Glee' actor facing child porn charges

Faith Karimi -CNN
May 29 2016



Actor Mark Salling, best known as Noah Puckerman on "Glee," has been indicted on charges of receiving and possessing child pornography, authorities say.

Salling was arrested in Los Angeles in December and later released on bail.

Federal authorities charged him in a two-count indictment Friday, the Justice Department said in a statement.

"Those who download and possess child pornography create a market that causes more children to be harmed," U.S. Attorney Eileen M. Decker said.

"Young victims are harmed every time an image is generated, every time it is distributed, and every time it is viewed."

Allegations

Investigators seized a laptop, a hard drive and a USB flash drive from Salling's residence in December.

Those items contained thousands of images and videos depicting child pornography, according to the statement.

"The traditional stereotype about the kinds of people who commit child sexual exploitation crimes simply doesn't dovetail with reality," said Joseph Macias, a special agent for Homeland Security Investigations.

"As our investigators can attest, the defendants in child pornography cases come in all ages and from all walks of life."

Macias said he hopes the case serves as a warning that those involved in online sexual exploitation of children will be prosecuted regardless of their position.

Initial arrest

The Los Angeles Police Department and Homeland Security Investigations initially arrested Salling in December on state charges, and he was later released on bond.

Investigators referred the case to federal authorities because of his wide collection of child pornography, resulting in Friday's indictment, the Justice Department said.

"These images are more than photographs, they are child abuse," said Lt. Andrea Grossman, commander of the LAPD Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.

Receiving child pornography carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in federal prison and a maximum sentence of 20 years, the Justice Department said. Possessing child pornography carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison.

Salling plans to turn himself in to federal authorities on June 3, according to the Justice Department.

He is expected to be arraigned on that date. Salling's attorney could not be immediately reached for comment.

Puck on 'Glee'

Salling played Puck on "Glee" throughout the show's six-season run from 2009 to 2015.

Puck, a football player on the McKinley High team, is initially resistant to the school's glee club -- seen as a haven for misfits. He later follows his best friend into the group.

http://www.wmur.com/entertainment/glee-actor-indicted-on-child-pornography-charges/39777092/

Bubba is waiting!

Geez.. alll kind of things are coming out... everywhere. Political arena & entertainment industry.



"For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad."

when will we acknowledge people dont 'chose' their attractions

are we more concerned with penalizing drug addicts than putting away drug dealers?

are we more concerned with penalizing those attracted to kids than the people suppplying them their doses?

I agree, people don't choose their attractions.

It's a double pronged war on those who produce and those who repeat the assault on a child each and every time that image is viewed and shared.

And we're not done yet on those scoundrels... Protect the children at all cost, we don't need to understand their particular sickness IMO. Isn't it strange that these people don't chq themselves into some kind of rehab like a drug addict would or a alcoholic would?

I dunno MsH, your analogy evades me here.

my analogy has to do with things people allegedly cant control


addicts need help with their unhealthy cravings,, instead of punishment, so we provide rehab instead of jail(depending upon financial status anyhow)


why are these people with unhealthy sexual attraction, not treated as ill as well, instead of criminal?


at least those who are not physically harming children,,,

I'm not sure what you mean, treat them like kleptomaniacs???

Because they operate in the shadows of society, inflicting permanent harm on children... They assault every time they view such images.

How would you treat them if they don't want to be treated?

The viewers of child pornography are still harming children...albeit, indirectly. That child still had to be abused for the pictures to be taken.
And, even here in Louisiana....known for tough prison sentences...these offenders still get treatment in prison.
If they don't want prison treatment, they should get their own rehab before they get arrested.

thats like saying consumers indirectly harm children in countries where child labor is used,,,,

ok, point taken there, but should that make them the criminal or shouldnt we concern ourself with the source using the child labor, or child actor, child victim

the DIRECT assailants,, seem like who should be the focus and not the ones using what they provide

I wouldnt criminalize anyone for what they choose to watch or what they feel

seems like a slippery slope to start down

physically harming another,, prosecute it all day long

thinking about it or watching it, not nearly as much


but thats just me, obviously

You are correct, people don't choose their attractions.
People aren't charged with a crime because of their attractions though.
People DO CHOOSE THEIR ACTIONS.
They are arrested if THEIR ACTIONS are a CRIME.
Anyone caught distributing, or supply "doses" as you describe, of child porn gets arrested because that's a crime too.
Do you think anyone is "more concerned with penalizing those attracted to kids than the people supplying them their doses"?????

If someone knowingly buys, accepts or receives a stolen car innocent of a crime because they didn't steal the car?
Who doesn't know that possessing child porn is a crime?

Yay I got a point from Msh


I would submit that they are the focus also....its just not heard about as much because they're not Glee actors.

lots of people have no idea what child porn even is

just like they have no idea what a sex offender is


child porn, federally, is sexually suggestive(doesnt have to be physical penetration) of anyone under 18

sex offenders can be anyone from a flasher to someone who raped a child


but people get emotional and these terms become all damning,,,

to me its not the same

one is a physical possession

the other is imagery on the world wide web

if you have my possession, i can and should get it back

an image is never gone and cant therefore need to be returned

Ignorance of a law ISN'T a defense.

Sex offenders aren't all treated the same, there are DIFFERENT degrees of sexual misconducted according to the seriousness of the crime and people are charged accordingly.

I happen to think the sex registry is unfair though. Someone who gets caught peeing in an alley has to register like a person who rapes someone.

oh. i completely agree

decades ago all the drunks and social drinkers would be criminals for receiving and consuming what was deemed illegal AT THE TIME

no refuting that if he broke laws, the law will have consequence


my statements are about whether the laws and consequences are reasonable or practical

Same as "snuff" movies, I guess it's important to eradicate unhealthy viewing in all its forms? I agree with it

the consequences ARE reasonable AND practical!

look at it this way...

having sex with children is illegal
taking naked/suggestive pictures of children is illegal
looking at naked pictures of children is illegal
having naked pictures of children is illegal

these laws are designed to protect children and keep the pervs away from child porn...

same concept here: it's illegal to have, use, distribute and make or grow illegal drugs...

Another liberal "celebrity",
that deserves a brutal prison experience.

This story really sucks.

I mean

WTF does that mean?

Are they actually pictures of children suffering abuse from an adult?

Or is it a moral statement like "this popsicle is more than a popsicle! It's a symbol of America!"

The story doesn't offer any meaningful information.

I mean for all I know the "Glee" star has 100k fans in high school and 1% sent him boob shot selfies from their high school bathroom.

IMO there is a huge difference between him having a folder full of potential stalker photos from high school super fans and a folder full of 8 year olds in s&m scenes that he trolled the internet for.

The only information the article actually offers is:

There are boyfriends and girlfriends in high school that have the same charges brought against them by the school for sexting each other.

So is this a folder full of fans sending inappropriate images and they are hormonal teens, where he may not even be aware of their age?

Or is he trolling message boards and pedo sites trying to find all sorts of different kiddy diddler images?

That seems something a "journalist" might want to figure out before reporting unless they are just trying to create some sort of sensational response.