Jump to content
hojacat

Adult film star Austin Wolf arrested on child pornography charges

Recommended Posts

  • Members

The usual typical info wars on other platforms regarding this. Obviously the presumption of innocence holds legally, but here are what seem to be unambiguous historical sentencing data updated June 2023; fiscal 2023 data forthcoming but it has been consistent year to year.

Judging from some of the child sexual abuse erotica media trail going back to 2023 the current news release reflects both upstream and downstream FBI investigating with the possibility of downward sentencing variance based on substantial informant role assistance and upward variance based on nature of abuse content. 

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Child_Pornography_FY22.pdf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

For SDNY fiscal 2023, some 14 Child Pornography cases. Trends: all guilty plea; majority imprisoned, 1 ‘prison + alternatives’ [sic], 2 ‘probation + alternatives’ [sic]; sentence Mean 36 months, Median 24 months. These metrics are not predictive; there have been lengthy prison sentences elevating the Mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 7/2/2024 at 11:28 AM, Riobard said:

... sentence Mean 36 months, Median 24 months...

From the above link: "...The videos allegedly contained children as young as infants, with one depicting a 10-year-old child bound and raped by a man, prosecutors said...". 

"...The popular adult film star is accused of sending and receiving "hundreds of video of child pornography," according to a press release from the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York...". Hopefully, this is not your "average" case, and he will not get a mean or median sentence. Assuming these allegations are true, a crime could hardly be more horrific. Only serial killers like Dahmer or Gacey are worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, unicorn said:

From the above link: "...The videos allegedly contained children as young as infants, with one depicting a 10-year-old child bound and raped by a man, prosecutors said...". 

Yes, certainly very incriminating, and the alleged file name itself related to the 10-yr old, albeit in Spanish, clearly stated the content as above, so it cannot be easily argued as having been embedded in a video that contained innocuous material, with the person in possession claiming to be unaware or polyglottally challenged, even if large 3-figure caches contain elements of simulated content with colloquial terms (eg, “boy”) in keeping with the technically legal but gateway performative material that is so prolific and monetized for ‘fan’ consumption. 

SouthernDistrictNY sentencing length appears to be an anomaly, for the year referenced anyway, a 1% microcosm of cumulative federal cases. Recent NY state Child Pornography federal sentence lengths are much greater and consistent with overall national trends. Only the more serious cases are publicized, so it’s difficult to get a sense of what mitigating factors yield a mere probation sentence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, Brianbdberlin said:

I'm not surprised at all, everytime he posts I wonder if the other person is at age at all

Hindsight is too clear. Judging by the popularity of such a comment, clairvoyance is rampant within the population viewing erotica. It’s too easy to conflate legal yet objectionable (to some) pornography content with the background existence of unequivocally illegal conduct. One is not automatically a corollary of the other. It is, and will be, given evidentiary value but that should be restricted to the court of public opinion. That said, I wholeheartedly reject the nomenclature of “boy”, for example, within any sexualized context other than related legislation, the reason as much to do with the inability of the general population to grasp nuance as with the idea it is creepy particularly when paired with imagery suggestive of youth.

The reason I’m not surprised is that the charges and convictions are so ubiquitous judging by USA sentencing data. Similarly reflecting such vast community interest in thematically edgy porn. That, and naïveté among users.

Known players will inevitably emerge and folks will assert they look the part as if it’s a meaningful contribution. If those judgements are accurate then there is no end to the quantity of porn creators that should be under suspicion. The subject of discussion was only under surveillance once named by another arrested person (ahem, canary) snagged in the FBI investigative net and given incentivizing informant status months previously. That person’s arrest was unrelated to the subject of discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sigh.

“Child Pornography” is an easier sell in language and legal terms and is appropriate terminology because what is distinctive about pornography is that it is oriented to inciting sexual excitement, whether acceptable or not. It is implicit that the imagery constitutes abuse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Thomas_88 said:

For example, Europol:

https://www.europol.europa.eu/stopchildabuse

doesn't use the term "ch!ld p*rn" (anymore).

