Gaytor Radio Broadcaster facing Child Porn Charges

[DenverSooner751]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-ufbroadcaster-childporncharges&prov=ap&type=lgns

GAINESVILLE, Fla. (AP)—Longtime University of Florida sports broadcaster Steve Babik (BAB-ick) is facing federal charges of having child pornography on his home computer.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office said Tuesday that the 50-year-old Babik is charged with one count of receipt and distribution of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography.

His attorney, Larry Turner, says Babik appeared in court Tuesday, pleaded not guilty and was released with restrictions. Turner says it was too early in his investigation to comment on the charges.

The University Athletic Association said Tuesday that Babik has been fired.

Babik was the sideline reporter for Gators football games and handled other radio duties. He had been at UF since 1987.

[delhalew]

Is that the annoying arsehole I always hear that says OOHH MY! constantly.

[sooneredaco]

They should send his a$$ to Federal Pen & have him share a cell with a 350 lb man named bubba. Disgusting perv!

[Leroy Lizard]

It's been a rough week for the Gators. They had a player fail to show for community service and another ex-player (although still enrolled) arrested for kidnapping.

[ndpruitt03]

This thread needs a title correction the former Gaylor broadcaster...

[Boomer38Sooner]

WTF!!!!!!

[Leroy Lizard]

They should send his a$$ to Federal Pen & have him share a cell with a 350 lb man named bubba. Disgusting perv!

Sure, if the charges are true and as serious as they sound.

[Leroy Lizard]

http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/gatorbytes/files/2010/01/babik-138x150.jpg

[DBrown]

I think I heard him saying,"Dallas Baker,the touchdown maker" and
followed it up by saying that obnoxious "Oh my"!
Won't miss that!

[StoopTroup]

Sure, if the charges are true and as serious as they sound.

Maybe they ought to throw you in with them so you can counsel them both.

[jumperstop]

http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/gatorbytes/files/2010/01/babik-138x150.jpg

Wow is this the guy? If so he looks like the type of guy who would have child porn on his computer. Also he is wearing a lot of spray on tan for somebody who is a radio voice.

[A Sooner in Texas]

Maybe they ought to throw you in with them so you can counsel them both.

I'd normally not be one to defend Leroy, but he's right ... the guy is innocent until proven guilty, as of course anyone arrested in this country is. But the feds do not mess around on child porn charges, and they usually dot every i and cross every t when getting evidence ready before indictment.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I'd normally not be one to defend Leroy, but he's right ... the guy is innocent until proven guilty, as of course anyone arrested in this country is. But the feds do not mess around on child porn charges, and they usually dot every i and cross every t when getting evidence ready before indictment.

That's what I was thinking. There are times where charges are "stretched" but not generally in the child pron case. Dude looks like a doosh anyway. Federal "pound me in the arse prison" will be nice for the guy...

[Crucifax Autumn]

He looks like the kinda guy that would be making the child porn to me.

[Leroy Lizard]

Maybe they ought to throw you in with them so you can counsel them both.

Okay, to please StoopTroup let me chang my argument: They should throw him in the Federal pen with a cellmate named Bubba even if the charges are not true.

Happy now?

[RedstickSooner]

Man. You people and your dude rape. Can't we just hope he gets shanked and dies on the yard after being dumped into gen pop?

Assuming, of course, that he's guilty. Due process. Force of law. Blah, blah blah.

[Leroy Lizard]

I would like to know a little more (if I really cared). Are we talking about prepubescent children, or porn stars that just happened to be 17?

[sooneredaco]

I would like to know a little more (if I really cared). Are we talking about prepubescent children, or porn stars that just happened to be 17?

Wow.... I've never heard sombody say something that retarded to defend sombody that was booked for being an effen perv! Where do you come up with these excuses to defend people? It seems to me like you always defend the person that most people view as the guilty party to eveybody else. Not certain if that's the case everytime, but it seems to be so more often than not.

[Leroy Lizard]

Wow.... I've never heard sombody say something that retarded to defend sombody that was booked for being an effen perv! Where do you come up with these excuses to defend people? It seems to me like you always defend the person that most people view as the guilty party to eveybody else. Not certain if that's the case everytime, but it seems to be so more often than not.

Remember Traci Lords? There are a lot of pervs in this world according to your definition.

What is the legal age limit for an exotic dancer in Texas?

[tanjou]

Given the receipt and distribution bit, sounds like he downloaded some torrents of high school girls recording crap for friends or something.

I'm sure no one here has ever done that.

[Leroy Lizard]

Where do you come up with these excuses to defend people? It seems to me like you always defend the person that most people view as the guilty party to eveybody else.

Hmmm... everyone in here thought Leach did nothing wrong. I pointed out that he may have violated university policy.

