Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Celebrity Caught Paying to Access Child Porn; Pleads "Research"

By greenrd in Op-Ed
Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 07:47:21 PM EST
Tags: News (all tags)
News

Former The Who guitarist Pete Townshend has admitted giving his credit card details to a child pornography website in order to gain access and view illegal pictures, after being caught in a massive international child porn investigation. However, he claims that this was purely innocent research for his autobiography, which will deal in part with child abuse. These claims will be viewed skeptically by some; however, he was publically supported by celebrity friends such as Jerry Hall, who said Townshend was about as different from "the profile" of a child abuser as it was possible to be.

More than 1,300 people have already been arrested as part of the police investigation, based on data passed on by the US FBI - including judges, teachers, doctors, care workers, soldiers and more than 50 police officers. Incidentally, amongst the subscribers of the US-based "child porn portal" in question, it has emerged, were two Labour Members of Parliament, reported to be former ministers (high-ranking government officials). The two MPs have not yet been named.


(The Guardian is, if anything, the most pro-Labour national newspaper, so this cannot be dismissed as malicious rumour-mongering by the paper.)

Townshend has claimed that the purpose of paying to access the site was merely to find out how bad the problem of child porn was - "to fight it you have know what's out there", he said. But some have rounded on the rock star and said that "research purposes" was no excuse for clearly illegal behaviour:

Mark Stephens, a lawyer who founded the Internet Watch foundation, an independent watchdog, yesterday condemned the rock star's actions as "wrong-headed and illegal" and described his explanation as "no excuse".

"It is OK to lobby. There are many high-profile individuals who fight against child pornography," Mr Stephens said. "But it is wrong-headed, misguided and illegal to look at or download or even to pay to download paedophiliac material and if you do so, you are likely to go to prison.

"Pete Townshend has admitted a criminal offence and this goes to mitigation and it's a matter for a court to accept if he was merely doing research or something worse."

There is a slightly odd quotation at the end of the Guardian article:

Last month Jim Gamble, assistant chief constable of the national crime squad, said the police could not be reckless about making allegations of abuse. "We have to make sure we get it right," he said.

But he warned that those who had logged on to the websites in the 90s and thought they were engaging in "innocent voyeurism" were in for a shock.

"They would not have realised then that the police would be investigating this now. If you have a propensity for this kind of behaviour, we will find you."

Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but perhaps the network contained false disclaimers like "all girls are over 16", and customers believed this. Perhaps not.

Or maybe the network contained a mixture of legal and illegal material, and users believed they would not be prosecuted for only accessing the legal material.

Otherwise, it seems slightly strange to claim that paedophiles "would not have realised" that police would be after them for paying to access child porn websites - given that (a) public disgust with child abusers in the UK in the late 1990s was high due to a number of high-profile child molestation cases, which in 2000 caused certain areas to spill over into protests and vigilante violence against "suspected paedophiles", and (b) possession of child pornography has been a crime for a long time in the UK. Or perhaps Mr. Gamble is implying that many people simply did not know that child pornography was illegal to view when they accessed it.

Of course, ignorance of the law is no defence. By now - after the explosive expose of former rock star Garry Glitter as a consumer of "extremely disturbing" child porn (according to the judge in that case) involving children as young as 2, and after this latest string of arrests - it seems unlikely that there is anyone left in the UK who does not realise that the police will come down on those who sustain a burgeoning and horrific underworld of abusing children for profit.

But will they come down hard... or will offenders just get a slap on the wrist? As the previous links states, Gary Glitter - despite the severity of his crimes - received only four months jail time. More alarmingly:

A 22-year-old was given a three-year probation order for creating and distributing child porn. He spent 12 hours a day glued to his screen. He was found to have downloaded 5,000 images of children who were being abused.

One man in his mid-40s was caught by customs and excise who were monitoring a child porn web site he accessed. Like many offenders he had a sophisticated knowledge of computers and said he was trying to destroy the site with a virus. He has been placed on probation for 18 months.

It seems that some judges just do not take child pornography seriously enough. If paedophiles perceive that the system will "go easy" on them if they claim innocent excuses, the deterrent value of the law is weakened. (And abusive paedophiles are notorious for attempting to rationalise and normalise their behaviour with excuses like "Everyone has sexual desires towards children". They may see light sentences as evidence that certain judges are closet paedophiles themselves and will thus be "sympathetic" - and while this would be a good example of faulty reasoning at work, I can't entirely shake off the suspicion myself - given the examples above. No jail time for creating child porn!?)

Fortunately, examining the suspect's computer or the website log files can sometimes expose these excuses as lies, by documenting a sustained pattern of behaviour or a large collection of illegal porn. But as child porn consumers become more sophisticated at covering their tracks (erasing caches, deleting logfiles, encrypted filesystems, etc.) - perhaps using quite legitimate privacy-enhancing software - it may become impossible in some cases to find hard evidence disproving a claim that they were just "researching" or "hacking into" a website. (UK law currently allows a defence of possessing the material for "legitimate purposes").

In these cases the legal system is arguably faced with an ugly dilemma: risk punishing some well-intentioned people - or risk letting some real monsters like Gary Glitter get away with a slap on the wrist. At least if they are prosecuted and convicted, guilty parties will be added to the sex offenders registry no matter how lenient the sentence; however, in the UK, the registry is not made public due to (I would say well-founded) concerns that it would just drive abusers underground. Every Brit now knows that Glitter is a sick paedophile, because he was such a celebrity - but this would not be the case for ordinary "unknowns".

Whatever happens to Townshend and others who make similar claims, it cannot be stressed enough that, no matter how well-intentioned, vigilantes and writers should never intentionally access illegal pornography websites to try to expose them or destroy them. What Townshend did was undoubtedly monumentally stupid, at best. (The only exception is of course destroying a porn website hosted without your knowledge on equipment that you own - an alleged new tactic of child porn rings is to crack into business websites and create a hidden section for child porn, which exposes corporations and server admins to the theoretical risk of criminal prosecution if the police do not believe that it was created by external hackers. Yet another good reason for businesses and organisations to take security seriously, even if their web server holds no sensitive information.)

Overzealous vigilantes and researchers (fairly obviously) run the risk of being falsely "outed" as one of the paedophiles that they seek to campaign against, rendering them social outcasts or leading to long jail sentences. And legally speaking, unless specific legal exemptions are made - and there are very few in UK law at least - only the police (and the web hosting providers concerned) have the power to legally investigate and take down child porn websites.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Possession of child pornography laws...
o Should define "legitimate reason to possess" as narrowly as possible 26%
o Should include exceptions, e.g. for research 9%
o Should be abolished, and replaced with a law against "paying for child porn" (which still wouldn't help Townshend) 9%
o Should be abolished, and there should only be laws against creating child porn 55%

Votes: 109
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o two Labour Members of Parliament
o protests
o children as young as 2
o crack into business websites
o Also by greenrd


Display: Sort:
Celebrity Caught Paying to Access Child Porn; Pleads "Research" | 359 comments (359 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
I think my brother put it best (3.00 / 7) (#1)
by gazbo on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 09:33:28 AM EST

"But seriously, Jerry Hall man. If I were famous and wanted to check out kid porn, I'd find meself a gullible bint like her, too."

-----
Topless, revealing, nude pics and vids of Zora Suleman! Upskirt and down blouse! Cleavage!
Hardcore ZORA SULEMAN pics!

Is it me or does this sound like (4.00 / 5) (#2)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 09:36:40 AM EST

the album Psychoderelicts come to life?


--
Wouldn't it be a victory for the oppressed people of Iraq, of North Korea, of Iran, if their police-state regimes were overthrown? Even by a cowbo

This sort of roundup is happening in the U.S. too (3.71 / 7) (#3)
by HidingMyName on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 10:17:04 AM EST

Paul Reubens and Jeffrey Jones were arrested this November. Reubens is charged with possession of child pornography, while Jones is charged with hring a minor with the intent of creating his own child pornography.

surely (4.15 / 19) (#4)
by heng on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 10:32:34 AM EST

The issue isn't about kiddie porn, the issue is about abuse. There are very many attractive girls who are under 18 who I can fully understand people would want to see naked. There is not some fundamental change in peoples perceptions of an individual when they reach that magic birthday.

It's so often made out to be some horrendous crime to want to see attractive girls naked if they are underage, but the appeal is very often the same for 14 year olds as it is for 18 year olds. Dammit, it's perfectly accepted for 14 year old boys to want to see 14 year old girls naked. If I walk down the street and I see an attractive girl, I won't suddenly stop thinking she is attractive just because I find out she is 16.

People need to lose this irrational disgust with underage pornography and start discussing the real problems with it. That of photographing without consent and abuse (I assume this generally means physical abuse, although this is never clarified). That is not to say though, that all girls who are photographed underage are necessarily done so without consent. If you are a bit strapped for cash and you can earn by just taking your clothes off...I can see why girls might be tempted.

As usual, it is the law that forces the problem (pushing it underground etc). That is not to say that I do not think there should be regulation. Younger girls are generally not so wise as to realise that one day, having naked photos circulating of you may be detrimental to your prospects. For this reason, I have not and would not look at child (under 18) pornography (ie I agree with the law).

It is not made clear in the article what those signing up thought they were signing up for (pre-pubescent? 17 year olds? boys? babies?). The press think we should be disgusted and so the general populous is disgusted. How about facts. Were the girls/boys on this site abused? Did they consent to the photos? How old were they? What did the punters think they were getting?

After saying all this, it is no excuse for breaking the law, but just because men want to look at pictures of girls who may be 17 instead of 18 is no reason in itself to be disgusted. It is merely illegal (which I agree with) and should be punished accordingly.

Aside about ages (3.87 / 8) (#21)
by Rogerborg on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 01:03:47 PM EST

Interesting that you assume 18 is legal and 16 (and 14) isn't.  Major UK newspapers (e.g. "The Sun") regularly features topless girls of 16.  Top teen totty Charlotte Church turned 16 recently, and was immediately proclaimed "Rear of the Year" by another daily newspaper - to the great relief of those of us who thought (silently) that she was hot from about 14.  Charlotte herself declared this "a bit funny" given that it would have been "creepy" for them to have featured the pert posterior of a 15 year old.

The age of consent in Japan is 14, yes, 14, which makes the "all models are over 18" disclaimers on US based sites featuring Japanese schoolgirls pretty funny.

What's my point?  Well, for one, that the world is bigger than the USA.  And for another, that setting an arbitrary age and saying "Jailbait today, cum dumpster tomorrow" polarises the debate in an unhelpful way.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

indeed (n/t) (3.33 / 3) (#26)
by heng on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 01:57:10 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Reminds me of the Daily Star (5.00 / 2) (#106)
by it certainly is on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:34:26 AM EST

the lovely UK paper owned by the pornographer Richard Desmond, had a rant about how "evil" and "depraved" the Brass Eye Paedogeddon special was RIGHT NEXT to a big picture of the under-age (15yo) Charlotte Church, with a comment about how she was "chest swell!" because she now had bigger breasts.

Does anyone else see the irony here?

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Yup, and IIRC (none / 0) (#138)
by Rogerborg on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 08:25:47 AM EST

The Sun did run with a topless 15 year old once, and kicked up a mini-controversy.  They defended it by saying that her parents were acting as her agents, and she was very mature for her age and fully consensual and blah blah blah.

Not that I'm not complaining: as I said earlier, one of my predictions (i.e. hopes) for 2003 is a Charlotte Church FHM shoot, and - not to put too fine a point on it - I don't think she suddenly got hot when the clock struck midnight on her 16th birthday.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

In the Americas... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
by it certainly is on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 09:20:16 AM EST

they're waiting for the clock to chime midnight on the Olsen Twins... made all the more fun by the fact each state has a different "age of consent"!

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

That link is hilarious (1.00 / 1) (#147)
by Godel on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 09:31:50 AM EST

Anyone know how much for a ticket to Hawaii?

[ Parent ]
Shudder (4.00 / 1) (#161)
by Rogerborg on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:20:39 PM EST

Thanks for the link.  Those freaky Aryan uber-kinder really creep me out.  Way too many teeth.  I think they'd have to be sedated and tied up on a filthy mattress in the back of a van before I could bring myself to do them.  Er, not that I've thought this through, you understand.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

*They* creep *you* out? (5.00 / 2) (#169)
by Dephex Twin on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:11:35 PM EST

Those freaky Aryan uber-kinder really creep me out...I think they'd have to be sedated and tied up on a filthy mattress in the back of a van before I could bring myself to do them.
I can't imagine how they must feel about you!

:P


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
A restraining order (5.00 / 1) (#172)
by Rogerborg on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:24:43 PM EST

Is just another way of saying "I love you"

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

22-year old weighing in (4.50 / 2) (#86)
by dh003i on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:02:26 AM EST

As a 22-year old guy, I can say you're right.  When I turned 18, I didn't magically stop being attracted to attractive 17-year olds or younger.  I'm 22 now, and quite frankly, I don't feel like a child molester because I can find 15-year olds and some 14-year olds attractive.

Age of consent laws need to focus on differences in ages.  When both parties are 18 or over, any consentual sex is ok.  When one party is below 18, it should be considered acceptable as long as the parties are within 5 years of each-other's age.  Beyond that, progressively harsher punishments should be administered for greater differences in age up to a certain cut-off point (say 10 years).  Other factors should be considered, such as which party was the initiator.  If a 15-year old seduces a 25-year old, he should get a lighter sentence, whereas if vica-versa, a harsher one.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

Good point (2.00 / 2) (#109)
by Godel on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:55:55 AM EST

As a 22-year old guy, I can say you're right. When I turned 18, I didn't magically stop being attracted to attractive 17-year olds or younger. I'm 22 now, and quite frankly, I don't feel like a child molester because I can find 15-year olds and some 14-year olds attractive.

I never really understood this myself. I never suddenly got older and the girl I thought was hot yesterday was now uninteresting. I suspect it's the same with most people but societal pressure prevents them from talking about it.

