Frank Gembeck jr. convicted of possesion of child pornography

[upupa epops]

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/can/press/2008/2008_10_22_gembeckjr.guiltyplea.press.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 22, 2008
...
SAN JOSE – United States Attorney Joseph P. Russoniello announced that Frank Gembeck, Jr., of Cupertino, California, pleaded guilty on Monday to possessing child pornography. In United States District Court proceedings Monday, Mr. Gembeck, 41, admitted to possessing approximately one hundred videos and fourteen still images on his computer and on DVDs, which depicted minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The child pornography included images of prepubescent children engaged depictions of violent, sadistic or masochistic conduct.

From this thread:

http://lulz.net/furi/res/508111.html

Someone mentions there that they believe he got 6 years for it.

His FA page:

http://www.furaffinity.net/user/dustyn

A couple of shouts already.

& his furnation account:

http://www.furnation.com/frank_gembeck/


On a side note, I have attempted to update his wikifur article with this:

http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Frank_Gembeck

However within a few minutes, an admin had reverted it saying that I needed to better justify the informations presence. The matter is here should you care:

http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:86.164.155.151

Regarding your recent edits to Frank Gembeck‎, we generally include information of that sort only if there is a tangible relevance to their involvement in furry fandom, or if there is a good reason why it is in the interest of the furry community that this information be made public. If you can provide an explanation or additional details or otherwise present a case for why this information should be included in the article, please feel free to reply here or in the article's talk page. --mwalimu 17:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If you examine Sibe's page, you will see it is a veritable police blotter in great detail. If it is justified to have such information and details on he in the interests of warning the furry community about him, it likewise is also justified to warn people about a well-known artist who has been convicted of possession of child pornography. It is as bad a crime as any of Sibe's and indicates that he may well be a danger to children. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.164.155.151 (talk • contribs)

In the case of Sibe, he has made friends with people and later stolen money and property from them, and has been banned from conventions on multiple occasions. These are acts which would be good for anyone dealing with him to know about. It's quite possible that some of the actions listed in the article could be left out as irrelevant to his involvement in furry fandom, but clearly many of them are relevant.

If Frank Gembeck were a producer of child pornography then it might be more justified, but it's not apparent that simply possessing it makes him a danger to others in the fandom or to their children. To my knowledge (and I'm certainly no expert on the subject), laws against possession of child porn are primarily based on demand-drives-supply, and it's the supply side and the exploitation of children that goes with it that the laws are intended to address.

But I'm just one admin here. Other admins here may have differing viewpoints, so I'll see if I can get some second opinions. --mwalimu 17:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sibe merits every single little thing noted in his article. But Gembeck's possession of honest-to-god child porn? Nah, not relevant.

[upupa epops]

http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:86.164.155.151

A few details . . .

OK, so I've gone into the online court records (doing so theoretically incurs a charge, but not if I don't look at several more cases during the next year).

The summary above is essentially correct, though the conviction was for five years (60 months), not six. A separate charge for receiving was dropped in exchange for the guilty plea (he originally plead not guilty). The guilty plea also appears to have reduced the sentencing period, which is on the low end of the sentencing guidelines.

Note that this is for one count of possession for a first-time offender. U.S. guidelines treat possession of child pornography at about the same level as actually abusing a child, and add significant amounts for aggravating factors (in this case, pre-pubescent minors, S&M themes, and the use of a computer, plus the number of images).

The work was apparently all in one three-DVD collection. For fairly obvious reasons, the precise details of the offending material were sealed, but three DVDs labeled "Y1/2/3 AK 7-28-05" are mentioned in the indictment, along with his computer. There might have been additional material on the computer; I presume the count above was a total. There's no indication that the material was related to furry fandom.

I've just got back from FWA having had two hours sleep today, so I'm not in the ideal position to weigh in on the pros and cons of including this information. With that in mind, WikiFur has addressed a similar circumstance in the past by removing mention of a guilty charge for child pornography. However, it only did so after the sentence had been performed, and in that case there was a significant concern within fandom about the validity of the charge.

I'm not hugely convinced of the "danger to society" argument. The record does not suggest that he was directly involved in activities that harmed minors, just that he just enjoyed viewing them. Still people may be wondering where he is for the next few years (in theory he's only due in jail on 8 May), and it is a matter of public record. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume the removed child porn charges would be Paul Kidd.

