Adult film star Austin Wolf arrested on child pornography charges

[Riobard]

7 hours ago, Travelingguy said:

Framing someone for this type of crime would be very dangerous, because one would have to have possession of the material to plant it or transmit it.  The risk of having it backfire in their face is high enough that I think that very few people would be foolish enough to try to pull that off.

No framing necessary. The FBI works on a longitudinal pyramid model, inducting where possible each person charged to informant status for a large percentage downward variance on punishment, each truly culpable fool interlocked with the one before and after in sequence and spurring probable cause. It’s a solid example of the HumanCentiPad trend.

You see what patterns occur in the actual offence realm replicated in media-generated public opinion.

For my part, I try my best not to swallow the smoking overblown drivel emitted from anuses. Others are keen to have their lips surgically stitched to others’ rectums for a sense of belonging and sympatico.

[Riobard]

9 hours ago, Latbear4blk said:

Read carefully the charges. 

For many that’s less important than seeking attention with fake news, but you know that.

[Riobard]

On 7/10/2024 at 3:18 AM, khaolakguy said:

Or as the Liverpool anthem puts it, "you'll never wank alone".

What does this have to do with the subject of child sexual abuse other than that perps similarly sing it?

[Riobard]

On 7/10/2024 at 3:37 AM, Olddaddy said:

He (allegedly) had a very obscene fetish that he spent time on.

 

That is not at all alleged. He is faced with the very serious charge of possession and reciprocal transmission of child pornography.

Child sexual abuse is not fetishistic. Children are not inanimate. Obscene fetishism is an oxymoron.

The exploitation behind the porn clinically reflects enacted pedophilia if pedophilia underpins true subjective arousal. It is plausible in many cases that illicit content, notwithstanding its heinous nature, exists to pander to a follower base more accurately meeting the diagnostic criteria of pedophilia. Wouid it be too much to ask folks to comprehend what they are understandably reactive about?

That said, the syndrome of pedophilia itself is not an offence. The ‘Daddy’ scene is legal and acceptable insofar as it is a play on human developmental differential. Unfortunately it’s the thin edge of a wedge potentially leading to loss of bearings particularly where money is involved and it intersects with large and follower niche subpopulations wherein demographic pedophilic representation inevitably exists.

More in keeping with the balanced part of your viewpoint, being a dumb, selfish, greedy lug doesn’t make anyone a person with pedophilia. It may be arguably worse than pedophilia but it’s not pedophilia unless it is. Such a diagnostic formulation wouid only occur in the context of an individual seeking paraphilia assessment and/or treatment.

[Riobard]

7 hours ago, gayinpattaya said:

Very true, but stalkers and ex-lovers have been known to murder before. Some people will go to any lengths. Either way it's a good reminder to all to be in control of your digital security. 

Better yet, don’t be in a position where a firewall is the one flimsy thing making the difference between freedom and the hole. 

[Keithambrose]

3 hours ago, Riobard said:

Better yet, don’t be in a position where a firewall is the one flimsy thing making the difference between freedom and the hole. 

How do you block people on here?

[Latbear4blk]

53 minutes ago, Keithambrose said:

How do you block people on here?

When you place your pointer on top of a member's icon profile, you will have a window popping up. Chose the "ignore" option. 

[khaolakguy]

5 hours ago, Latbear4blk said:

When you place your pointer on top of a member's icon profile, you will have a window popping up. Chose the "ignore" option. 

Thanks, this thread has persuaded me to add two posters to ignore. I never ignored anyone before, here or elsewhere!

[Latbear4blk]

2 hours ago, khaolakguy said:

Thanks, this thread has persuaded me to add two posters to ignore. I never ignored anyone before, here or elsewhere!

I'm curious! I think I know one of them. I actually thought this is a light thread. The only one about AW surviving out of the three forums in which I participate. 

[Keithambrose]

15 hours ago, Latbear4blk said:

When you place your pointer on top of a member's icon profile, you will have a window popping up. Chose the "ignore" option. 

Thanks!

[Riobard]

New twist:

CSAM-related charges dropped in conjunction with a guilty plea for a new charge of enticement of a minor, 2422(b). The shift seems to have been very impromptu and one wonders if it emerged from a co-felon’s information, as it is established that another person known to Smith, also charged and turned informant, gave the FBI permission to use his devices for reeling in Smith. Perhaps a youth came forward. [caveat: only supposition].

In reality, the bundle of dropped pornography charges alone may have resulted in a similar length of sentence that is associated with the enticement charge. 

Next step I suppose pre-sentencing evaluation. Significant prison time expected. No charges related to actual in-person sexual interaction with a minor. If procurement led to actual physical sexual interference of a minor there may be another culpable adult facing charges.  No apparent charges related to sexual abuse images specific to the one youth.