[ Parent ]

Exactly (4.00 / 2) (#153)
by Galion on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:12:17 AM EST

and furthermore, your solution is rather interesting, as that was what was proposed here (in Belgium) together with a lowering of the age of consent to 14. It never got passed.

I turned 18 last year in april, and I can say it didn't stop me thinking younger girls were cute. Anyway, with some girls you can't even guess any more, they're sort of in the 14-25 age range ;P

[ Parent ]

If I Recall Correctly, (none / 0) (#266)
by Canar on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 10:03:09 PM EST

Here in BC, Canada, this kind of law is in place. 16+ is the legal age for sexual consent (I don't believe this applies to pornography, and knowing that Canadians tend to over-legislate, this is definitely probable), however consent is considered when the age difference between the two parties is three years or less.

[ Parent ]
Happening to me (4.44 / 18) (#5)
by notmyrealaccount on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 10:36:10 AM EST

First off, this is NOT my real K5 account - I lurk around, post now and again under a different account, but there's too much chance that there's real personal info people can find from it.

Now, to this point.  At the moment I am in the process of going to court in the UK on the charge of "Possesion of indecent photographs of children" - I was arrested in July, charged in September and my case went for Plea and Direction hearing at the Crown Court today.

Let me also get across straight away, I never have been, and never will be a member of a child-porn website.  I've never gone looking for it, it doesn't interest me.

There is a chance here that Pete Townsend is telling the truth, and the fact of the matter is here in the good ol' UK we have innocent until proven guilty.  We can talk about the case all we want, but at the end of the day it's down to a Judge and possibly 12 of his peers to decide if he is innocent or guilty.

From looking into this, as far as I'm aware, the only people allowed in the UK to have such material legally are members of the police and justices relating to a specific current trial or case and only then.  Also it is allowed for research purposes, but again as far as I know, the police must be informed of your intention beforehand, you must supply proof that this is for research and they must agree.

So here you are, someone going through the process at the moment.  I'm a normal person.  I've never abused anyone, all I had is some pictures of "dubious"-16 year olds and one obvious child porn image, found on a Zip disk (that I don't have a Zip drive for for at least 4 years) that had been deleted and partially over-written when I saw what it was.

Any comments?

I suppose one question is (3.33 / 6) (#12)
by lb008d on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:54:54 AM EST

if all of the dubious images are securely in your possession, how in the world did you get caught with them?

"Kuro5hin: politics and pretension, from the $3,000 leather recliners on the hill overlooking the trenches."DarkZero
[ Parent ]

Because (2.00 / 5) (#16)
by Tom Brett on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 12:34:57 PM EST

the police are lying bastards who don't know the first single thing about technology?


Outwar thugbuilder! get 500+ thugs a day! click here
[ Parent ]
How I got caught (4.00 / 7) (#30)
by notmyrealaccount on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 03:06:15 PM EST

At the moment, the reason my flat was raided on this charge I've got no idea about - one thing I do know is that is wasn't part of Operation Ore (the operation in the UK containing the names passed from the FBI).

As to how I got the images in the first place - well I've never denied this in any of the interviews or statements or anything - in the past I used to mass-download from a teenfem newsgroup and save to CD - it was those CD's that the pictures they are using against me are on.

Strange as it sounds I've got no grudge against the police about this whole matter - during the whole raid and interviews they were good to me, didn't judge me on the charges I'd been brought in on, kept me informed of what was going on.


[ Parent ]

not sure i understand (5.00 / 3) (#58)
by nickco on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 10:47:19 PM EST

Your apartment was raided on an unrelated charge? These files were deleted and overwritten? I was under the impression forensic examination of storage media was basically used only in very important investigations.. any idea what that unrelated charge might be?

[ Parent ]
Nope (none / 0) (#181)
by notmyrealaccount on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:55:14 PM EST

My flat was raided on those charges, but they did not get the warrant based on the results of the FBI raid in the USA.  Where they did get the evidence to get a warrant I'm not sure - I'll be talking to my barrister later this week about disclosure from the police for this evidence, but I'm not holding my breath.

Also the file was not completely overwritten - it had been deleted from the FAT on the Zip disk, but the blocks had been partially overwritten - this wasn't forensic examination, just basic undelete from the FAT.

[ Parent ]

Don't be a statistic (3.80 / 5) (#260)
by Blarney on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 09:30:28 PM EST

They are investigating you because an IP address traceable to you downloaded files which some government agent had placed online for this purpose. This isn't police work - it's fishing, it's a dragnet. Don't even think that saying one single word to the police could possibly help you. It can't, because they'd willingly jail you for life for one single picture that you didn't even see, just as a soldier will kill when ordered to without considering the merits of the individuals he's shooting. They're not going to realize that you are a good citizen after all and don't belong in jail with those nasty perverts.

The reason that they can find a partially-overwritten image on a ZIP disk is because they know what they're looking for. They know the filename, and they also know the sequence of bytes, and they can search through every sector on the disk whether or not it belongs to a file in the FAT. They know it's there because they put it there, sneaked it into your newsgroup some night. They didn't look at every picture in your CD archives of newsgroups and carefully examine each and every one to see if it looked like child pornography. All they did was scan the CD, byte for byte, for fragments of the files that they strongly suspect must be there somewhere because, after all, they have logs of them being downloaded.

If I'm wrong, feel free to punch me in the face and I'll come meet you for the purpose. But if I'm right, then you can't consider yourself a suspect in an investigation of a crime because there is no crime, just a setup for jailing as many Internet users as possible. You must recognize that they're taking out as many "pedos" as they can and are not trying to find out who really did what. All you did was wander across an electronic tripwire and will now find yourself the recipient of the full force of a small army - they'll "find" files, they'll lie to you in the stationhouse, in the jail, and they'll lie to the judge and jury. They'll spout rhetoric about how horrible and dangerous you are, and they'll urge that you be locked up forever. And you don't have the advantages that Pete Townshend has to defend yourself.

I could be wrong, and I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm right about this then you have randomly been selected to be a victim. It's the fight of your life. Good luck and please let us know if you escape.

[ Parent ]

Interesting theory, but wrong (4.00 / 3) (#270)
by greenrd on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 10:54:13 PM EST

They know it's there because they put it there, sneaked it into your newsgroup some night.

That's an interesting theory which illustrates how the police could "dragnet" pedos, or even frame someone through trickery.

However, it doesn't apply to this case because the zip disk was at least 4 years old. It's really unlikely that they'd wait 4 years before pouncing, if they planted the image themselves.

I have a sneaking suspicion that all this nonsense about "the police are the biggest distributors of kiddie porn", is just a bogus factoid repeated by those in denial or ignorant of what the media is reporting: child porn is being produced today, in bulk, by organised crime gangs.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

Maybe the ZIP wasn't the trigger file.... (4.00 / 2) (#277)
by Blarney on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:27:46 PM EST

The trigger file that started the investigation could have been some of the "dubious 16 year old" photos he mentioned from his newsgroup. As to how they found the partially overwritten file, they probably never took it out of their pattern-matching "data recovery" program. It's not unreasonable that they keep the same pictures in their database for years at a time - baby rape isn't the sort of thing that is going to be photographed every day, and there's never a good reason to remove such a disgusting photo from their list of criminal "possessions".

Are you seriously asking me to believe that they went through every CD manually, and manually undeleted and examined every picture file that they could - reconstructed partially missing or corrupted JPEG data - and had an expert view them in order to estimate the ages of the subjects and/or recognize individual victims with known birthdates? I don't believe that because police are fucking lazy and not about to do that sort of Columbo shit. It's a canned pattern-matching program. How else could they solve these sort of fake crimes at all? And I consider any "possession" charge based on a file that was deleted to be a legal fiction and a monstrous lie. Don't you?

[ Parent ]

Re: Happening to me (none / 0) (#359)
by BladeRunnerUK on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 09:15:37 PM EST

What still bothers me is the double standards with the law in the Uk over this whole affair. It smacks of knee jerk reactions and headless chickenisums. What I still fail to understand is why a book like "Age of Innocence" by David Hamilton is allowed to be published and sold in the UK without any content warnings in normal reputiable high street book shops and from places like Amazon.co.uk online. This book is either "art" or "child pornograpy" depending on your view point, but could be read openly in public in the UK if you so desired. However if any images taken from the same book were saved on your computer or downloaded you are likey to see a yourself get jail sentence.

This really needs 100% claifaction so everyoine knows where the law is on the whole issue, considering the fact those prosecuted with child porn offences, (even in my opinion minor ones that are as simple as a few naked images from the above mentined book), there is no obivous distiction in the prosecutions and, are given much harsher sentences now regardless the fact they have no previous criminal convictions of any crime. If the law is this severe on people with "clean" criminal records then, books like this need to be banned and removed from the shelves so there would be no possible casuse for confusion. As it is I find it hard to see one format, (the book), as perfectly legal to buy and look at if you so desire, while the other, (same images from the book but on the PC), is a highly possible jail sentence with a 10 year stretch on the sex offenders register.

more on this here
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,880251,00.html

[ Parent ]

this hysteria is getting scary (3.56 / 16) (#6)
by speek on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 10:36:46 AM EST

I never thought of K5'ers as a bunch of mindless bandwagon jumpers, but it can't be denied much anymore. I'd say this is turning into a witchhunt, but we're well past that stage. How long before it's illegal to read "child porn"? How long before the album, Tommy is illegal to listen to?

What I really want to know is, as the single largest distributor of child porn, when will legal action be sought against the police?

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees

How long before it's illegal to sodomize 8 yr olds (1.72 / 11) (#35)
by Demiurge on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 06:01:30 PM EST

From my cold, dead hands!

I love how you equate tolerate of a harmful sexual aberration with the pursuit of free speech.

[ Parent ]
way to go (4.25 / 4) (#42)
by speek on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 07:56:19 PM EST

Way to completely miss the point. Way to post an irrelevant response.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Let me guess, you're one of those idiots who (4.00 / 1) (#218)
by Demiurge on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:18:20 PM EST

thinks viewing child pornography is a-ok because you're not physically abusing a child? Why the fuck do you think child pornography is produced? So that pedophiles can buy it. By creating a demand for it, you're encouraging the supply. It's like saying that just because you buy twenty pounds of ivory you're not responsible for the killing of elephants.

[ Parent ]
congrats! You WIN! (none / 0) (#227)
by speek on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:47:25 PM EST

Demiurge would like to announce that he is a kind and decent person who thinks child molestation is B-A-D, bad. He will prove this by righteously insulting an evil "pedophile sympathizer".

Hooray! Demiurge wins again! Victory is yours! Dance and celebrate a job well done, and feel good about yourself.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

In Canada it's illegal to read child porn (3.50 / 2) (#145)
by truffle on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 09:02:59 AM EST

Well specifically possession of child porn fiction is illegal, not the actual act of reading it, but it's basicly the same thing. ;o Likewise it's illegal to possess hand drawings or computer generated images.

meow
[ Parent ]

Interesting (4.00 / 1) (#151)
by Alfie on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:11:10 AM EST

Well specifically possession of child porn fiction is illegal, not the actual act of reading it, but it's basicly the same thing. ;o Likewise it's illegal to possess hand drawings or computer generated images.

Wow, I find this difficult to believe. Does `child porn fiction' include any story in which people under the age of 18 engage in sexual activities? Or is it restricted to child-adult sex?

I ask because I have a soft spot for first love stories. I've never really thought of them as child porn.



[ Parent ]
you'll have to show me some proof (4.00 / 1) (#174)
by speek on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:30:15 PM EST

I'm with Alfie on this. Show me the law and how they determine what "child porn fiction" is.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Proof (5.00 / 4) (#202)
by scorbett on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:48:33 PM EST

It used to be against the law here (I'm Canadian), but the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against that law in a case against a guy called John Robin Sharpe, who had a collection of stories he had written.

The original child porn legislation introduced in 1993 was pretty strict, defining child porn as:

"a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means... that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual behaviour... or the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years... or any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years...."
Many felt this was a bit draconian. Here's a quote from the link:
Opponents of the law say it is like "killing a fly with a sledgehammer," that it constitutes "thought control," that people could get five years for innocent sexual doodles, private diaries, and possessing literary classics such as Vladimir Nabokov's "Lolita," even Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" (Juliet was under 18).

The John Robin Sharpe verdict struck down parts of the old legislation, so now in Canada it is legal to do all of the following:

  1. To possess self-authored written prose, poetry and drawings of child pornography, but they are not to be distributed to others. (Supreme Court of Canada January 2001)
  2. To print, publish and sell these writings, if the police are unsuccessful in proving there is no artistic merit to them. (B.C. Court May 2002)
  3. To take pictures of sexual activities between adults and children as long as the children have given consent. In Canada, the age of consent for sexual activity is 14 years of age; therefore, pictures of adults engaging in sexual activities with 14 year olds are now legal. (Supreme Court of Canada January 2001)
Note the part about "artistic merit". This phrase provides an awful lot of wiggle room for authors to legally defend their writings in court.

There are people on both sides of the argument who are unhappy with Canada's current laws on the subject... I don't know if it's possible to come up with child porn laws that will satisfy everyone.



[ Parent ]

I'm not sure I agree here (3.91 / 12) (#7)
by lorcha on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 10:40:06 AM EST

It seems that some judges just do not take child pornography seriously enough. If paedophiles perceive that the system will "go easy" on them if they claim innocent excuses, the deterrent value of the law is weakened.
People who view child porn are disturbed, there is no doubt of that. And because they are disturbed, I doubt the risk assessment you describe ever goes on inside their little heads. It's likely more of a "see it, like it, want to see more" rather than a "see it, like it, but uh oh might get in trouble but want to see it but.. they don't "go easy for innocent excuses".. ponder..ponder... what to do?" If a person like that gets caught in that stage, I vote for getting that person professional help rather than a "lock'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key" attitude, because, at least in the case of the US criminal justice system, if you were not a criminal or thug upon entering, just give it a few years, because you'll become one by the time you get out.

