A former high-ranking San Francisco government employee convicted of felony possession of child pornography will continue to receive his government pension because, according to city regulations, evidence of “moral turpitude” is required to revoke a pension yet viewing violent kiddie porn does not qualify as moral turpitude.

As reported here in the Tatler, Larry Brinkin, a prominent San Francisco Human Rights Commissioner and nationally known gay rights advocate, was arrested in 2012 for possessing and possibly distributing videos and images of babies being raped by adult men. Because of Brinkin’s “iconic” stature in the community as the person who pioneered “domestic partnership” laws nationwide, supporters at the time accused the police of framing him with false charges. But the evidence was so overwhelming that, after 18 months of legal wrangling, on Tuesday, January 21, Brinkin pled guilty to felony possession of child pornography, with various other more serious charges dropped as part of the plea bargain. He will serve just six months in jail and thereafter have to register as a sex offender.

But the scandal didn’t end there. A recent law defining which type of actions count as “moral turpitude” required to nullify municipal pension benefits does not include sex crimes involving children, and only refers to financial crimes:

Knox said he did not believe Brinkin’s city pension would be affected by the plea because his conviction doesn’t fall under “moral turpitude.” Under Proposition C, approved by voters in 2008, a city employee convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude – usually theft, fraud or a breach of the public trust – cannot collect employer-funded retirement benefits.

In case you’re thinking that perhaps this is just an over-reaction to Brinkin possessing some pornography which, unbeknownst to him, just happened to depict minors under the age of 18: Nope. The details of what type of imagery he enjoyed (and what he said about it) are so horrifying and so unimaginably vile that to even describe it feels like a crime. But the exact nature of his conviction is necessary for the reader to assess whether or not Brinkin’s actions should count as “moral turpitude.”

THIS IS A CONTENT WARNING FOR ANYONE WHO DOES NOT WISH TO READ UPSETTING MATERIAL.

On the following page is a small sampling of the evidence presented in the case. Stop reading now if you don’t want to see any of the police evidence against Larry Brinkin.