Evidently the child age 15, but interestingly this criminal statute applies to up to age 17 irrespective of state age of consent specificity, and the circumstances defining illegal sexual activity would relate to prostitution intent, prohibited sexual activity, or both. The latter likely interpretable according to age below age 16, yet age of consent variance by state 16-18 suggesting that prostitution may not necessarily have been implicated in Smith’s case because age alone is a sufficient criterion and the federal statute threshold seems to be below age 18.  But where there’s procurement in a context already commodified money is typically involved. That said, perhaps evidence of compensation offered that subsequently never occurred or cannot be verified after the fact may satisfy the criterion of recruitment for prostitution purposes? 

Even more interestingly, enticing an adult definitionally legal of any age … 2422(a) … also carries a heavy penalty even absent the age-based prohibition, in a jurisdiction where prostitution is criminalized. This suggests that attempting to engage an adult, where consent doesn’t seem vitiated from your point of view, in paid sexual favours can technically culminate in not that many degrees of separation from the types of justin-fiable consequences born by Smith. Perhaps such awareness publicly brought forward will discourage punters from traceable recruitment of “boys”, “twinks”, what have you, let alone fishing for transactional sex with adult males in general. Surely where evidence is communication- centred the choice of terms shapes the intent that authorities attribute to you. 

[PeterRS]

I have just come across this thread and have to add I am more than a little confused. My fault, I'm sure, as I have not read every single post in detail, so apologies for that in advance.

I had never heard the name Austin Wolf until I read this thread. I have never seen any video involving him. No doubt that's because I'm only interested in Asian guys. That he might - stress might - have made the vdo being discussed or just had it in his possession I find utterly disgusting.

My reason for posting now is twofold. First, I noted this in a post by @Riobard on July 22 2024 - "Wasn’t there a poster here a while back that arrogantly disparaged layperson jury trials?" I do not recall that post but for clarification I did make one post myself on another thread regarding a programme made on British television in which a made-up case was tried before two juries of 12 men and women. The cameras took viewers into the jury rooms to hear the deliberations. The interesting point was that one jury found the 'accused' guilty and the other 'innocent'. It merely raised the issue of whether trial by jury is the most ideal form of obtaining justice.

But the second point I want to make is that the sort of videos being discussed used to be quite common in Thailand. I cannot pinpoint dates but I guess until about 25 years ago there were porn vdo sellers who used to roam the gay beach in Pattaya. Among these were vdos clearly made in Thailand of older men with quite obviously considerably underage participants. I found one in a batch of vdos I had bought and it sickened me, just as I literally felt like being sick when around the same time I wandered into a Sunee Plaza bar where the boys sitting around the stage were definitely more than a little underage. Thankfully, I believe this form of disgusting exploitation has stopped - at least in tourist areas. 

[Riobard]

@PeterRS, you don't need to look very far, particularly in the tech age, to determine that pedophilia themed exploitation is very much alive and flourishing. I know guys that won’t go near chat rooms without strict rules and boundaries related to content that implies openness to sexualizing based on the appearance of youth. It creeps out a lot of intelligent sexually mature men because often the only thing standing in the way of glorifying man-boy sex is the law. 

Interesting but not surprising entry about jury trials. 

[Mavica]

Ex-porn star Austin Wolf sobs as he admits child sex crime: ‘I knew it was wrong’

“Former porn star Austin Wolf sobbed as he claimed to take responsibility for getting a minor to engage in a sex act during a Manhattan federal court hearing Friday. … The adult star, real name Justin Heath Smith, pleaded guilty to one charge, enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity, during his plea hearing … Lesser pornography charges will be dropped at Smith’s sentencing, although feds had busted him a year ago for allegedly exchanging hundreds of child porn videos — including one showing a 10-year-old child being bound and raped, prosecutors announced … He will face a mandatory 10 years in prison, and a maximum punishment of life in prison … “

 

Source:  https://nypost.com/2025/06/20/media/ex-porn-star-austin-wolf-to-plead-guilty-to-child-porn-charges/

[Travelingguy]

The Post article was readable

[Riobard]

To clarify, as I was previously uncertain and the media omitted the details, the court record indicates enticement for both elements, prostitution and sexual activity.

If there is a charge related to prohibited oral sex with a minor that actually occurred between Smith and the minor, it is not listed in the Information containing the federal 2422(b) charge. However, my understanding, albeit limited, is that it would be a state Class E felony in the third degree. It is unclear whether Smith, the second adult, or both assaulted the child and if New York charges are forthcoming.