In my mind, there ought to be a distinction in the law and sentencing guidelines to deal with the different types of people. Something like:

  1. Child porn in your browser cache or deleted from your harddrive - Slap on the wrist, if anything. Shit, it was prolly an accident, anyhow.
  2. Child porn intentionally kept on computer - This is more serious and the offender should probably be given probation, provided he/she undergoes treatment for this problem.
  3. Paid money to access child porn - This is a serious problem and should warrant psychological treatment and jail time. The reason I say jail time is that you are directly financially supporting those who abuse children. To me, there is a big distinction between this and #2.
  4. Someone who actually abuses an actual child - This person is clearly scum and I doubt any punishment would be sufficient for this person.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that by cracking down on those who could be easily rehabilitated, we are creating more problems than we are solving.

--
צדק--אין ערבים, אין פיגועים

I'm quite sure I *don't* agree here (3.42 / 14) (#9)
by phybre187 on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:35:11 AM EST

People who view child porn are disturbed, there is no doubt of that.

People who abuse children to make child porn are disturbed, there is no doubt of THAT. But people who VIEW child porn are no more or less disturbed than someone who has seen the R. Budd Dwyer suicide video, or gone to rotten.com and/or affiliates, seen what's at goatse.cx, or thinks that United States foreign policy is humane or reasonable.

Not only that, but banning child porn is clearly not an effective deterrant to those that make it, for all the reasons you state above. If they're *really* disturbed, legality doesn't make a difference. So what do you propose to fix by arresting and imprisoning people based on the contents of their hard drives?

And it may boggle your mind, but making child porn illegal doesn't undo the trauma the abused child suffers. It also doesn't prevent propagation of the images. Fool, go pluck a bough and wear it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that by cracking down on those who could be easily rehabilitated, we are creating more problems than we are solving.

People who view child porn don't need to be rehabilitated any more than you do for being a moron.

[ Parent ]
Pedophilia (4.18 / 11) (#10)
by BinaryTree on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:48:43 AM EST

Finding children attractive is a thoughtcrime, just like homosexual thoughts used to be, circa a few decades ago.

[ Parent ]
Bad comparison (3.57 / 7) (#15)
by lorcha on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 12:32:03 PM EST

I think your comparison misses one key point: homosexual thoughts represent thoughts between two consenting adults. And of course, homosexual actions represent actions between two consenting adults. What goes on between consenting adults really ought not to be anybody's business but their own.

But, pedophilia concerns an adult exploiting a child, who is not yet prepared to make his or her own decisions. Acting on these urges can cause severe psychological damage that lasts throughout a person's life. Any shrink worth his/her salt can tell within minutes whether a patient was or was not sexually abused as a child.

An adult who engages in sexual activity with a 6-year-old is not simply "commiting a thought crime". This is exploiting a child who is not yet mentally equiped to say "no" or physically equiped to resist. This is way different from homosexuality.

--
צדק--אין ערבים, אין פיגועים
[ Parent ]

Pedophilia != Molestation (3.25 / 4) (#18)
by BinaryTree on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 12:51:50 PM EST

No harm is done masturbating to child pornography. Some may argue that this is a reasonably safe outlet for such urges.

There's the case that the child in the material is harmed when it was produced, but that simply doesn't apply to erotic literature, art, photoshoppery, etc.

[ Parent ]

I would agree, except (4.00 / 3) (#24)
by lorcha on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 01:20:07 PM EST

How does one create child pornography without harming children? The ability of a pedophile to "harmlessly" wank to child porn is contingent on someone's ability to actually produce said porn.

I am not aware of any way to produce child porn without the involvement of children, which is why I believe there ought to be penalties for those who create the material, and those who support the creation of such material through paying someone else to create it.

BTW, point taken about art/literature/photoshop. I probably should have been more specific in my definition of porn. For the record, I have never considered (and neither do US courts consider) art to be pornography. An artistic picture of a nude child is no more pornography than a picture of a nude adult (on this point, of course, US law disagrees with me... any nude pic of a kid is contraband here). However, a picture of a couple of porn-stars doin' the nasty is porn, and substitute one or both porn stars for children and you have child porn (abuse). Also, Photoshopping has never really bothered me, as long as "no child was harmed in the creation of this work". I'm for freedom of expression as much as the next guy, as long as it is not harmful to those who cannot protect themselves yet.

--
צדק--אין ערבים, אין פיגועים
[ Parent ]

Oh? (4.33 / 4) (#27)
by lb008d on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 02:28:49 PM EST

I am not aware of any way to produce child porn without the involvement of children

Two words - Computer Generated.

"Kuro5hin: politics and pretension, from the $3,000 leather recliners on the hill overlooking the trenches."DarkZero
[ Parent ]

Please read my post (3.00 / 2) (#29)
by lorcha on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 03:02:43 PM EST

You said:
Two words - Computer Generated.
But before you said that, I said:
I probably should have been more specific in my definition of porn. For the record, I have never considered (and neither do US courts consider) art to be pornography. An artistic picture of a nude child is no more pornography than a picture of a nude adult (on this point, of course, US law disagrees with me... any nude pic of a kid is contraband here). However, a picture of a couple of porn-stars doin' the nasty is porn, and substitute one or both porn stars for children and you have child porn (abuse). Also, Photoshopping has never really bothered me, as long as "no child was harmed in the creation of this work". I'm for freedom of expression as much as the next guy, as long as it is not harmful to those who cannot protect themselves yet.
In other words, I'm not talking about photoshopping images or explicit comic books. I'm saying there is a problem when a real, living, breathing, human, child is harmed. I'm not sure how to be more clear on this one.

--
צדק--אין ערבים, אין פיגועים
[ Parent ]

Sorry (3.00 / 2) (#31)
by lb008d on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 03:27:11 PM EST

When you said "photoshopping" I took it as meaning "retouching real photographs".

"Kuro5hin: politics and pretension, from the $3,000 leather recliners on the hill overlooking the trenches."DarkZero
[ Parent ]

Complicated (3.00 / 2) (#38)
by WeaponOfChoice on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 06:19:01 PM EST

digital images are already fairly suspect when it comes to whether you can use them for evidence in court - they're not quite perfect yet but there will come a time where there will be no way to objectively determine whether the image is real or a digital fake.
But fakes are OK?
Whom then does the burden of the proof lay upon - the police to prove there is a real person behind the image or could you just produce the mesh file?

From what I had read the majority of the arrests in Avelanche came from people who had been targeted using the lists from the AVS provider and offered the opportunity to purchase "real, verified" material that was then recovered in searches and used as evidence.
I don't know if the same tactic was used in the UK (or even if it is required - perhaps merely being on the list of possible clients is enough here) as the articles don't go into a huge amount of detail as to the exact timeframes (I thought they were shutdown years ago...)


Be Strong: Protect the Weak.
[ Parent ]
Heheh (4.00 / 3) (#41)
by lorcha on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 07:18:28 PM EST

How dare you try to ground my philosophy in reality?!! That wasn't very nice at all, but fortunately, I think my framework will still hold up ok since you want to get all practical and stuff. :-)

First, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution (in the US). What I said in the waaaay parent to all this is that I felt mere possesion of images should warrant probation and psychiatric evaluation. This stands whether the pictures are real or look real to 'expert witnesses' (and of course, ultimately, a jury). Also, refering back to the waaaay parent of all this, I said I felt jail time would be appropriate for those who directly abuse/exploit children. This is also for the prosecution to prove.

It gets a little dicey when I said that I felt jail time is also appropriate for those who pay abusers to abuse children and create wanking material for them. I still think we're ok here because the burden of proof is over a financial transaction that leaves a trail. The police need only follow the money to the originators of these images and see what they find. If they find an art studio and rendering lab staffed with top-notch graphic artists that's one thing, but if they find a bunch of kids locked in the basement, that is another.

Anyhow, you're right, like a typical legislator, I thought only about philosophy and nothing about enforcement or prosecution. :-)

--
צדק--אין ערבים, אין פיגועים
[ Parent ]

Ahem, he said "finding children attractive&qu (4.33 / 4) (#22)
by Rogerborg on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 01:06:58 PM EST

Not cornholing them.  Viewing images of a child being abused is somewhere in the middle ground, so let's stick to that.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Somewhere along the line, the point was missed (3.00 / 2) (#25)
by lorcha on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 01:48:23 PM EST

In my original post, I already said that I believe that viewing this material is "middle ground" and that only those who either actually abuse an actual child, or who financially support the abusers for pictures of actual abuse ought to face punishment.

Please see here for reasons I think child porn is not harmless and what I mean by porn.

--
צדק--אין ערבים, אין פיגועים
[ Parent ]

Cheerfully retracted (none / 0) (#139)
by Rogerborg on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 08:28:35 AM EST

And I'm in substantial agreement with your views on this.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Spurious reference to thoughcrime (3.00 / 2) (#39)
by coljac on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 06:31:06 PM EST

It's not a crime, not should it be, to be a paedophile, i.e. to have sexual desires aimed at children. Why? Because it cannot be illegal to think anything, nor (do I believe) that being a paedophile is a voluntary act. (Why it occurs is a mystery to me).

Acting on these thoughts by abusing children or supporting that abuse as a patron of child porn, however is another matter and should be dealt with appropriately. I lean on the side of counselling for minor, first offenders but the creators and distributors should be dealt with pretty harshly - for their actions, not thoughts.



---
Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey
[ Parent ]

Yeah.. right... (3.00 / 4) (#13)
by Skywise on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 12:01:44 PM EST

Next you'll tell me that purchasing stolen items is not a crime either...

Coz, you know, only the original thief stole it.. How was any rational person supposed to know that an HDTV system couldn't be bought for $50 otherwise.

[ Parent ]

Let's read before we post, shall we? (3.75 / 5) (#14)
by lorcha on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 12:02:30 PM EST

Not only that, but banning child porn is clearly not an effective deterrant to those that make it, for all the reasons you state above. If they're *really* disturbed, legality doesn't make a difference. So what do you propose to fix by arresting and imprisoning people based on the contents of their hard drives?
Hmmm. Banning murder doesn't seem to be an effective deterrant to those who kill, but I think we can agree that it still ought to be illegal. Also, if you were to actually read what I said, I proposed no punishment for recovered files, counseling for someone who has a frickin' archive of child porn on his/her computer, and jail time only for those who directly support the child abuse industry by paying money for images of abuse (and for those who actually perform said abuse to an actual child). I'm not sure how you missed that because I spelt it out pretty clearly.
And it may boggle your mind, but making child porn illegal doesn't undo the trauma the abused child suffers. It also doesn't prevent propagation of the images. Fool, go pluck a bough and wear it.
Making murder illegal does not bring back the dead, either. I still find it a good thing to punish murderers. In general making something illegal cannot undo an injustice that was already commited. The best we can do is try to achieve some justice after the fact.
People who view child porn don't need to be rehabilitated any more than you do for being a moron.
This personal attack was totally gratituous (as were the previous personal attacks). Let's try to keep our posts focused on content and ideas rather than on silly cheap-shots, hmm?

--
צדק--אין ערבים, אין פיגועים
[ Parent ]

Invalid comparison. (none / 0) (#117)
by phybre187 on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:31:51 AM EST

Banning murder doesn't seem to be an effective deterrant to those who kill, but I think we can agree that it still ought to be illegal.
and
Making murder illegal does not bring back the dead, either.

To make the comparison valid, you would have to make WATCHING murder and propagating photographs of the dead illegal. Are you prepared to do that?

The best we can do is try to achieve some justice after the fact.

What exactly does law have to do with justice? Especially in the United States?

[ Parent ]
Really? (none / 0) (#126)
by lorcha on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:20:06 AM EST

To make the comparison valid, you would have to make WATCHING murder and propagating photographs of the dead illegal. Are you prepared to do that?
Does it really matter? You said that "making child porn illegal doesn't undo the trauma the abused child suffers". You can argue all day about comparing murder or pictures of murder or whatever, but the point I was trying to get across when I made the murder comparison was in the sentence right after it when I said "In general making something illegal cannot undo an injustice that was already commited". This still stands whether you like the murder comparison or not.

I repeat: There is no point worrying that outlawing child porn won't undo a child's suffering because there is nothing we can outlaw that can change a past transgression. What's done is done and the best we can do is try to make things "right" after the fact. Now we could argue all day about what might make things "right" or whether things could ever be made "right" but that would be a whole other topic of conversation.

What exactly does law have to do with justice? Especially in the United States?
Speaking of a whole other topic of conversation...

My response to this is that in my posts in this thread, where I've made reference to US policy, it was only in parenthesis. In other words, only for reference. In fact, my entire original post on the matter was a direct criticism of the lock-em-up-n-throw-away-the-key attitude of the US gov't toward people who have little likelihood of directly harming anyone. Given that, I wonder where this conversation got turned around to the point that I'm being asked to defend the very government I'm trying to criticize! :-)

Strange how things work out sometimes.

--
צדק--אין ערבים, אין פיגועים
[ Parent ]

snuff films. (5.00 / 1) (#162)
by joshsisk on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:24:41 PM EST

To make the comparison valid, you would have to make WATCHING murder and propagating photographs of the dead illegal. Are you prepared to do that?

I'm fairly sure it is illegal to sell or distribute snuff films, or other photographic/filmic documents of a murder or other serious crime.

The laws about child porn work the same way, with the assumption that the pornography is evidence of a crime, and that it could not exist without that crime taking place, thus the pornography itself is illegal.

Of course, IANAL - this is just how it was explained to me.
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]

Number 1 gets my attention. (4.00 / 4) (#20)
by BinaryTree on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 12:56:45 PM EST

I've thought that planting child pornography on an enemy's computer would be a reasonable method for framing.

[ Parent ]
Rehabilitation (4.00 / 4) (#23)
by the on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 01:12:42 PM EST

You think someone's sexual desires will just go away because some psychiatrist quack talks to them?

