How is it "maybe". He pled guilty and got 90 days.
0
Reply
Male 179
he doesn`t look 39 to me, Photo fail!
0
Reply
Female 596
Link: Does This Man Look Like A Child Molester? [Pic] [Rate Link] - According to the Sudbury Star newspaper, the answer is... maybe?
0
Reply