[LordNagetiere]

Sibe stole people's vidya games and art. That's serious stuff, all Frank did was provide the demand side for an industry that steals, violates, traumatizes and sometimes kills children.

How dare you imply these are on the same level.

"Won't somebody please think of the art!"

[rodox_video]

I'm not hugely convinced of the "danger to society" argument.

    I'm about to become a serious danger to YOU.

[GreenReaper]

I'm not hugely convinced of the "danger to society" argument.

    I'm about to become a serious danger to YOU.

Dude, if you're gonna say that, you have to say it to my face for it to mean anything. I'm not a regular here.

I assume the removed child porn charges would be Paul Kidd.

That is correct. I think the difference in public reaction was due to the circumstances of the case, which left it in doubt as to whether he was the person who downloaded the illicit work.

[rodox_video]

    Thing is, with the Paul Kidd case I think he claimed that someone else put the material on his machine. This is the very same excuse that every single pedophile in the world uses when shit is found on his machine.

    Hopefully I'm wrong about this little bit because god damn.

[rodox_video]

I'm not hugely convinced of the "danger to society" argument.

    I'm about to become a serious danger to YOU.

Dude, if you're gonna say that, you have to say it to my face for it to mean anything. I'm not a regular here.

    Argue however you want about The Real World and so forth, but furrydumb is first and foremost a fetish community. Therefore, safety should be paramount in all of it's activities. If someone's committed a sexual offense, it is everyone's god damn right to know about it.

[verix]

Has this thing gone mainstream yet? I know a lot of people either know of Gembeck either by "HOLY SHIT UGLY FURRY ARTIST" or "HOLY SHIT PORN ARTIST," but I don't know if he's even relevant anymore. So basically what I'm asking is this: does anyone care?

I don't mean the people who should care, or that this story isn't really worth anything, I'm wondering if anyone actually cares that One of the Big Ones was a pederast. Because I'm extremely curious as to the characteristics of this community and want to see if my cynical beliefs on the pettiness of the community is true.

Basically I'm curious to see what will happen now that he's been arrested: will the community collectively sweep this under the rug and still request art from him (if he doesn't get convicted anyway) or will he be demonized? If it has hit mainstream, what do you guys gauge-- demon or martyr?

[ProvincialTwit]

I suppose it really depends on the quality, as it were, of his friends.  Despite the massive overall groupthink, the various fetish sub-sub-subcultures tend to react differently to these sorts of situations.  Part of his fan base may rally behind him no matter what, some may cheer up to the point that he's convicted, and the rest will most likely, as you say, sweep it under the rug, if only to try to distance themselves (and their fandom) from this sort of thing.

Regardless, though, due to the whole groupthink thing, it seems most likely that whichever of the above groups is most vocal/populous will influence the general perception and reaction.

[verix]

What makes this most interesting for me is that this single issue is a collective of polarizing issues in the furry fandom. Making cub shit allowed on FurAffinity is, literally, a 50-50 split. The response to actually making that stuff allowed on FA was probably the most popular political response in the furry fandom that I remember. So the same people who were in the 50 in disagreement should be livid to hear this.

Then you've got the furry counter-culture rightfully resentful of the groupthink so prevalent in a culture obsessed with the high school culture they never got to experience, who regardless of its collective disagreement with many factors of the furry fandom still stick around. So of course that sect of the furry fandom is going to be anxious to watch what happens from a cultural standpoint.

Then you've got the people who are resented by the counter-culture! Many of which will have to come to terms with this groupthink they've gotten themselves into-- especially if they feel strongly toward the whole cub thing.

I'm definitely no psychologist, but I really, really enjoy watching how the human mind twists and turns and justifies-- especially in the context of the facets of a society. Really, if this thing gets enough attention with enough folk standing up on their soap boxes to comment, I guarantee that for anyone interested in how a culture interacts that this is an event you'll want popcorn for.

[verix]

Oh! Let's not forget the fact that there's no obvious scapegoat here-- Gembeck was neither a babyfur nor a cub-artist. Like the saying goes for these types of cases, he was just like any other guy, save for the fact that-- like many popular furry artists-- he drew banal porn with vivid colors.

I'm really anxious to see how this plays out.

[MetropolitanDonut]

How many more times does this need to happen before the Fandom passes the tipping point of Moral Panic?

[Freehaven]

How many more times does this need to happen before the Fandom passes the tipping point of Moral Panic?

It'll never happen.