--
The Definite Article
[ Parent ]
Sound Argument (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by DarkZero on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 10:16:58 PM EST

If we could actually get past the aversion to pornography and the nearly insane hysteria over child abuse in the United States and the UK (respectively, to some degree), this could actually work, and work rather well. It's no different than the degrees of punishment for violence. Push some guy, get a slap on the wrist. Beat the crap out of them, get a harsher punishment. Stab someone, get a few years in jail. Kill someone, spend many years in jail.

Too bad that first part is why we're never going to see it before even the youngest people here have died of old age.

[ Parent ]

Hysteria is dangerous as is untreated addiction (5.00 / 1) (#115)
by HidingMyName on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:15:41 AM EST

Your ideas make some sense, however, as a parent of a young child, kids deserve protection. One problem with people being exposed to child pornography is that it may condition them to think of children as sex objects. I suspect men are especially susceptible to this, as they tend to be more visual when it comes to sex. Heck, even regular pornography influences how men think about sex. I think guys need some discouragement from even seeing child pornography, and really need instead to be encouraged to use a more healthy sexual outlet. I suspect that Lorcha may be right about the self reinforcing nature of sexual behavior, especially in the formative ages of adolescence. Unfortunately, one aspect of the extreme fear and legal climate where failure to report could get you into trouble, is that pedophiles who have not acted on their urges dare not ask for help for fear of persecution.

I wonder if countries with affordable and legalized prostitution might have reduced rates of pedophilia? behavior.Are there any studies?

[ Parent ]

In further news... (2.45 / 20) (#8)
by phybre187 on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:09:07 AM EST

Pete Townshend has now also been accused of being a Communist, and claims he read the Communist Manifesto for "research purposes". These claims will be viewed skeptically by some; however, he was publicly supported by celebrity friends such as Jerry Hall, who said Townshend was about as different from "the profile" of a Communist as it was possible to be.

This comes to the public eye after the Communist Manifesto became illegal literature last week, since it was determined that Marx and Engels probably abused children while writing it. More at 9.

Update: It is also now thought that Townshend might be Jewish. And gay. He will have to respond to these further allegations in court. We at Channel 12 expect a good ol' Mississippi-style lynching. We will, of course, be the first network to bring you that lynching. You saw it here first, ladies and gentlemen.

Jesus... (3.87 / 8) (#11)
by maynard on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:49:43 AM EST

There is a HUGE difference between political speech and thought, such as Marx (which ought to be legal and openly available), and profiteering from the sexual abuse of children. I have no idea if Townshend is guilty of these accusations, but if he is he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Photos of children being sexually abused are NOT the same as political speech, ethnic affiliation, or sexual preference among adults. Your comparison rings hallow. --M


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
hrm. (none / 0) (#62)
by pb on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:09:32 PM EST

I don't think Townshend is the one profiting from all of this; it sounds like the opposite, actually.

But at least we can still talk about children being abused, right?  Oh, and look at any other disgusting pictures we want to, like the pictures of aborted fetuses that the religious whackos like to bring around at lunchtime.  That's always fun...

Hey, maybe we can combine this--maybe we can arrest some religious whackos on child pornography charges for having pictures or statues of and an unhealthy obsession with The Baby Jesus.  Because, as we all know, child pornography makes baby Jesus cry.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

No assertion that Townshend profited (none / 0) (#154)
by maynard on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:15:28 AM EST

pb,

I didn't assert that Townshend was profiting from the distribution of child pornography. In fact, I said that I had no idea if he was even guilty of the charges for which he has been arrested - therefor I am giving him his rightful presumed innocence. However, if he paid money to purchase child pornography he is feeding a market which profits from the abuse of children. That is currently illegal. One cannot argue this point unless they're willing to argue that child pornography doesn't represent a form of child abuse. Those who hold that position are in the vast minority.

I see no relation between this and those who display images of aborted fetuses, nude statues, or even images of Christ on a cross dipped in urine, milk, or even semen (in fact I have met Andres Serrano and consider his art to be worthy of public funding). No one has been physically harmed in the creation of these artistic images and statues. By definition, a child is severely harmed when sexually abused, whether in front of a camera or not. This argument can be extended further to say that society as a whole is severely harmed from child sexual abuse across the board. And thus, society as a whole is even further damaged by allowing profit from market driven incentives to sexually abuse children en masse. How does this almost axiomatic statement bear any relationship to the detrimental effects of religious extremism?

--Maynard


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

thanks for the response (none / 0) (#185)
by pb on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:14:07 PM EST

I'd merely like to point out that you can't equate child pornography with child abuse.  I have no problems with making child abuse illegal, and fighting that; that is a noble cause.

But let us extend the "child pornography" argument a little.  Apparently the idea is that because child abuse is such a heinous crime, viewing or possessing any record of it (or for that matter any picture of a minor naked or involved in a sex act, legal or illegal, hopefully with the possible exception of baby pictures?) should also be a crime.  (I don't think I've ever seen the "profit" argument in any child pornography laws; it's the pornography itself that's illegal)  Let's suppose I agree with this too.

Then shouldn't we make it a crime to have a picture of any other serious offense?  Should we sue "Cops" and imprison convenience store owners for their security cameras?  Or should we only do that when they happen upon a child having sex?  I understand who the victims are; the first victim is the victim in the actual crime, which is what should be stopped in the first place.  All the other victims are victims of the legal system, because all they have to point at is a picture.  Was that picture horribly abused?

Their arguments make about as much sense as the arguments for racial profiling.  "Person X had this picture, therefore he's a dangerous child abuser."  Ooo, I'm so convinced.  Maybe if you found that child in his basement I'd believe you and crow for the death penalty.  But the picture by itself proves nothing.  If you want a preventative measure, go do something useful and prevent actual child abuse.  (Hint: you'll probably find a lot of it in people's homes first; while you're at it, do something about spousal abuse too; I think those pictures are legal, so I guess it isn't that horrible of a crime.)

And my point about child pornography and baby Jesus is that if the anti-child-porn people continue to have their way, there will be a chilling effect over what used to be socially acceptable everywhere.  No naked babies, no naked dancing babies, and probably fewer minors as models.  Because apparently one man's baby pictures is another man's "child porn".
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

In response to your points... (4.00 / 1) (#193)
by maynard on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:12:39 PM EST

OK. Just so we're in agreement, let's be specific about the child abuse in question. I have very liberal views on sexuality in general, so let's limit the discussion of child pornography to pre-teen minors engaged in sexual acts with adults in front of a camera. Further, these images are taken to be sold and/or traded on the black market for profit. Nude photos of babies in tubs, sandboxes, on the beach, in swimming pools, tottering around the back yard, etc. do not constitute child pornography in the slightest sense. Further, I agree that sexually suggestive images of child models used in advertising (or what have you) may be in poor taste, but are currently legal and do not constitute child pornography. And finally, I agree that two teenagers engaged in consensual sex for entirely personal reasons does not constitute sexual abuse, nor should it in any way be handled by the police or state authorities (though their parents might have something to say about the matter).

Given these limitations to the definition of child pornography and sexual abuse we are left with nothing short of exploitative sexual abuse of pre-teen minors for personal profit. This is about as heinous as it gets, right up there with premeditated murder. It just so turns out that even though I consider myself pretty liberal socially, I do happen to support the death penalty under very specific circumstances (though I don't support the death penalty as currently implemented in the United States).* I would be willing to support the death penalty for those who create and disseminate child pornography simply because of the damage it does to the minors themselves (with certain very specific limitations dealing with evidence).

So we'll agree that it should be illegal to own, trade, or create child pornography. Based on this should we criminalize images of other crimes? You list images taken from security video cameras, television programs, etc. I argue back, of course not (Duh :) ).

Security cameras exist to provide a legal record of any crimes committed within their view to facilitate those authorities who must track down, find, charge, and convict any criminal committing said crime. Further, by their existence and operation no one is harmed or abused, adult or child. The purpose of the camera has nothing to do with selling video of a crime, nor do the owners of these cameras commit crimes in order to sell such a video. In the situation of a television program such as COPS, it's my understanding that all the people who are shown on COPS (and other programs like this) agree in writing by consent form allowing the public airing of the recording. Further, they are all adults and able to sign legally binding contracts. Given child privacy laws in criminal court, I don't think the producers of a program like COPS would be allowed to show any minors being arrested.

Finally, WRT the relationship between owning child pornography and racial profiling: again, I think you're mixing unrelated issues. Owning an image of a child being sexually molested is illegal, being an ethnic minority is not (supposedly). It would be one thing if the police were going into people's houses without probable cause and searching for child pornography simply on a whim. Because that's basically what they're doing when they stop an African American for simply driving a nice car. But when a cop sees a citizen openly displaying illegal weapons, then it's not racial profiling to stop and arrest that individual. It's my understanding that Townshend was caught purchasing child pornography. There are financial records saying so. The police have found the images stored on his computer. In short, they have reasonable evidence with which to bring forth charges under specific legal statutes. This is not racial (sexual) profiling. If, however, you want to argue that we should revoke the statute against owning child pornography, that is another matter entirely. Not that I would agree with you.

I make a stark distinction between child pornography, snuff, and other heinous crimes caught on film/tape and sold on the open market, from traditional pornography showing adults engaged in various sex acts. That's a personal choice of the adult, one which should be considered within the realm of legal pursuits. In fact, I even support legalizing prostitution, drugs, and most other nonviolent "victimless crime". But children, by definition, cannot consent to such acts. And therefor they deserve the strongest defense the state can muster to prevent such abuse, for profit or any other reason. JMO.

Cheers,
--Maynard

* In those situations where there's physical evidence, such as video/film showing faces while a capital crime is being committed, fingerprints, and ballistics; forensic evidence such as DNA taken from blood and semen samples; and proof of multiple crimes such as serial murders, either for profit or because the person is a serial killer. Note that I don't consider witness testimony alone to be worthy enough to support a death penalty conviction, which is my primary problem with the US system.


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

much more clear. (5.00 / 1) (#205)
by pb on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 04:10:31 PM EST

Given your definitions, I'd be against child pornography.  If only those deifinitions were the ones made into laws, as opposed to the ones we currently have.  However, I still wouldn't be convinced that anyone is victimized by the possession of an image.  I wouldn't mind if it were illegal to sell it, and in that case, I'd want the police to chiefly go after the vendors and the producers.

But as it stands, people can "possess" child pornography without even knowing it's there.  You could make good arguments for shutting down USENET and Google on the grounds that they "possess" child pornography, (if it weren't for the fact that there are laws protecting common carrier status) and similarly you can go after anyone who indiscriminately downloads images from USENET.  Because they're all dangerous criminals, obviously.

Rembmer, children can in fact consent to sex, and they can film themselves doing it.  For example, in my state, sexual contact is legal between two individuals provided they're less than 4 years apart (but penetration isn't, until you're 13, and you can't be related).  That means a 12 year old could have consensual sexual contact with a 15 year old (or a 2 year old and a 5 year old), and a 15 year old could have consensual sex with an 18 year old, all legally.

However, any sexually explicit image of anyone under the age of 18 IS child pornography, and since the creation of child pornography is illegal, I guess those consensual couples mentioned above couldn't legally take "sexually explicit" pictures of each other.  Well, the 15 year old could take pictures of the 18 year old, but that's about it.

And they can be arrested for having a tape of themselves having consensual sex.  That's the sort of idiocy I'm against.  As I've said before, if your definitions were the law, there wouldn't be such gross ambiguity here, and you could go after people for selling images of child abuse.  But unfortunately it isn't, and we can and do go after people possessing images of naked children.

But that's not all--if the 18 year old looks young enough, or I tell you that he/she is actually younger, then that would count as child pornography too!  In fact, I could technically post sexually explicit images of myself (I'm 24), advertise them and post links that say I'm 17, and get arrested for it!  I don't even have to be naked; I could just dance around instead.  I don't even have to exist; computer generated images are just as illegal.

Yes, there is a real problem here.  Two problems, in fact.  One is the problem of child abuse, and the other is the problem of child pornography laws.  I'm wholeheartedly in favor of stopping child abuse, and repealing child pornography laws, because they are both wrongheaded, and cause innocent people to suffer.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

Thread debate killed due to agreement (5.00 / 1) (#209)
by maynard on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 04:38:27 PM EST

OK, so now you pose situations where the law really does break down. I agree that parents who wind up in court over bathtub photos have been unfairly prosecuted. And certainly, those cases where a person is prosecuted for "possessing" child pornography by accident represent a misallocation of law enforcement resources. And those cases where a person is prosecuted for child pornography by selling explicit images of adults and claiming they are underage teenagers are without merit (though the FTC might be able to file a complaint for deceptive and fraudulent marketing). So it looks like our debate is dead due to our having come to agreement. :)

Cheers
--Maynard


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

Really? (none / 0) (#119)
by phybre187 on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:37:40 AM EST

I have no idea if Townshend is guilty of these accusations, but if he is he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

What actions are those? Profiteering from the sexual abuse of children? How does that apply to the viewer of such material? Should a man who watches a snuff film be tried for murder? Should he be considered an accomplice to murder? Accessory after the fact?

Your comparison rings hallow.

Hollow. Hollow means empty. Hallow means 'to make holy'.

[ Parent ]
Yes, really. (none / 0) (#150)
by maynard on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 10:47:45 AM EST

What actions are those? Profiteering from the sexual abuse of children?

No. In context, it's obvious what those illegal actions are. By purchasing, downloading and viewing child pornography, the creation of which, by definition, involved child abuse of the worst sort, Mr. Townshend is accused of breaking a widely known and understood law. I'm not saying he is guilty, because I have no facts with which to back that assertion up. I'm simply responding to the published reports that he has been accused and arrested for having done so.

Should a man who watches a snuff film be tried for murder? Should he be considered an accomplice to murder? Accessory after the fact?