Cam Newton, too.

Sorry, nice try.

[sooneredaco]

No clue what the age limit is, but what I do know is that he was charged with possessing and distributing child porn. That's illegal. What I also know is that the charges were serious enough that his employer of 23 years canned his a$$. That is enough evidence for me to render the judgment I did in my original post.

As somebody who has seen people affected by that kind of gross behavior, I wish nothing but the worst for people like that.

[Leroy Lizard]

No clue what the age limit is, but what I do know is that he was charged with possessing and distributing child porn.

What is a child according to child porn laws? 17? I'm not sure.

No one is arguing legality. I'm just pointing out that the severity of the punishment should depend on the age of the children in the images. The younger they are, the more twisted he is and the bigger threat he is to society.

If he had a 100 pictures of porn stars on his drive and three of them turned out to be 17 years old, that is very different from possessing pictures of prepubscent children performing sex acts.

I thought that in Texas you could strip at 17. But I couldn't verify it. Does anyone know?

[A Sooner in Texas]

I would like to know a little more (if I really cared). Are we talking about prepubescent children, or porn stars that just happened to be 17?

No defending you on this idiocy. Child porn means just that ... child porn. I know in Texas a person is considered legally an adult at 17; don't know about Fla. I don't know how young a victim has to be under federal law, but I've never seen anyone over 14 in the cases I've read about.

Really, though, what an absolutely ****ing stupid thing to write, Lizard.

[A Sooner in Texas]

What is a child according to child porn laws? 17? I'm not sure.

No one is arguing legality. I'm just pointing out that the severity of the punishment should depend on the age of the children in the images. The younger they are, the more twisted he is and the bigger threat he is to society.

Again, more idiocy. A child is a child is a child, and the feds typically base the severity of the charge on number of images...not the age of the child. The feds take this **** very, very seriously and they will have very strong evidence before they even arrest someone.

[Leroy Lizard]

No defending you on this idiocy. Child porn means just that ... child porn.

Gee, with logic like that...

[Leroy Lizard]

A child is a child is a child

Gee, thanks for clarifying!!!

Have you been a philosopher all your life, or is this just a hobby?


and the feds typically base the severity of the charge on number of images...not the age of the child.

You know this for a fact? That the age of the children in the images has nothing to do with the severity of the sentencing? Or are you just guessing?


The feds take this **** very, very seriously and they will have very strong evidence before they even arrest someone.

I'm not questioning the strength of the evidence. I am asking just how sick the images were on his computer.

How many in here have ever seen a Traci Lords adult movie? According to A Sooner in Texas, you're a perverted child porn lover who should be sent to jail and be raped by Bubba.

[Crucifax Autumn]

You seem WAY too interested in the legalities!

[Leroy Lizard]

So...... you've seen a Traci Lords movie? Hmmm......?

[Crucifax Autumn]

So...... you've seen a Traci Lords movie? Hmmm......?

Of course...I saw Traci, I Love You. :P

[olevetonahill]

You seem WAY too interested in the legalities!

I think hes Skeered the Feebs gonna be Lookin on his puter next :eek:

[Leroy Lizard]

I have called up every one of the young ladies and confirmed their birth dates.

[Crucifax Autumn]

And the boys?

[Leroy Lizard]

Dammit, I can't think of a good comeback. I hate it when that happens.

[A Sooner in Texas]

Gee, thanks for clarifying!!!

Have you been a philosopher all your life, or is this just a hobby?



How many in here have ever seen a Traci Lords adult movie? According to A Sooner in Texas, you're a perverted child porn lover who should be sent to jail and be raped by Bubba.

Leroy, you do more than enough philosophizing for everyone here.

Having never seen a Traci Lords movie, I can't say whether her performances would be classified as child porn. And don't take words and twist them around, though I know that's like telling you not to breathe.
I have covered a number of these cases, and in speaking with lawyers - primarily federal prosecutors - it is the number of images and the types of acts depicted that play the heaviest role in the severity of sentencing. Age may very well be a factor, but the majority of cases like this involve children - boys and girls - who are usually very young. It can be difficult to determine the age of someone who is a teenager and not prepubescent, and hopefully I don't have to tell you why.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Since Traci acted in pron movies while a teenager, it would be deemed child pron. However, I believe she was 17 (may have been 16) and she lied about her age and signed contracts as a legal of age person. Several year into her pron career, it was found she lied about her age. All those movies and perhaps photo spreads were taken out of circulation at that point. She continued to "act" as an adult for a time as I understand.

[Leroy Lizard]

Having never seen a Traci Lords movie, I can't say whether her performances would be classified as child porn.

She was 17. She was a child, a child, a child. Remember?

