I personally find it difficult to overlook the fact that Waddy plead NO CONTEST in 1998 to possession of child pornography - found on his computer - and in printed hard copy at his house - found when the police arrested him for what was on his computer. That's the part that gets me - perhaps he "accidentally" downloaded something (not) - but to have printed copies of it ? That is not a mistake and can't be argued as such. This can be confirmed by a google search for "waddy watchel child pornography". This is not 'gossip'. He plead guilty to a crime - public and accurate information.

Why would he accept a plea to CHILD PORN if in fact he was not guilty? He's got the $$ to hire lawyers to fight off any trumped-up BS. Even to argue about an 'accidental' download. But the printed copies are what did him in - thus the no contest plea. His lawyers kept him from jail but he had to take the plea. No Contest = GUILTY.

I read the thread here to see if anyone else pointed this out. I did not read the linked story that opened the thread.

The recent Stevie Nicks tour is mentioned in this thread. The has been criticism of the Immigration Minister in Australia for allowing him into the country despite the conviction.

I know this topic has been discussed - usually dismissively - on this board in the past. I'm surprised so many are willing to overlook it, and that it is not mentioned every time his name pops up in a thread.

Quote
HomerSimpson
I'm surprised so many are willing to overlook it, and that it is not mentioned every time his name pops up in a thread.

I think we all love to discuss what our favourite artists gave us to enjoy: the music.
There are many aspects of the personal life's of our heroes that we don't approve of,
even despise probably. But then, who of us is without sins?
What troubles me with the recent discussions about inappropriate behaviour of artists
is that we are not allowed to enjoy the beauty of their output anymore.

I would strongly advocate to keep the person and his art separated.
They might be sons of bitches, but what great moments did they give us.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Quote
HomerSimpson
I personally find it difficult to overlook the fact that Waddy plead NO CONTEST in 1998 to possession of child pornography

I admit that that old news still somehow buggers me.

Yet I do not know the facts. Child porn is an extremely wide category: US Federal law defines it "any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (persons less than 18 years old)"

[www.justice.gov]

The prohibition of "possession" of child pornography is aimed to discourage child porn industry (disgusting).

That said, at least from a moral point of view, one thing is to find pleasure in porn involving children (sick), a completely different issue is when the images refer to persons with whom you legally could have sex with (in Italy, more than 14 years old).

I can only hope that what was found in Waddy's computer was porn that generally falls in the "teen" category.

C