Good questions. It's arguable which is worse: destroying a child's personality through sexual abuse for the entertainment of others vs. murdering an innocent person for the entertainment of others. I'd say that if the snuff film customer actively attempts to find, purchase, and obtain this type of product then the state might make a reasonable case of indirect complicity in murder. If the person is engaged in trade of such films then the person would be directly profiting from the murder of another, and thus would be directly complicit in the murder of another. In both cases a person feeds a market for a product, the creation of which requires either a murder or child sexual abuse - both heinous crimes.

Hollow. Hollow means empty. Hallow means 'to make holy'.

Please excuse my spell checker and time constraints. And glad to know you're immune to off the cuff spelling and grammar errors. I'll try to be just perfect as you in the future.

--Maynard


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

profiteering (none / 0) (#163)
by joshsisk on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:29:43 PM EST

He's not profiting - he's financing the act, by paying for the result.

If he was buying snuff films, I believe that would also be illegal. In the US, anyway, it's against the law to buy a snuff film.

(However, the whole concept of people making snuff films to sell is supposedly an urban legend, or so I read in the news awhile back).
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]

+5, but slightly inaccurate (4.00 / 1) (#74)
by epepke on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:59:33 PM EST

They don't have Channel 12 in the UK. Change it to BBC-2. And make it a Glasgow-style lynching.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
-1 *yawn*, so? (1.88 / 9) (#17)
by Tom Brett on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 12:43:55 PM EST

ducks.


Outwar thugbuilder! get 500+ thugs a day! click here
It's strange (1.33 / 6) (#19)
by Tom Brett on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 12:53:32 PM EST

how this story seems to totally conflict with this one dosen't it ? Where else could you have the two stories back to back and in the same section of This site?('Culture') K5 Technology and culture, from the trenches. I think maybe "Trolls and fiction, from the bored sysadmin's cubicle" would be more accurate, don't you?


Outwar thugbuilder! get 500+ thugs a day! click here
heh heh heh (3.75 / 8) (#28)
by cthulhain on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 02:28:54 PM EST

(The Guardian is, if anything, the most pro-Labour national newspaper, so this cannot be dismissed as malicious rumour-mongering by the paper.)
I love your logic here.

--
nothing in his brain except a ruined echo of the sky.

I think (5.00 / 1) (#175)
by Galion on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:30:31 PM EST

He was referring specifically to the allegation of the two (ex-)ministers that are supposed to be involved.

[ Parent ]
sounds like (2.20 / 5) (#32)
by tweetsygalore on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 04:23:56 PM EST

these people i knew of who put people under surveillance and invaded their privacy with the excuse THAT the latter was supposedly extorting them. oh really? so why wasn't the law enforcement called then if it was really extortion? pathetic. i'm so glad that i don't have friends like these people. UGH!
After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realised that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis comes along. --- Justice William Brennan
Research? (2.50 / 4) (#33)
by Trollificus on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 05:33:44 PM EST

Yeah, sure. And Diana Ross really did get "lost" when she was pulled over for DUI.

"The separation of church and state is a fiction. The nation is the kingdom of God, period."
--Bishop Harold Calvin Ray of West Palm Beach, FL

And Eddie Murphy was just giving the transvestite (none / 0) (#223)
by Demiurge on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:24:27 PM EST

a ride home....

[ Parent ]
Anybody besides me remember. . . (3.33 / 4) (#34)
by IHCOYC on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 05:36:53 PM EST

. . . Gary Glitter?

Grais ingenium, Grais dedit ore rotundo
Musa loqui, præter laudem nullius auaris. . .

     --- Horace

Should have been obvious (3.00 / 2) (#149)
by spakka on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 10:17:02 AM EST

People should have suspected him when he chose a stage name which is rhyming slang for 'arsehole'.

[ Parent ]
News (3.50 / 6) (#36)
by pwhysall on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 06:03:23 PM EST

He's been arrested.
--
Peter
K5 Editors
I'm going to wager that the story keeps getting dumped because it is a steaming pile of badly formatted fool-meme.
CheeseBurgerBrown
But not charged. (4.33 / 3) (#125)
by Alannon on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:04:11 AM EST

I thought I'd point out that the article specifically says that he has not been charged with anything. At least not yet.

[ Parent ]
how does that work? (4.00 / 2) (#204)
by ethereal on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:56:39 PM EST

Don't they usually have to tell you the charges when they arrest you? If there aren't any charges, then isn't it just "questioning" or sometimes "protective custody"? I dunno how the UK system works here.

--

Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State
[ Parent ]

Child porn laws. (3.28 / 7) (#37)
by valeko on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 06:08:04 PM EST

I'd like to take this moment to insert that I think existing child pornography laws in the United States and Western Europe are absolutely ludicruous. There is no rational defense to arresting anyone for viewing child porn; it's not the job of the state to determine what is "indecent" material for anyone -- that is a determination every person should make for himself. After all, most people would say that if I wank to the loose asshole at goatse.cx, I'm pretty "disturbed," but nobody's arresting me for that, right?

The conventional argument is that curbing interest in child porn naturally reduces its production, and therefore reduces exploitation of children for that purpose. Yeah, right. It doesn't do anything of the sort -- it merely obliges its producers and fans to go underground.

It takes clinical braindeath to not see the absurdity of the "child pornography is the product of exploitation!" argument. Of course it is! And what do you think most of "legal" porn is? Oh, to be sure, there's tonnes of professional porn stars that love their jobs and have congenial relations with their employers, but I think it's logical to conclude that for many people it is a question of survival & income, and since it's an industry that is not well (if at all) regulated, the abuses that go on there are absolutely horrendous. Child porn can come from abused children, but so can "legal" porn! The adult women you are looking at might be just as victimised -- have no illusions. It is not always a voluntary question. The business can often more resemble the mechanics of prostitution and less a voluntary exchange of services.

Yet we're not banning that. We're even making the whole business thrive. How is child pornography much different? I think it should be a punishable offense to pay providers of child pornography for their content, directly or indirectly, but how is viewing images that are the product of exploitation any different than viewing other images that are the product of exploitation? This should not be taken as an endorsement of child pornography on my part -- I abhor it as much as anyone else -- but this has a lot of parallels to the drug war. It makes child pornography extremely lucrative, it encourages a thriving mafia (you think I'm kidding, don't you?) throughout the world, in Western and non-Western countries, and provides impetus for various destructive developments.

Yet we're seeing people arrested who haven't any part in any of this, merely on the basis of what they choose to view. Yes, I know it's perverse. So is the goatse.cx asshole or its various counterparts. And?

Sounds like both state and community ("majority") tyrrany to me. We're not doing anything constructive to discourage the production of child porn by arresting people with a trace of it on their hard drive. If anything, it just pushes this fearsome business further and further into the gloomy underworld, which makes it still more difficult to police. Attack the supply side of child porn, not someone who happens to encounter it!

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart

legal vs child porn (4.25 / 5) (#40)
by godix on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 06:43:16 PM EST

"It takes clinical braindeath to not see the absurdity of the "child pornography is the product of exploitation!" argument. Of course it is! And what do you think most of "legal" porn is?"

Legal porn is made with consenting (if it's unconsenting, it isn't legal) adults who, theoretically, are able to make their own decisions.

Child porn is made with children, many of which are way to young to give consent, who are, theoretically, unable to make thier own decisions. Many child porn I've seen (cruse the hacking sites and unfortunately you run into this vile shit from time to time) are also violent forced acts, and that's called rape regardless of age.

That is why one is considered exploitation, abuse, and illegal while the other isn't.


Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.

[ Parent ]

Right, but you're just arguing semantics. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by valeko on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 08:10:35 PM EST

That's why I said "legal" porn. By "legal" I simply meant pornographic images of people who are not "underage."

While it's tempting to view it all as an enterprise based on mutual consent, the reality is far from it. The pornography business has many characteristics similar to prostitution; there's lots of scheming and blackmail involved, and in the case of models outside the U.S., where many pornographers go to do their dirty work, outright slavery. I'm not making this up.

My point isn't that the "legitimate" pornography industry is based mostly on exploitation and slavery, but that there are legal products made from sexual exploitation as well as illegal ones.

And arresting viewers of child porn isn't going to make it go away. If you want it to go away, attack the source. If it's there, why do you expect people to not view it?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

i hate thinking up subjects (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by godix on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 08:40:25 PM EST

"While it's tempting to view it all as an enterprise based on mutual consent, the reality is far from it."

I didn't mean to imply it was. I rather trying to point out that while some adult porn is exploitation ALL child porn is exploitation. I defy you to show one case of child porn where the child wasn't being exploited. In order to avoid age arguements, lets limit that to pre-teen porn. I don't feel like getting into an arguement on the differences between 15 yr olds and 19 yr olds.

"And arresting viewers of child porn isn't going to make it go away."

No, certainly not, however ignoring viewers of child porn won't help either. An admittedly illogical reason I support keeping viewing child porn illegal: I used to work with a man who was going to college in order to become a pre-school teacher. He is now in jail because his wife found over 2 gig of pre-teen porn on his computer. While this is just one case, I find it difficult to argue against results like this.

"If it's there, why do you expect people to not view it?"

If you truly want to defend the right to view child porn I'd expand on this and forget trying to compare it to adult porn. You could make a valid arguement about how controlling what people see is clear censorship. No matter how sickening it is, trying to hide child porn out of sight and pretend it doesn't exist won't help. I support keeping kiddie porn illegal, but I can certainly see arguements against that on this basis.


Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.

[ Parent ]

Me too. (3.00 / 2) (#45)
by valeko on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 08:59:07 PM EST

I defy you to show one case of child porn where the child wasn't being exploited. In order to avoid age arguements, lets limit that to pre-teen porn. I don't feel like getting into an arguement on the differences between 15 yr olds and 19 yr olds.

Yeah, that definitely cuts this end of the discussion short. I was actually going to get into precisely that, since discussing 15 year olds is precisely where the utter stupidity of the current statutory approach toward pornography becomes so clear. I don't have any real beef with your claim about pre-teens though, obviously.

On another note, I don't really see the harm that's coming from some of the more "ambiguous" but "controversial" pre-teen sites. We've had several articles on K5 that discuss websites with for-pay galleries of 9-13 year old girls wearing skimpy outfits, etc., but nothing more than that. Either the process is legal or it's not. I don't understand why the tyrranical majority sees it as their job to tell people what should and shouldn't give them pleasure to view, though.

No, certainly not, however ignoring viewers of child porn won't help either. An admittedly illogical reason I support keeping viewing child porn illegal: I used to work with a man who was going to college in order to become a pre-school teacher. He is now in jail because his wife found over 2 gig of pre-teen porn on his computer. While this is just one case, I find it difficult to argue against results like this.

Well, the question must be asked: why? I realise that sets me up for some flak, given how "emotionally charged" this subject is for lots of people who see themselves as valiant defenders of decency, but I ask, why?

I assume the supposition is in line with conventional wisdom; if this guy is going to download child porn and work in a pre-school, clearly he's a danger to children. But is he? Maybe. Can you just assume that, though? Maybe if you view that sort of thing as a psychological illness that is bound to result in tragedy, sure.

But let's see. Does a teenage boy that views porn of some shape or another pose a danger to his female classmates? Is he a rapist waiting to happen? Sadomasochistic psychotic killer in disguise? Really? Are you sure? What about the 30 year old manager that enjoys violent rape roleplaying porn/BDSM, and has female employees? Is he a ticking rapist too? Maybe. But we don't just assume he's going to act out his particular sexual fascinations, do we? No, of course not, that would be rather silly. In fact, porn can be viewed, for these people, as a constructive coping mechanism to let off some of their ... what's the psychological buzzword for it ... sexual tension.

Why do we naturally assume that "paedophiles" are different? I realise there's a heavy tendency to go berzerk with anything that involves "our precious children," but that's just social conditioning. Can you assume that the guy you're talking about is going to rape pre-school children? Moreover, can you assume that someone who doesn't view child porn isn't a ticking child molester?

These questions need to be raised, unpleasant as they may be to confront. The popular answer isn't satisfactory.

I support keeping kiddie porn illegal, but I can certainly see arguements against that on this basis.

Nobody's proposing to legalise it. I just suggest that viewing it per se shouldn't be a criminal offense. Who gives a shit what you view? Why does this assumption exist that someone who views such images is going to "act them out"? Moreover, why do we assume that someone infatuated with the goatse.cx asshole isn't going to raid somebody's ass?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

More pedophila (4.50 / 2) (#50)
by godix on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 09:56:25 PM EST

"since discussing 15 year olds is precisely where the utter stupidity of the current statutory approach toward pornography becomes so clear"

Actually I agree here. My opinion basically can be summed up as 'At puberty nature intended something to go on, who are we to stop it?' This is the reason I'm keeping my arguements and examples to pre-teen.

"Well, the question must be asked: why?"

The pre-school teacher was actively attempting to become in an authoritarian position over children where he would frequently be the only adult around. If he was content to be a computer nerd for his life with little or no contact with children I probably wouldn't have been that concerned about what turns him on. Different situations provoke different feelings to the same action.

"These questions need to be raised, unpleasant as they may be to confront. The popular answer isn't satisfactory. "

Quite true, reality is that viewing any type of porn won't influence your actions anymore than the examples you give. I could list even more examples that prove your point, anything from violence in video games to Eminem lyrics to Dungeons & Dragons. While viewing child porn doesn't neccessarily mean you're going to commit pedophila, it provides a good warning to society that here is a person sexually thrilled by little kids and needs to be watched just in case.

So you know where I'm coming from I should expand a little on my opinions:
There are legit reasons to possess child porn and exceptions should be provided. Social scientist doing research, law enforcement or activest trying to understand the problem better, judges looking for general info on a case they're hearing, lawmakers crafting pedophila legislation, etc. I would also support a legal way to distribute pedophilia amoung these people provided there were controls on who had access. If this were present it would provide Pete Townshend access to his research (if he was telling the truth) and more importantly remove the 'research' defense from criminal cases.

Punishment for viewing pedophiliac porn should be along the lines of 'community service and never go near a kid in your life' while creating it or acting out of it should be serious jail time.


Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.