I mentioned earlier that it would be different if the women in the images were 17 as opposed to 8, and you would have none of it. "A child is a child is a child" you said. "Child porn is child porn!"

But now, you say "I can't say whether her performances would be classified as child porn."

#&^#^%&#!!!!!


I have covered a number of these cases, and in speaking with lawyers - primarily federal prosecutors - it is the number of images and the types of acts depicted that play the heaviest role in the severity of sentencing.

Hearsay.

[Crucifax Autumn]

That's why I specifically lied about only seeing her ONE legal film! lmao

In my defense, when I saw the others I was between 14 and 17. That and I [Dr. Loomis]I banged her six times!!!![/Dr. Loomis]

[A Sooner in Texas]

She was 17. She was a child, a child, a child. Remember?

I mentioned earlier that it would be different if the women in the images were 17 as opposed to 8, and you would have none of it. "A child is a child is a child" you said. "Child porn is child porn!"

But now, you say "I can't say whether her performances would be classified as child porn."

#&^#^%&#!!!!!


Did I get under your skin there, Leroy? And no, I don't remember that she was a child, a child, a child in some of her movies because, as I said earlier, you dumb****, I haven't seen any. Traci Lords does nothing for me because I'm not a lesbian. I don't pay any attention to Traci Lords news, so I have no knowledge that she was a child when acting in porn. If she was under 17, that would most likely in most states make her a child, and therefore make her body of work at the time child porn.
And yes, a child is a child is a child - if it's someone under 17.

Understand it now?

[Leroy Lizard]

Did I get under your skin there, Leroy? And no, I don't remember that she was a child, a child, a child in some of her movies because, as I said earlier, you dumb****, I haven't seen any. Traci Lords does nothing for me because I'm not a lesbian. I don't pay any attention to Traci Lords news, so I have no knowledge that she was a child when acting in porn. If she was under 17, that would most likely in most states make her a child, and therefore make her body of work at the time child porn.
And yes, a child is a child is a child - if it's someone under 17.


UNDER 17?!?!

Pleading ignorance is a rotten way to argue. (I didn't know who she was.) Use Google.

So, to recap:

I posted that I wanted to wait to see if the images appearing on what'sh-his-face's computer were those of 17 year-olds. And for that you called me every name you had in your limited vocabulary. It didn't matter if the girls were 17 or 8, according to you, it was child porn.

But now, you are claiming it is only child porn if the girls are UNDER 17.

You also said that you had no knowledge of people being prosecuted for possessing images of girls over 14. But you also said that "child porn is child porn" and the age of the girls doesn't matter to the feds. So why are they only prosecuting those who have pictures of real young girls (an boys)?

@$^%@$^!!

[Oldnslo]

1) the Feds usually have a pretty good case before they move forward.

2) they're sometimes wrong, too.

The part that sticks out here, to me, isnt the possession. It's the distribution claim. That's the icky part. Extra ick.

[DenverSooner751]

This is awesome.

[DenverSooner751]

So if we really wanted to twist things up a bit, we would say that Tebow is involved in the distribution ring. LOL.

[Leroy Lizard]

The part that sticks out here, to me, isnt the possession. It's the distribution claim.

Virus, possibly?

[A Sooner in Texas]

UNDER 17?!?!

Pleading ignorance is a rotten way to argue. (I didn't know who she was.) Use Google.

So, to recap:

I posted that I wanted to wait to see if the images appearing on what'sh-his-face's computer were those of 17 year-olds. And for that you called me every name you had in your limited vocabulary. It didn't matter if the girls were 17 or 8, according to you, it was child porn.

But now, you are claiming it is only child porn if the girls are UNDER 17.

You also said that you had no knowledge of people being prosecuted for possessing images of girls over 14. But you also said that "child porn is child porn" and the age of the girls doesn't matter to the feds. So why are they only prosecuting those who have pictures of real young girls (an boys)?

@$^%@$^!!


Do you not comprehend what you read, or is YOUR vocabulary that limited? Believe me, I can call you many more names than just dumb****. First off, this message board isn't a court of law, and if I plead ignorance of Traci Lords, it's because I choose to. I DON'T WANT to google to find out about her. I could not care less how old she was when she first performed in porn. The issue before the feds in this particular case has absolutely nothing to do with Traci Lords, so I don't know why you're so fixated on her.
Nowhere did I say that the age of the girls - if they were indeed girls; you do understand that boys also are considered children, right? - doesn't matter What I said was that most child porn cases I've read about or discussed with attorneys deal with young children. And in many, if not most states, the age of legal majority is 17. Any person performing in porn who has attained his or her age of majority will not be considered a child, and therefore the porn will not be considered child porn.
If you're really a professor, I wonder what your students actually could be learning from you, or how they could possibly want to ask any questions without having their words turned inside out and heaped with condescension.