Some would say CSAM or CSEM are better terms than CP (here presented as acronyms); others (like me) would say legitimately interchangeable. If one doesn’t understand that sexual, abuse, exploitation, and material are all implicit in Child Pornography one is living under a rock. What it means is tried and true, irrespective of somebody’s contrarian Linguistics/SocialConstructionism PhD thesis. 

“Material” has multiple noun and adjective definitions, hence possessing inexplicitness requiring an additional level of interpretative implicitness. The trouble with splitting hairs on nomenclature is that it can end up in circles, obscure the essential point, and is impactless on the unfortunate phenomenon it attempts to label anyway.

Of course, one never knows whether the subject’s prosecution or defense will get caught up in this type of definitional material, or that both sides are in possession of Child Pornography for different purposes, and so on ad infinitum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There seems to be a popular trend in which folks fuse notions of culpability and associated prospective conviction sentencing scope with the reality of porn content creator role. This understandably emanates from indignation and the idea that a deterrence example is more robust the greater the prominence, as well as the false belief that true diagnostic pedophilia is central to all charged.

This case stands out due to “celebrity” within some 12,500 cases annually, many of which exceed possession by virtue of actual production and monetization, neither of which is included in the current charges. 

In actuality, I think that the erotica commodification role will be mined for potential exculpatory factors at the defense level, a rigorous attempt to uncouple the entities of legal porn and child pornography. This did not work supporting bail but house arrest is not governed by reasonable doubt. The media narrative suggests detention was ordered partly as a result of the prosecution sensationalizing open legal content … the temerity of simulated thematic erotica content in tandem with charges having occurred due to alleged behaviour that is legitimately censorable via severe punishment.

Word to the wise: keep in line whether a subsequent formal adjudication were to be valid or fraught with bias.

So far it appears that the charges will be refuted although the majority of offenders plead guilty. This may seem to be paradoxical. The exculpatory aspect is obviously not related to giving a hall pass to a pornographer, but the reality, for example, of a content creator’s greater likelihood of flooding of communication and material from hosts of followers of licit erotica that is simulated, suggestive, what have you, to satisfy unique arousal templates. 

Still, it is true that the upper range of sentencing is not impossible on either of the two charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that his best likelihood of reducing sentence is to plead guilty.  That spares the expense and work of trial and is worth something to the prosecution.  The better tool is to have something useful to the prosecution.  Time will tell on that.  Juries aren’t sympathetic in general.  It is also not just the content that he dowloaded which could be a combination of illegal and technically legal material.  He was in contact with the FBI via Telegram and the content of those exchanges could easily undermine any attempt to argue that he thought that the content was simulated.  Also, we have not seen (and only a jury will be shown) the video of the 10 year old being brutally victimized.  There may very well be no plausible way to argue that he thought that the video was “simulated”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am not familiar so much with USA procedures. A jury trial? Yes that would explain plea trends in this criminal law category. The choices and waiver options are varied, in fact convoluted, where I am.

I have only ever given sexual abuse expert testimony before a judge, an adjudication tribunal for victim restitution/ compensation in generic terms, or worked clinically in legal diversion cases. I have not nearly seen it all.

I wasn’t thinking that a convincing argument could be made about the distinction between real and simulated wrt to the central example depicted in the probable cause complaint narrative.  Rather, reasonable doubt over the question of realistically tracking/vetting a ‘bottomless pit’ of combined legal and illegal material that arises from occupational factors, or over having viewed the example specifically.

Sometimes I think that I myself should not follow or write in a platform that contains an array of thousands of images that I have not personally viewed in an assortative manner through the lens of acceptability but could contain cringeworthy examples. 

The Spanish-titled file is illustrated in the possession category and may have not been referenced prior to search/seizure in exchanges with the agent that utilized the account of the alleged offender naming him. That communication seemed geared to corroborating identity and there wouid likely have been a circumspect tone to it so as to avoid giving away the subsequent step.

