No officer and gentleman would write such obscenities, appellate court agrees
Source: stars and stripes
Judges on the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces unanimously affirmed the conviction and sentence of Lt. Col. Scott Meakin for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.
By NANCY MONTGOMERY | STARS AND STRIPES Published: May 9, 2019
A former Air Force officer’s online conversations about sexually abusing young children were not constitutionally protected, the military’s highest court has ruled, as it affirmed his conviction for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Tuesday rejected the legal argument that Lt. Col. Scott Meakin’s graphic online discussions were protected by free speech and privacy guarantees. The five-judge panel unanimously upheld the former combat systems officer’s conviction and sentence to nearly 20 months’ confinement, pay and allowance forfeiture and dismissal from the service.
............................................
Using the pseudonym “John Jones,” he had engaged in a series of online conversations through email, chat rooms, and instant messaging with some 17 anonymous individuals in which he described “in lurid detail the abuse, molestation, and rape of children,” court documents say. One of the unnamed users, posing as a sexually abusive father willing to exploit his young daughter, was a detective in the Internet Child Exploitation Unit of the Holton Regional Police Service in Ontario, Canada.
Meakin had argued that his chats, although “repugnant sexual fantasies involving children,” were anonymous, private, consensual communications protected by the First and Fourteenth amendments, as set out by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision Stanley v. Georgia. That decision helped establish a “right to privacy” in possessing pornography in one’s home.
.................................
“[Meakin’s] obscenity was not contained within his home for consideration within his own mind,” the court said. “Instead, he produced, preserved, and transmitted his written obscenities to seventeen separate individuals.”.................................................
Read more: https://www.stripes.com/news/no-officer-and-gentleman-would-write-such-obscenities-appellate-court-agrees-1.580282
I doubt Trump will pardon this vile man.
= new reply since forum marked as read
This guy has nothing to offer Trump. If there's no profit for Trump, why would he pardon the officer?
I think the Trump family morals are governed by the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.
pornography. If entrapment could have been used as a defense it no doubt would have been.
This case discussed was tried under military law, and definition and dynamics of what would constitute "entrapment" might be quite different under an authoritarian military legal code. Certainly, a legal duty to comport oneself as a gentleman is. 
individual rights to our own fantasies are well established. Good thing, or some people would be afraid to admire baby pictures.
Otoh, child pornography, including on-line, is a real, physical product of crimes committed against children. There is no such thing as legal child porn. Regarding other types of liability, knowingly possessing stolen property is a crime, especially when it's for personal benefit. When it comes to pornography, the "knowing" that it is the product of a crime against children is intrinsic, as is the personal benefit.
depending on what state one was in and what laws hadn't been struck down yet. But liberalism was still overall ascendant then, so it might have been true federally. That was the prevailing principle.
It still is but may not be in future if things go very bad. I wish more people realized how huge the stakes are. Our rights aren't gravity. We can effectively vote or not-vote any of them out of existence, including even the vote itself.
understood justice very well, of course. I've seen A Few Good Men. 
I did assume that its authoritarian structure and philosophy might be reflected in the legal code, in ways that didn't conflict with the constitution, but this wasn't a slap at the quality of the law, only that it might be somewhat different.
Not surprised that nothing in the article suggested entrapment in either system, but nice to hear.
Is this guy likely to be able to keep any benefits, do you think, or get some reinstated on an appeal? We have a retired Air Force colonel in our extended family, and his benefits are considerable.