[Leroy Lizard]

Let's cut to the core:

Do you not see that there is a difference in the severity of a crime in which a man possesses images of prepubscent children performing sex acts and images of women who looked mature but turned out to be under age?

Yes or no?

[GKeeper316]

They should send his a$$ to Federal Pen & have him share a cell with a 350 lb man named bubba. Disgusting perv!

he'd just close his eyes, imagine its tebus pounding his ***, and smile.

not really a punishment for a ****** like him imo.

[A Sooner in Texas]

Let's cut to the core:

Do you not see that there is a difference in the severity of a crime in which a man possesses images of prepubscent children performing sex acts and images of women who looked mature but turned out to be under age?

Yes or no?

See if you can find any attorney who will say there is a difference in the severity. The charge, and therefore the penalty, is the same.

[GKeeper316]

Let's cut to the core:

Do you not see that there is a difference in the severity of a crime in which a man possesses images of prepubscent children performing sex acts and images of women who looked mature but turned out to be under age?

Yes or no?

tracy lords much?

even more legally ambiguous... is it a crime to view a computer generated 3d model of a child (not a real kid) in a pornographic act?

[Leroy Lizard]

See if you can find any attorney who will say there is a difference in the severity. The charge, and therefore the penalty, is the same.

The charge is the same, but not necessarily the penalty (severity). There are tons of examples of where two acts break the same law but differ in severity.

What do YOU think? Do YOU think that the two crimes are equivalent in severity?


even more legally ambiguous... is it a crime to view a computer generated 3d model of a child (not a real kid) in a pornographic act?

What's the purpose of the law?

To prevent adults from engaging in sick behavior? If so, then it should be a crime.

Is it to protect children from being placed in sexual situations? If so, it shouldn't.

[Oldnslo]

See if you can find any attorney who will say there is a difference in the severity. The charge, and therefore the penalty, is the same.

Hi. Sorry to meet under these circumstances.

I understand your passion about this topic. However, as a former prosecutor who handled not only felony dockets, but also deprived child dockets, I can tell you that the severity of the punishment depends utterly upon the facts. Here in OK, the age of consent is 16. If I recall, the Feds use 18.

Is there a difference is the prosecutor's attitude about a 21 year old guy who hooks up with a 15 1/2 year old who was all tarted up looking like a 18 year old out at dance hall with a fake ID and a case where a 50 year old man who was putting it to his 13 year old daughter and got her pregnant? You're kidding, right? Of course there's a difference. The prosecutor's attitude and plea negotiations will mirror what the jury would do. Oh, you'll get a conviction on the first situation, but barely worth the time.

BTW, the last criminal case I tried was the second situation. Dude happened to be a minister.

Anyway, the story is this: facts matter. The law sets certain ranges of sentences for crimes for just that reason. 2d degree burgulary, for instance, if memory serves, carries from 2-7 for the first offense.

[GKeeper316]

Hi. Sorry to meet under these circumstances.

I understand your passion about this topic. However, as a former prosecutor who handled not only felony dockets, but also deprived child dockets, I can tell you that the severity of the punishment depends utterly upon the facts. Here in OK, the age of consent is 16. If I recall, the Feds use 18.

Is there a difference is the prosecutor's attitude about a 21 year old guy who hooks up with a 15 1/2 year old who was all tarted up looking like a 18 year old out at dance hall with a fake ID and a case where a 50 year old man who was putting it to his 13 year old daughter and got her pregnant? You're kidding, right? Of course there's a difference. The prosecutor's attitude and plea negotiations will mirror what the jury would do. Oh, you'll get a conviction on the first situation, but barely worth the time.

BTW, the last criminal case I tried was the second situation. Dude happened to be a minister.

Anyway, the story is this: facts matter. The law sets certain ranges of sentences for crimes for just that reason. 2d degree burgulary, for instance, if memory serves, carries from 2-7 for the first offense.

wicked burn on the "omg its a black and white issue and i dont have a logical brain in my head" crowd.

[Jello Biafra]

The charge is the same, but not necessarily the penalty (severity). There are tons of examples of where two acts break the same law but differ in severity.

What do YOU think? Do YOU think that the two crimes are equivalent in severity?



What's the purpose of the law?

To prevent adults from engaging in sick behavior? If so, then it should be a crime.

Is it to protect children from being placed in sexual situations? If so, it shouldn't.



you DO love to hear yourself talk don't ya?

this seriosuly needs to be moved to the fuggin other board..

[Leroy Lizard]

you DO love to hear yourself talk don't ya?

Yeah, whatever Jello.

I posted in the thread discussing players of the decade. You need to get in there and insult me some.