[ Parent ]

I don't know. Are you sure? (3.66 / 3) (#54)
by valeko on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 10:12:13 PM EST

Actually I agree here. My opinion basically can be summed up as 'At puberty nature intended something to go on, who are we to stop it?' This is the reason I'm keeping my arguements and examples to pre-teen.

Yep. And yet some of the worst fascism involving child porn has involved post-pubescent teens that are under 18. It's still child porn, statutorily. Even if no sexual acts at all are involved, argueably - subject to interpretation. Almost any judge can call a naked body "lascivious exhibition of the genitals" if he pleases.

The pre-school teacher was actively attempting to become in an authoritarian position over children where he would frequently be the only adult around. If he was content to be a computer nerd for his life with little or no contact with children I probably wouldn't have been that concerned about what turns him on. Different situations provoke different feelings to the same action.

You seem to be evading my question; what makes you think he's going to attack the children? I could just as easily say, "this mid-level manager was actively attempting to become in an authoritarian position over some young female secretaries where he would frequently be the only male around." Yes, I realise that pre-school children are a little different -- physically weak, lacking in real mental autonomy, naive, etc. But still. Is it not possible to imagine a paedophile that would never touch a child IRL? What about people who enthusiastically fantasise about violent rape? Who's to say they're going to raid women? Maybe conjuring the imagery just turns them on. So what?

I'd like to see conclusive scientific proof that people who view child pornography are inclined to harm children and/or "act out" their so-called "fantasies" in reality. Yes, I said scientific proof, not Baptist statistics or "information" from over-zealous, ignorant soccer moms. There might be a really strong correlation factor, but we don't really know that. What we tend to do is review the history of child molestors once they've been arrested for an actual lewd sexual act with a child, and then find that they also, unsurprisingly, have enjoyed child porn. That's not science.

While viewing child porn doesn't neccessarily mean you're going to commit pedophila, it provides a good warning to society that here is a person sexually thrilled by little kids and needs to be watched just in case.

Does it really matter what they're sexually thrilled by? Everyone's sexually thrilled by some things; does that mean we're all rapists? And, I again emphasise people with an affliction for imagining themselves in a dominant role with a person of the opposite gender playing a submissive/weak one. Is that sexually unhealthy? Is that a sign of a "disease"? Does it mean they're rapists waiting to strike?

And yes, by the way, I do realise that being sexually thrilled by pre-teen children isn't indicative of good health.

Punishment for viewing pedophiliac porn should be along the lines of 'community service and never go near a kid in your life'

I don't understand this at all. What harm is there in going near a kid? What if you like "regular" porn? Should you never be allowed near women? Some women are as easy for a rapist to subjugate physically as children are, argueably. Does that mean that people who have sexual fantasies about either should be isolated in a bubble? And how do you reconcile 'community service' with this kind of isolation?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Yea, pretty sure, in that specific case only (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by godix on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:14:21 PM EST

I know you personally don't think pre-teen porn is good, but it's nice to met someone who is using their mind about the issue instead of a purely emotional reaction. Arguements like yours in the general public would do a lot more for fair laws on pedeophile than arresting Pete ever will.

"what makes you think he's going to attack the children?"

I worked with the man for a year and a half and  believe he would have molested children if given the chance. I do realize that isn't proof of any sort, but in this specific case I think current laws are what prevented it from being another case of correlation between owning child porn and molesting children.

Note that I did not say causation, just correlation.

"I'd like to see conclusive scientific proof that people who view child pornography are inclined to harm children and/or "act out" their so-called "fantasies" in reality."

I'll save you the trouble of looking, there is none. You are correct and have a valid point in this arguement.

"Does it really matter what they're sexually thrilled by?"
"What harm is there in going near a kid?"

The act of viewing pedeophiliac pornography in and of itself is not the wrong I think needs to addressed by the courts. The possability that the person viewing this stuff might be one of the small % of people who act it out is. I freely admit that punishing people for viewing pre-teen porn is unfair and violates their rights. In general I hate the idea of sacrificing rights in the name of protection since it usually leads to ideas like anti-terror legislation, gun control laws, etc but occasionally there is a protection needed badly enough that people rights should be sacrificed. To prevent going overboard with the sacrifice the points you bring up should be paid careful consideration though.

To pre-answer the obvious question on this, I do not hold the same view for the case of rape. Most women are able to defend themselves much better than children can, which tips me back into the defend people rights viewpoint. I realize there is really little distinction between the two cases, but everyone draws a line somewhere and this is that point for me.



Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.

[ Parent ]

Well, then we're in agreement, really. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by valeko on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:28:55 PM EST

I freely admit that punishing people for viewing pre-teen porn is unfair and violates their rights.

Well, that's really all that I am saying.

My opinion is real simple; I adamnantly oppose the banning and/or censorship of anything - books, pictures, films, whatever. I think I'm willing to hold child pornography to the same standard.

If child pornography is created by exploitation of children, then those involved in creating it and providing a market for it should be charged under child sexual exploitation/abuse statutes. However, the legislature has no business in morality, and has no right to tell anybody what should or should not sexually thrill them.

I should note paranthetically that according to most "reliable" sources I've read, child pornography these days is not the commercial venture it used to be. It's mostly exchanged freely without any lucrative motives, with the small exception of websites that provide it. In other words, most people that view it aren't contributing to the market for child porn, and aren't creating a market-expressed demand for it that falls into the hands of the abusers. With that in mind, I don't see why they should be told what to view or not view. It's there, isn't it? It's dead simple.

I'm no fan of child pornography. I just don't believe in censorship or other forms of restraint -- for any reason. I don't care how outlandish or morally shocking pre-teen child pornography is; nobody should be arrested for possessing it.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Hypothetically... (none / 0) (#226)
by Skywise on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:43:45 PM EST

"My opinion is real simple; I adamnantly oppose the banning and/or censorship of anything - books, pictures, films, whatever. I think I'm willing to hold child pornography to the same standard."

So then what's the difference between being a bystander during a child rape, and watching one on a recording?

[ Parent ]

A profound one. (5.00 / 2) (#249)
by valeko on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:36:50 PM EST

The difference is very large. By being a bystander during the rape of a child, you are, by failing to remedy the situation, guilty of directly harming the child. Failure to seek help is equal to harm; just as seeing somebody kicked half to death and not calling an ambulance is an act (or a failure to act) that damages the victim directly.

If you're viewing images of an illegal act, you are entirely removed of any participation in it, and have no options available to you that are within your locus of influence. I don't see why it should be a criminal offense.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Ahh... (5.00 / 1) (#275)
by Skywise on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:16:37 PM EST

But a viewer *is* failing to remedy the situation.  If a viewer downloads porn off the net, and knows the person it comes from, that person is failing to remedy the situation by not phoning the police of seeing such an act.

Just as much as it would be if you collected snuff films of people being murdered and not report them.

There's definitely a "blue law" style moral component to the laws I agree with you on that, but I believe there's also a rational reason as to why the laws are so widely accepted even by the "non-moralistic" UN, which is responsible for most of the child pornography laws on the books in the world.

Note also that one of the state supreme courts have found that media containing simulated pornography (standard, or child) is *not* the real thing, and therefore protected by free speech laws.

To clarify:  I'm against most (99%) forms of censorship (some censorship being a good thing, IE military secrets, medical information, personal info, etc), and I've seen my share of hentai (it's generally pretty twisted), even though I could've been sent to prison for that.  (I'm more worried about my 2600 magazine collection...)  My concern is strictly on a pre-pubescent level.

[ Parent ]

Well. (none / 0) (#282)
by valeko on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:58:15 AM EST

But a viewer *is* failing to remedy the situation. If a viewer downloads porn off the net, and knows the person it comes from, that person is failing to remedy the situation by not phoning the police of seeing such an act.

I would assume that if the source of child porn were easy to identify, the whole enterprise would long be nipped in the bud.

Also, it's not clear to me what you define as "porn"? Nude pictures? Sexual acts? What about age? At what point is this an act that you feel needs to be reported to police? Be sure to keep it in perspective; compare it to other things children are "coerced" into doing, and compare it to existing standards of legality and acceptability.

I don't think someone who ends up on the receiving end of child porn has any particular obligation to report that a crime has taken place. It might be a good idea if you can identify the source, but either way, it's retarded that you should be arrested for it.

Of course, you can take this argument in circles. What if you believe that "legal" (18+) porn that you are witnessing involves an act of exploitation? What then, are you obligated to report it? Should you be arrested for failing to do so because you're clearly allowing a crime to take place? What about that beheading video on rotten.com? Either it's a simulation, or that's some pretty scary stuff -- should any viewers of it be arrested for complicity in murder?

You've got to keep in mind, child pornography (according to sources I've read) is no longer a thriving commercial enterprise; the rigid enforcement and the advent of the Internet has driven it underground and beyond any possibility of profitability, apart from the supply side directly, where organised crime is no doubt heavily involved. Do you really think that real "paedophiles" would be discouraged from seeking child porn by the threat of arrest? Do you really think that arresting people who view child porn, intentionally or not, reduces the amount of sexual abuse of children in the world for these purposes? Hardly.

One other thing -- and Lord knows I can't find the source for it right now -- but I read somewhere that something like half of all child molestations in the U.S. are committed by adolescents, and often siblings or other relations. Doesn't that do some damage to the theory on which the child abuse hysteria is predicated -- that is, that there is a conspiracy of sick, sick 40 year old men that are Out To Get Our Precious Children?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Mollirama (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by Godel on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:29:25 PM EST

On another note, I don't really see the harm that's coming from some of the more "ambiguous" but "controversial" pre-teen sites. We've had several articles on K5 that discuss websites with for-pay galleries of 9-13 year old girls wearing skimpy outfits, etc., but nothing more than that.

I agree. It seems like sites that provide a legal outlet for people's desires are a good thing if they keep them from moving on to more hard core and illegal images or acts that do harm children. Plus, I think there's something really f'ed up about our society if we start feeling the need to make clothed pictures of kids illegal. What next, mandatory burkhas until age 18?

[ Parent ]

*nod* (none / 0) (#71)
by valeko on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:35:30 PM EST

I'm assuming that the debate, as usual, revolves around whether the children portrayed are capable of consenting to being portrayed this way, or whether their parents are basically dressing them up and milking them for cash.

I admit, it's definitely not an easy question to answer on the supply end. But, my strong views concern the receiving end more -- who cares if you're into Mollirama? We don't need Thought Police.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Milking Kids for Kash (5.00 / 2) (#201)
by MyrddinE on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:47:21 PM EST

So then, all parents of young actors are evilly profiting from their children? What do you call children cast for a beach scene in a movie... wearing skimpy outfits, frolicking and playing for the camera. The horrors!

The uses to which a photo are put does not harm the child. It may be creepy to imagine some pervert wanking to a child in a swimsuit, but does it harm the child? The money the parents got for the shoot may be saving up for their college education (or they may be spending it on heroine, but that's true for the parents of acting children too).

That's my viewpoint. Abusing children = bad. Providing a wank-site full of legal pics but targetted at paedophiles is creepy, but not illegal, nor should it be.

[ Parent ]

I agree. (none / 0) (#210)
by valeko on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 04:43:06 PM EST

I agree with you in principle, although I do think that in the case of child "modeling" of this nature, it's possible that being compelled to do all this isn't in the best interest of the child, future-wise, reputation wise, etc. But then again, the same is true for acting.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

heh. (5.00 / 3) (#52)
by pb on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 09:58:36 PM EST

I also love how intent has nothing to do with it.  Since you see this stuff from time to time, it might very well be on your hard drive.  Therefore, you could potentially get arrested for seeing images you didn't want to see in the first place!

Wouldn't you rather have the people displaying these images get arrested instead?  This is just like when people go into an art gallery and protest that an exhibit is disgusting and should be taken down.  In a case like that, should you arrest the patrons of the art gallery, or instead hold the gallery or the artist responsible for their own actions?

...and I won't even get into the utter stupidity of the creation of "illegal child pornography" through the filming of the legal sex acts of two consenting minors.  Don't ask me how the film of a legal act can become illegal, because it's a class of logic wholly beyond my understanding.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

Intent has everything to do with it (none / 0) (#53)
by godix on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 10:07:13 PM EST

"Since you see this stuff from time to time, it might very well be on your hard drive.  Therefore, you could potentially get arrested for seeing images you didn't want to see in the first place!"

Prosecutors make a distinction between accidentally seeing child porn and intentionally seeking it out. As an example, Pete was seeking it out and went so far as to give his credit card to get access. I wasn't seeking it out but might have a few caches of it (doubtful actually, I clean out my cache fairly regularly). Pete is arrested and I am not, even though I've declared in public that I have seen it before.

"Wouldn't you rather have the people displaying these images get arrested instead?"

Yes, but that doesn't give a free pass to those seeking them out.

"Don't ask me how the film of a legal act can become illegal, because it's a class of logic wholly beyond my understanding"

To the best of my knowledge minors engaging in sex is illegal. I might be wrong, but I want proof of it.


Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.

[ Parent ]

Say what? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by valeko on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 10:17:44 PM EST

To the best of my knowledge minors engaging in sex is illegal. I might be wrong, but I want proof of it.

That's interesting. No, there's a certain "age of consent" (in the U.S. it's on a state-by-state basis but tends to hover around 16, whereas in most of the civilised world it's probably around 14 or so). Some of the statutes have clauses predicated on parental approval and all that, but it tends to be the same as with marriage as often as not.

As far as consenting minors engaging in sexual intercourse outside the realm of statute, I've made my view abundantly clear and don't really feel like re-typing it. I think that may have direct relevance to this discussion, though.

Also, as for videotaping this, I think the issue might be making a commodity of it more than the act of taping it itself.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

not always, it seems... (5.00 / 4) (#60)
by pb on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 10:58:54 PM EST

If you read through the comments, you'll notice one K5er who is experiencing it now--he apparently had some child porn on a CD-ROM that got found when his flat got raided.  Why?  Because he downloaded pictures from USENET and burned them to CD-ROM.

