West Frankfort Man Indicted for Child...

West Frankfort Man Indicted for Child Porn

There are 16 comments on the WSIL story from Nov 15, 2011, titled West Frankfort Man Indicted for Child Porn. In it, WSIL reports that:

A Franklin County man is facing federal charges for child pornography. Stewart C. Bozarth, 28, of West Frankfort, was indicted Monday for possession of child porn.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WSIL.

say what

Paducah, KY

#1 Nov 15, 2011
Boy was always an odd duck.
I hope its not true.
An Old Friend

United States

#2 Nov 16, 2011
Unfortuntely, it is true. And it's went on for far, far too long. I hope he realizes how much he needed the help we all tried to give him years and years ago. Very sad, indeed.
wait_what

Mobile, AL

#3 Dec 14, 2011
An Old Friend wrote:
Unfortuntely, it is true. And it's went on for far, far too long. I hope he realizes how much he needed the help we all tried to give him years and years ago. Very sad, indeed.
You... tried to help this guy kick his child porn addiction 'years and years ago'? How many kids got raped before it caught up?
wow

Marion, IL

#4 Dec 15, 2011
That makes me sick. I'm glad he won't last long in the pen. How could you not say something "Old Friend?"
mush

United States

#5 Dec 18, 2011
These people cant be fixed they should get a new rope in Benton n start hanging these sick people but instead US taxpayers foot the bill for these sick people !!!! Prisons is not the fix !!!!! Kill the freaks I say it would save a lot of money n hopefully a lot of kids !!! BRING BACK THE ROPE N TRAP DOOR !!!!!!
get it right

Paducah, KY

#6 Dec 18, 2011
Just so we are clear, he didn't rape or assault anyone. He had elligal images on his computer. Its sick all the same, but I think you are all confused.
mush

United States

#7 Dec 18, 2011
How would u feel if it was ur kid he was lookin at ??? That is how they start out !!
wait_what

Mobile, AL

#8 Dec 23, 2011
get it right wrote:
Just so we are clear, he didn't rape or assault anyone. He had elligal images on his computer. Its sick all the same, but I think you are all confused.
I don't really think it matters who stuck their dong in some little kid. Anyone who beats off to it is guilty. Maybe not as guilty, but it's a world of supply and demand. If this guy didn't want to watch kids get raped no one would have a reason to record and distribute it.
confused

Mount Vernon, IL

#9 Jan 31, 2012
wait_what keeps talking about kids being raped!(I think he/she has a problem themselves.) He was accused of having underage porn on computer...that could just be nude images - doesn't mean raping babies!! underage doesn't mean little kids - can be teenagers, too. I'm not saying it's right, but let's get a grip before we start hanging people!
Simon

Sesser, IL

#10 Jan 31, 2012
Why would you want to look at little kids naked unless you had some fantasy of having sex(RAPING) them?
wait_what

Benton, IL

#11 Jan 31, 2012
seriously? you're starting a debate on to which degree underage kids should be exploited? It doesn't matter if they were a day away from 18. It's wrong regardless. There is no moral gray area. If there was, it wouldn't be nearly as erotic as these creeps find it.
confused

Mount Vernon, IL

#12 Jul 25, 2012
wait_what wrote:
seriously? you're starting a debate on to which degree underage kids should be exploited? It doesn't matter if they were a day away from 18. It's wrong regardless. There is no moral gray area. If there was, it wouldn't be nearly as erotic as these creeps find it.
yes, there is a "gray" area - a guy in his 20s looking a nude images of girls in late teens (16/17) is different than looking at little kids, or old men looking at the teens... I think a 50+ year old looking at 20 year olds in porn (playboy)is creepy and those images are legal. I don't know what the images were, but don't just assume "babies"...many teenage girls date guys this age!
U r confused

Carbondale, IL

#13 Jul 25, 2012
confused wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, there is a "gray" area - a guy in his 20s looking a nude images of girls in late teens (16/17) is different than looking at little kids, or old men looking at the teens... I think a 50+ year old looking at 20 year olds in porn (playboy)is creepy and those images are legal. I don't know what the images were, but don't just assume "babies"...many teenage girls date guys this age!
I have to disagree....doesn't matter....it is all wrong!!! When people start analyzing this topix w gray areas, that is when the age gets younger and younger....it should be a black and white issue...kids should never be touched...photographed or viewed.....this is a sick, sick person who needs to be permanently removed from our world!
Yuck

Denver, CO

#14 Jul 26, 2012
This is so wrong...anyone sexualizing children is wrong no matter how you justify it.
grizzlyadams

Herrin, IL

#15 Jul 26, 2012


Fooling around with high-school girls has been depicted in pop culture for years, from movies to rock songs.
Boogersnatcher

Marion, IL

#16 Jul 26, 2012
Haha epic topix is epic.

"HE HAD CHILD PORN? HANG HIM FOR ALL THOSE KIDS HE RAPED? FEEL BAD FOR HIM? THINK OF ALL THOSE CHILDREN HE RAPED, MAKES ME SICK AS A PARENT."

While this kid is clearly a sick fuck, you guys should try to actually get the facts instead of making them up and posting mis-information.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Franklin County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Kasey claycamp (Sep '17) May 18 Tired of meth heads 2
antique store May 7 nosey 1
News 90th Anniversary for Charlie Birgera s last stand Apr 28 Shine 15
Looking for family Apr '18 Guest 1
Chad Galloway Mar '18 Sand dragon 1
Leo levandowski (Sep '15) Jan '18 Lol 3
KFC/Tacobell Jan '18 crappy_place 1