The sequential iterations of investigation, co-opting, “sting”, and arrest - wash rinse repeat - do portend something more arising from the two-month gap between raid and apprehension. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, Riobard said:

There seems to be a popular trend in which folks fuse notions of culpability and associated prospective conviction sentencing scope with the reality of porn content creator role. This understandably emanates from indignation and the idea that a deterrence example is more robust the greater the prominence, as well as the false belief that true diagnostic pedophilia is central to all charged.

This case stands out due to “celebrity” within some 12,500 cases annually, many of which exceed possession by virtue of actual production and monetization, neither of which is included in the current charges. 

In actuality, I think that the erotica commodification role will be mined for potential exculpatory factors at the defense level, a rigorous attempt to uncouple the entities of legal porn and child pornography. This did not work supporting bail but house arrest is not governed by reasonable doubt. The media narrative suggests detention was ordered partly as a result of the prosecution sensationalizing open legal content … the temerity of simulated thematic erotica content in tandem with charges having occurred due to alleged behaviour that is legitimately censorable via severe punishment.

Word to the wise: keep in line whether a subsequent formal adjudication were to be valid or fraught with bias.

So far it appears that the charges will be refuted although the majority of offenders plead guilty. This may seem to be paradoxical. The exculpatory aspect is obviously not related to giving a hall pass to a pornographer, but the reality, for example, of a content creator’s greater likelihood of flooding of communication and material from hosts of followers of licit erotica that is simulated, suggestive, what have you, to satisfy unique arousal templates. 

Still, it is true that the upper range of sentencing is not impossible on either of the two charges.

Book you really should read:

The Elements of Style (4th Edition)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, Latbear4blk said:

Dude. The opening sentence. I can’t even. So … one can be born immoral? No tabula rasa? Freud’s out, then? You also chose a photo that lacks neutrality, one that goes for a particular symbolic effect. Don’t try so hard to entertain with an attention-grab, and don’t be a juror non-juror in the same breath. His name is the only up-front draw necessary. The rest of the essay is pretty good. No major issues or notes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Riobard said:

I am not familiar so much with USA procedures. A jury trial? Yes that would explain plea trends in this criminal law category. The choices and waiver options are varied, in fact convoluted, where I am.

I have only ever given sexual abuse expert testimony before a judge, an adjudication tribunal for victim restitution/ compensation in generic terms, or worked clinically in legal diversion cases. I have not nearly seen it all.

I wasn’t thinking that a convincing argument could be made about the distinction between real and simulated wrt to the central example depicted in the probable cause complaint narrative.  Rather, reasonable doubt over the question of realistically tracking/vetting a ‘bottomless pit’ of combined legal and illegal material that arises from occupational factors, or over having viewed the example specifically.

Sometimes I think that I myself should not follow or write in a platform that contains an array of thousands of images that I have not personally viewed in an assortative manner through the lens of acceptability but could contain cringeworthy examples. 

The Spanish-titled file is illustrated in the possession category and may have not been referenced prior to search/seizure in exchanges with the agent that utilized the account of the alleged offender naming him. That communication seemed geared to corroborating identity and there wouid likely have been a circumspect tone to it so as to avoid giving away the subsequent step.

The sequential iterations of investigation, co-opting, “sting”, and arrest - wash rinse repeat - do portend something more arising from the two-month gap between raid and apprehension. 

A translation would be helpful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Riobard said:

Dude. The opening sentence. I can’t even. So … one can be born immoral? No tabula rasa? Freud’s out, then? You also chose a photo that lacks neutrality, one that goes for a particular symbolic effect. Don’t try so hard to entertain with an attention-grab, and don’t be a juror non-juror in the same breath. His name is the only up-front draw necessary. The rest of the essay is pretty good. No major issues or notes.

Doesn't  get any easier!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...