Of course, that by itself says nothing about his intent or his character--that fact that he made the CD-ROM does not mean that he's even ever actually viewed the pictures in question.

So if I were you, I'd be pretty careful about what I left lying around.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

Clarification (5.00 / 2) (#187)
by notmyrealaccount on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:36:47 PM EST

Just to clarify something - I had images of teenage (14-16 non-nude) and legal (18+) porn burnt onto CD, and a Zip disk with one child-porn image on that had been deleted and partially overwritten which was discovered by the police and is the main evidence against me.

[ Parent ]
Hmm. (5.00 / 1) (#250)
by valeko on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:39:17 PM EST

But the images of the 14-16 year olds don't constitute material or secondary evidence, do they? They can't be used against you, right?

If they were nude (but not entailing any sexual pretentions or acts), would you be held responsible for them under UK statute?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

The Difference is (none / 0) (#49)
by Hast on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 09:50:47 PM EST

All child porn comes by definition from exploitation and only a small amount of other porn comes from exploitation.

[ Parent ]
I don't know that it's a small amount. (none / 0) (#51)
by valeko on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 09:56:28 PM EST

Might be pretty large. The sexual industries are a big business, and largely unregulated. You don't know what kind of relationships girls that pose for those pictures have with their photographers; they're not as benign and consensual as you think. It's ridden with blackmail and thoroughly the domain of mafiosi, depending on where you're talking about, location-wise.

Of course, this argument is largely fruitless for another reason: after all, look at the products sitting on your desk. Quite a few of them may have been manufactured with Third World wage-slave labour. That's exploitation too.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Currency (5.00 / 3) (#61)
by gibichung on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:07:42 PM EST

You should know that the real currency of child pornography is the pictures themselves; it's a simple barter system. People hoarde the pictures so they can trade them for new ones.

To make things worse: much like stamps or baseball cards, those in wide circulation are worth less. To "break into the good market," you need a lot of pictures - or a few original ones. Supply and demand become one and the same.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

Hmm. (none / 0) (#63)
by valeko on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:13:26 PM EST

I don't mean to sound like I'm berating you, but how does this relate directly to my argument?

What you said about the accumulation of illegal material for trade for other illegal material can be applied to lots of things. So what? I must've missed a vital point.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Directly? (none / 0) (#87)
by gibichung on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:04:04 AM EST

I wouldn't say that it does. However, it does seem to highlight a weakness with your generic case against possession laws.

Much like a drug habit, a child pornography habit is not stable. People quickly become accustomed and require something more to get them the same "high" as before. With drugs, this manifests itself as stronger and more frequent doses, and if drug possession and manufacture were legal, the escalation could run its course without breaking the law or hurting anyone else*; but child pornography is another case. The only thing which has changed is the difficulty in prosecuting those involved in the trade.

The thrill comes as much from the taboo as anything. To escalate the experience - to maintain the high - you have to increase the taboo. It doesn't matter if that means getting new pictures or molesting children yourself; both will always involve the "gloomy underworld." The same people will be hurt, and it will stay underground. There is no benefit.

* Assuming that this were true.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

dumbass (4.83 / 6) (#46)
by jvcoleman on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 09:02:08 PM EST

And Jerry Springer used to pay for his prostitutes with personal checks. Fuckwits.

Townshend has claimed that the purpose of paying to access the site was merely to find out how bad the problem of child porn was - "to fight it you have know what's out there", he said.

And I'm sure that he'll get the best legal representation that can be bought, too. But take Joe Schmuck, let him claim the same thing under the same circumstances, and see how many supermodels, rock stars, and other glitterati jump to his defense. He clearly committed a crime, whether the law he broke is fair or not, and the lesson this case should teach us all is that your online identity is not safe in the hands of vendors. Anyone that ever used their "real" address when registering for a site should have known that people that are handing over personal usage information to spammers won't care too much about doing the same for the cops.

This case, hopefully, will open up a new debate over the validity of online transactions as material evidence in criminal proceedings. Right now, the case literature on this subject is woefully immature.

You make this sound like a cakewalk (5.00 / 1) (#148)
by dachshund on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 09:44:17 AM EST

But take Joe Schmuck, let him claim the same thing under the same circumstances, and see how many supermodels, rock stars, and other glitterati jump to his defense.

Yeah, but on the flipside, your average Joe Schmuck won't have the story printed in every newspaper on the planet. And on the offchance that he is found innocent, a non-famous person can always move to another town and not be known as "that guy who bought child-porn." Townshend can't do that. Fame has its upsides, but it also has a price.

Having famous people come to your aid sure isn't going to lessen the embarrassment for Mr. Townshend. Probably this accusation follow him to the grave, no matter what the ultimate outcome of the criminal investigation. That doesn't make what he did right, I'm just pointing out that he'll face consequences over and above whatever he gets from the legal system.

[ Parent ]

that's very true (5.00 / 1) (#157)
by jvcoleman on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:37:41 AM EST

No matter what happens to him now, legally, this tarnish upon his name will be more or less impossible to remove. On the other hand, I've heard of state laws where people convicted of child porn offenses have to put a sign in their yard, an ad in the paper, or some other nonsense.

Even if you are found innocent of that kind of crime, a mere indictment or arrest can officially disqualify you from most jobs where you interact with kids.

[ Parent ]

oh and a note to the trolls (3.75 / 4) (#47)
by jvcoleman on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 09:13:42 PM EST

Keep this case in mind the next time you go about harassing, threatening, and terrorizing someone else online. It's all there (or most of it) in the access.log files, kept confidential only because of the personal integrity of the site founders. Your anonymity is separated from public knowledge by a very thin blue line.

You may never have committed a crime per se, but explain the concept of a troll to a layman (lying, teasing, and/or slandering to elicit an angry, irrational response) and he probably won't see the humor in it. Civil suits involving non-sexual verbal and/or written harassments are currently all the rage, and your silly little pranks may someday land you in a costly lawsuit that will cause great embarassment and loss of productive time.

Well, It's a good thing I have protection then (3.60 / 5) (#57)
by Psycho Les on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 10:26:01 PM EST

I troll behind the shrouds of a non-stupid legal system where you can't sue people as a quick money-making scheme.

[ Parent ]
right (none / 0) (#290)
by jvcoleman on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:04:18 AM EST

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/11/1041990139627.html

[ Parent ]
heh (2.00 / 1) (#134)
by adequate nathan on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:53:24 AM EST

You mean 'crapflooders,' not 'trolls.' Also, you mean 'slashdot,' not 'kuro5hin.'

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Hacked by porn (3.80 / 5) (#48)
by StephenThompson on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 09:24:25 PM EST

One of my computers has been hacked several times. Once by a worm that invaded Microsoft [I worked there]. Once by Chinese dissidents after the airplane crash scandal. Once by Warez. Once by Nimda. And once by unknowns who apparently had all of Germany clicking through to the content, which was encrypted. No doubt the last was illegal porn, and the Warez had illegal pictures as well as illegal software and movies. It is very disturbing to me because I know first hand how easy it is for hackers to get in. If someone had wanted to set me up, I would have been screwed. [The whys and wherefores I get hacked I wont bring up, but suffice it to say its not just because I'm an idiot]

That's why I don't run NT on my servers. [nt] (2.00 / 1) (#68)
by NFW on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:27:42 PM EST




--
Got birds?


[ Parent ]

FYI (3.50 / 2) (#123)
by Torka on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 06:21:14 AM EST

Warez is not a group of people or an organisation and should not be capitalised. It is merely the common term for pirated software and movies used by people who trade in such things.

[ Parent ]
Why the 2? I'm curious <NT> (none / 0) (#289)
by Torka on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:49:40 AM EST

nt

[ Parent ]
-1 (2.25 / 4) (#59)
by turmeric on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 10:48:19 PM EST

didnt mention plato, the #1 piece of child porn propaganda in circulation today.

Wow (2.00 / 1) (#65)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:18:24 PM EST

I'm the only person who clicked onto your little site who was running a superior platform for enterprise computing. Your readers must not be very educated.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
.net is like a 'digital nervous system' (2.00 / 1) (#112)
by turmeric on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 04:52:12 AM EST

it helps me manage the complexity of todays business environment. i painted myself into a corner with unix, but now i have 'made the switch'. we have the way out, says microsoft chairman 'bill gates', and boy was he ever right.

[ Parent ]
btw what? (none / 0) (#113)
by turmeric on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 04:53:30 AM EST

the logfile shows the OS of people who connetc TO MY SITE. if you will closely, it is a general mishmash of apple fascists, open source communists, and microsoft colonialist/capitalist/imperialists.

[ Parent ]
Snitch and go to jail... (5.00 / 12) (#66)
by opendna on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:22:21 PM EST

The first time I read this story (on Myway.com's news feed) it reported that Townshend had used his credit card to enter a child porn ring for "research purposes" and had promptly reported the site to the police. It was a couple of days ago and it didn't occur to me to save the link (what do I care?). From the report of his arrest:

"In a statement on Saturday, Townshend said that on one occasion he used a credit card to download pornographic images as part of his research and that he reported what he saw to police.
link: http://apnews.myway.com//article/20030114/D7OHN2MO0.html.

So check this out: If you accidentally view child porn, you can expect to be arrested. If someone emails you child porn against your wishes, you can expect to be arrested. If you are exposed to child porn, you can expect to be arrested. If you report a child porn ring to police, you can expect to be arrested.

Does anyone else find this monumentally stupid? "I know, let's make a law that someone can violate against their will and punishes them for cooperating with police." Who's the crackhead who thought THAT would be a good idea?

If I was out to end child pornography I'd view this an impediment to my campaign. If I wanted to discourage vigilante child porn snitches I'd point out that there are now a lot of really sick people who're going to be really pissed with Townshend and that they may retaliate. I certainly wouldn't treat him like a criminal though - that just undermines my ability to coopt members of the rings.

[Sigh] I guess I've been reading too much intel on organized crime.



Fascinating (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by NFW on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:53:25 PM EST

I was just about to ask if he reported that web site to the police as soon as he found it. That makes a huge difference to me. To find it, pay for it, and tell nobody, looks like willful violation of the law. To pay for it in order to report the real criminals to the police, sounds to me like a job well done.

If this is indeed a story about a guy who reports child abusers to the police getting arrested for trying to help, then the police are fucking idiots. What's next, arresting people who witness bank robberies on charges of conspiracy to rob banks?

It's a little scary, too. While investigating a spammer's web server a few years ago, I came across some child porn. I reported it to the powers tha be in the state where the server was located. The server was offline the next day. I thought that was pretty cool. Am I a criminal?

Would the world be a better place if I had kept my mouth shut? I think not. Not that I think shutting down that one site made much difference in the big picture, but it's one less site, and that seems to me like a good thing.


--
Got birds?


[ Parent ]

He's a musician, not a vigilante ;) (4.00 / 1) (#166)
by Galion on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:40:39 PM EST

He claimed he was reasearching it for his autobiography, because he believed he had been sexually abused as a child and wanted to make sure. Or at least that's what my paper said.

[ Parent ]
Application of a previously-existing law (4.00 / 1) (#203)
by mickwd on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:56:37 PM EST

I'm not absolutely certain, but I seem to recall that it is (understandably) illegal in the UK to make a sexual image of a child, and has been for a long time (certainly before the internet came into common usage). What seems to have happened is that downloading a series of bytes and assembling that information into an image which is then displayed on a computer screen has been included in the definition of "making" an indecent image of a child. Note that the word "make" is mine - I'm sure the actual wording used in the law is different.

Personally, I do not believe that the writers of the original law can have had this definition in mind when that law was originally framed.

However, it is almost certain that the UK would want the downloading and viewing of child pornography to remain illegal.

Assuming my understanding about this law is correct, the question is should existing laws be "twisted" or "stretched" in this way to cover new situations for which they were not designed, or should new laws be written to cover situations such as this ?

There is a similar issue with libel laws being applied to the internet. The libel laws were framed when having information published was significantly more difficult than sitting at a computer and typing a few words off-the-cuff in a matter of seconds. The levels of "malice aforethought" involved in both situations can be completely different, yet the punishments for the crime were designed to deal with the first situation only.


[ Parent ]

It gets worse (4.33 / 3) (#253)
by Tatarigami on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:57:17 PM EST

Can't attribute it at this late date, but I recall seeing an incident reported where a crusader copied a handful of images from a dodgy site and took them to the police the same day -- and got arrested.

Seems to me the only logical response if you come across such a site is to immerse your PC in acid and huddle under your bed with your hands over your eyes chanting "I saw nothing, I saw nothing".

Sorry, kiddies. Can't get involved.

[ Parent ]

comments (none / 0) (#308)
by uniball vision micro on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:30:37 PM EST

"The first time I read this story (on Myway.com's news feed) it reported that Townshend had used his credit card to enter a child porn ring for "research purposes" and had promptly reported the site to the police."

Stupid sneaky cops are the same everywhere I guess.

" It was a couple of days ago and it didn't occur to me to save the link (what do I care?). From the report of his arrest:

    "In a statement on Saturday, Townshend said that on one occasion he used a credit card to download pornographic images as part of his research and that he reported what
    he saw to police.
    link: http://apnews.myway.com//article/20030114/D7OHN2MO0.html.
"

Interesting angle.

"So check this out: If you accidentally view child porn, you can expect to be arrested."

Ah ah ah if they can *prove* it. That is the difference. If you are an idiot and use a credit card you are bound to have a little problem.

"If someone emails you child porn against your wishes, you can expect to be arrested.

Again all that takes is an industrial strength deletion utility to remove any possible problem as far as evidence. The only way that it could be found out is if you are your supposed emailer told someone and why would he/she implicate themselves anyway?

" If you are exposed to child porn, you can expect to be arrested."

They have to prove it.

"If you report a child porn ring to police, you can expect to be arrested."

You can report them but just don't have any proof that you actually did something documentable.

"Does anyone else find this monumentally stupid? "

Yes.

""I know, let's make a law that someone can violate against their will and punishes them for cooperating with police." Who's
    the crackhead who thought THAT would be a good idea?"

It's "strict" adherents to the law. Kind of like the people who god slapped with child porno charges who took nude photos of their baby bathing.

"If I was out to end child pornography I'd view this an impediment to my campaign."

It is possible that say someone could just get into these sites download all their shit then say the next day just snitch on them (makeing sure that the stach is out of the way) and wham they get it both ways. Maybe they are thinking like that?

" If I wanted to discourage vigilante child porn snitches I'd point out that there are now a lot of really sick people who're going to be really pissed with Townshend and that they may retaliate."

Who are these people?

" I certainly wouldn't treat him like a criminal though - that just undermines my ability to coopt members of the rings."

I guess

"[Sigh] I guess I've been reading too much intel on organized crime."

Child pornographers are not like Al Capone.
"So far as the record goes, no lover of drinking has yet gone out into the night and shot himself as a gesture of protest" Gilbert Seldes, The Future of Drinking 1930
[ Parent ]

Who are these people? (none / 0) (#356)
by opendna on Sun Jan 19, 2003 at 05:16:15 AM EST

opendna: If I wanted to discourage vigilante child porn snitches I'd point out that there are now a lot of really sick people who're going to be really pissed with Townshend and that they may retaliate.

uniball vision micro: Who are these people?

I don't know. But they're willing to diddle children on video for money, so it shouldn't be hard to convince people they're hardened killers too.

opendna: [Sigh] I guess I've been reading too much intel on organized crime.

uniball vision micro: Child pornographers are not like Al Capone.

Organized crime these days isn't like Al Capone. They've adapted the network form much better than most other institutions I can think of. These days drugs, gambling, prostitution, pornography, drugs, guns, racketeering and smuggling are inter-related and codependent businesses anywhere they're illegal.

How does a 14 year-old girl from the poorest province in the PRC come to arrive in the U.S. with $50000 counterfeit documents and tickets to the New York? What kind of work does this girl do with no education, no papers, no family, no money and english? The same people who got her the documents Hong Kong and the tickets in Bankok were going to employ her as a prostitute in New York. They are most unsavory people.

I haven't seen anything stating one group or another is known for child pornography, but I've seen international human trafficing (including children), and that's not a big jump anymore.



[ Parent ]

Pedophelia is NOT perverse (2.55 / 9) (#67)
by benzapp on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:26:19 PM EST

I am going to go out on a limb here and discuss some aspects of human sexuality which has been lost due to the British and their fucked up issues with their matriarchy

There is a profound misunderstanding of MASCULINE sexuality which has be lost for a variety of reasons too complex to discuss here. A good start would be to read Plato's Phaedrus, which really touches truly on the nature of life and its sexual roots. Also reading some of the comic Cerebus by Dave Sim will also help. Nietzsche touches upon this, and everything else from antquity. I will attempt to elaborate.

The masculine sexual drive is PRIMARILY protective. At some point in the very distant past, human males evolved to have the innate biological drive to protect children. Eventually, women evolved child like attributes to induce this same response by men. Seriously, hasn't anyone wondered WHY some women literally appear to be 13 when in reality they are 25? Why do so many women have child like voices? Why are these extreme gender differences not readily apparent in other species?

How can we possibily have the media SATURATED with extreme youthful depictions of feminine beauty (look at Christina Agulara)and condemn men for being sexually aroused by them? It is the absolute epitomy of hypocracy. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong the sexual desire of children. Perhaps there is an argument to be made for extreme youth, such as an age where gender differences are not readily apparent (Say prior to the onset of menstration in a female) but you know that is never the case. Child porn is as always, 12 year old girls. There is a reason why 12 is the age of marriage and consent in most places, and was in the west until Victorian times.

What pains me the most is the sexual desire of youth is the foundation of much of civilization. It is probably one of the key factors which allowed for communities to evolve from mere packs of humanoid life forms. Where once sexual desire and the desire to protect children were seperated, the two were fused in such a way that children were protected with the same loyalty once reserved for mates. As the Greeks in antiquity noted, one of the most ideal sexual relationships was between teacher and student. It is the human ability and DESIRE to teach which ultimately allows for culture to take place. This desire is sexual in its roots

A child is not harmed because their nudity is exposed to the world. This is not to say that depictions of sexual intercourse, sodomy, S&M, or violence in general is permissible. It is merely the statement that PEDOPHELIA, in its basic form - the sexual desire of children - is NOT deviant.

We have our entire western culture obsessed with childhood. Women crave that youthful beauty which men are penalized for desiring until the day they die. 40 year old men desire nothing more than to be children their entire lives. Society so despises male sexuality the teaching profession is dominated entirely by women. There were no pedagogues who were female in antiquity.

On a side note, Plato clearly outlines why professional teachers are bad and lead to corrupt character. Plato explicitly emphasises how a homosexual relationship between a man and a boy will leader to better character than any teacher. You don't have to agree with it, but to be so ignorant as to dismiss someone universally regarded as profoundly wise without considering his position is foolish.

So, try and throw aside the cultural taboos you have accepted as true and begin to realize that in most of the world, millions of children are not protected from the world in a sexual fashion and have sex and 12 or younger and live normal healthy lives. There really is no reason why this should not be the case. Also, stop whacking off to the pictures of those pixie chicks. We know you all love them. They could be underage you know. Don't want to break any laws.



Uh. (4.00 / 6) (#80)
by tkatchev on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:35:49 AM EST

Dude, your local county jail is simply crying for you.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

And I cry for you too (3.50 / 2) (#259)
by benzapp on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 09:22:26 PM EST

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Too bad you are joining all those other wasted lives out there.

Anyway, look forward to you your future with a fat and ugly wife.  I am sure you will enjoy it.  

[ Parent ]

Fat and ugly wife? (none / 0) (#292)
by tkatchev on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:42:31 AM EST

So, you believe that a wife is simply a rubber sperm bank for the male uebermensch?

You must be a real hit with the ladies, dude.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Sir (none / 0) (#110)
by gazbo on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 04:44:13 AM EST

I found your use of ancient Greece as an example of sexual normality to be intriguing. May I subscribe to your newsletter?

-----
Topless, revealing, nude pics and vids of Zora Suleman! Upskirt and down blouse! Cleavage!
Hardcore ZORA SULEMAN pics!

[ Parent ]

depends (none / 0) (#133)
by adequate nathan on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:51:54 AM EST

Are you a rosy-cheeked youth with full red lips and sparkling eyes? Dusky, lithe and curly-haired works too.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Cerebus (none / 0) (#118)
by dhilvert on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:36:57 AM EST

"Also reading some of the comic Cerebus by Dave Sim will also help."

Which parts did you have in mind? The general matriarchal theme, or something specifically related to male sexual behavior?



[ Parent ]
Its been a while (1.00 / 1) (#261)
by benzapp on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 09:31:34 PM EST

I haven't really read any for years, but the overall depiction of women as being consumed with fear is the heart of the matter.  Where women are consumed with fear, men are driven to create to appease that fear.  This is why women are such a danger to the male light.  Only with the call of the siren can the creative drive inherent in the male light be swayed from its course.  

However, I do believe male creativity evolved to appease women.  

It is something of a blur. When/if you ever get into Nietzsche you will find that was a major influence on Sim, although I didn't realize it until much later in life.

The point that Sim makes well, and many others in the past, is it is women who are consumed with sexuality.  When you realize the heart of sexuality is this fear/protection axis, you realize that women are ALWAYS sexual, since they are always afraid. It is a constant state of existence which consumes them.  This leads to very twisted views, especially on male sexuality.  

Men however are not generally sexual unless that urge is unleashed by women.  When women are out of sight, they are out of mind and sexuality ceases being a part of the male mind.  

Since the male sexual drive is protective in nature, it is stronger for the weaker female.  The most weak of course is very young, thus pedophilea.  

Anyway goodnight Enough of a rant here.

[ Parent ]

It is normal (none / 0) (#324)
by tzigane on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:38:52 PM EST

for a man to be attracted to a young, but sexually mature, female. After all, a young healthy female is more likely to have healthy babies.

It is absolutely not normal for a male to be sexually attracted to prepubescent children. That is just plain sick. No adult man has the right to sexually use a young child.

Every child has the right to grow up unmolested.

 
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

what the hell is wrong with you people (2.75 / 8) (#73)
by anonymous pancake on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:56:39 PM EST

I think if someone wants to see child porn, let them see it. Because you know what happens if they don't get their fix? They go after REAL children, YOUR children!

How can we impose our twisted morals on what people like? In the 16th century, it was very normal for a 30 year old guy to marry a 13 year old girl, pedophilia is just a recent invention, as is the idea of "children".

Personally I think much time and money has been WASTED procecuting people for looking at pixels, or writing their own stories. There are much bigger problems to face.


---
. <---- This is not a period, it is actually a very small drawing of the prophet mohhamed.

You don't get it. (5.00 / 6) (#77)
by bartok on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:27:47 AM EST

Er, the problem is that the people who produce the actual kiddie porn are abusing real children to do it. Pedophiles who pay for kiddie porn are sponsoring child abuse.

[ Parent ]
Yep. (none / 0) (#78)
by valeko on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:33:36 AM EST

Pedophiles who pay for kiddie porn are sponsoring child abuse.

Yep, and they're relatively marginal. With the advent of the net, kiddie porn is no longer a commercially viable empire.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Adult vs child porn industries (5.00 / 1) (#278)
by greenrd on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:44:43 PM EST

With the advent of the net, kiddie porn is no longer a commercially viable empire.

But with the advent of the net, the adult porn industry is?

Why the discrepancy?

Well, kiddie porn is not (I would hope) a commercially viable empire because big operations will be found out and taken down eventually.

But unfortunately, I would predict the reverse. In the past, probably the vast majority of pedos never even knew kiddie porn existed (unless they made it themselves), and even if they did, they probably wouldn't know how to get hold of it without exposing themselves as a paedophile. Now it's in the news and everyone knows it's out there.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

Um. (none / 0) (#295)
by valeko on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:04:32 AM EST

But with the advent of the net, the adult porn industry is?

Yes, argueably. It seems counter-intuitive, but the cash that for-pay adult sites take in is astounding. It's quite profitable if you're one of the big players. Also, even if websites themselves aren't necessarily profitable per se, surely the supply side -- i.e. the people doing the acting and the shooting -- is. Most people wouldn't star in porn images/films without the expectation of generous payment.

Well, kiddie porn is not (I would hope) a commercially viable empire because big operations will be found out and taken down eventually.

Yep, but the way I gather, it was quite big in the 1970s and perhaps 1980s, when the medium was mostly the postal service. I'm not sure how it compares to the size of today's "market," but it's still an important point.

Now it's in the news and everyone knows it's out there.

Everyone knows it's "out there," but that doesn't mean it's literally "out there" in your face. Sounds like media hype to me.

It would seem to me that kiddie porn, as with anything illicit and highly illegal, requires the intention to obtain, for the most part. I don't think it's frequently encountered among the flotsam flying around on the Internet. It's too dangerous. This is the result of draconian laws in the first place -- it requires a hightened degree of undergroundness now.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

nope (2.50 / 2) (#83)
by dh003i on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:54:11 AM EST

Er, the problem is that the people who produce the actual kiddie porn are abusing real children to do it. Pedophiles who pay for kiddie porn are sponsoring child abuse.

Except people don't pay for child-porn.  It can be obtained for free online, on newsgroups, from kazaa, or using google's image-search.  Who pays for something when they can get it for free?  

Even if we decide to only prosecute those who pay for child-porn, its problematic, because we can't even prove that children were molested in the production of those pictures.  Pictures of nude-children do not necessarily imply molestation, nor are they necessarily pornographic.  Even pictures of the most graphical sexual molestation of children do not necessarily prove that children were molested in their production.  3D-creation programs like Poser and other various graphical tools allow for the creation of photo-realistic virtual pornography.  Also, naked pictures of children aren't necessarily porn.  Do you know how easy it is to get a picture of an adult woman with a dildo in herself, cut out that section, and move if over to the picture of the child?  This can be done convincingly using apps like PhotoShop.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

No, I don't (5.00 / 1) (#279)
by greenrd on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:48:14 PM EST

Do you know how easy it is to get a picture of an adult woman with a dildo in herself, cut out that section, and move if over to the picture of the child? This can be done convincingly using apps like PhotoShop.

Sounds like you've indulged in that yourself, or watched someone else do it.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

So what? (none / 0) (#281)
by valeko on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:47:37 AM EST

Why have you seen fit to indulge in rubbing this into everyone's face, here and in other threads in general?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Eh? (none / 0) (#300)
by greenrd on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:53:34 AM EST

Why have you seen fit to indulge in rubbing this into everyone's face, here and in other threads in general?

Was that meant to be a reply to dh003i instead of me?


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

No. (none / 0) (#334)
by valeko on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 07:48:55 AM EST

It's a direct question to you.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Oh definitely (4.00 / 1) (#302)
by Dephex Twin on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:01:01 PM EST

Nobody would be able to apply their knowledge of Photoshop to determine that this would theoretically be trivial.

Nothing like some good ol' McCarthyism.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]

Clue gratis. (5.00 / 3) (#79)
by tkatchev on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:34:53 AM EST

No, it was not common for a 30-year-old guy to marry a 13-year-old in the 16th century.

First of all, you should realize that practices like this happened only for the most important and affluent aristocracy, where dowry and inheritance considerations were more important than almost anything else.

Secondly, even if a marriage like this was arranged, the majority of the time it was a formality -- the bride and groom didn't actually start to live together until the bride reached a sensible age.

The claim that child abuse was ever the accepted norm is simply false and very dangerous.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

yea, sure (none / 0) (#84)
by dh003i on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:56:34 AM EST

Yea, you're telling me that in the barbaric times of the middle ages, Lords didn't rape and sodomize their fresh 13-year old brides?  Yea, sure.  Bullshit.  They probably fucked their little brains out and then put them through every midieval torture device they had just for sadistic amusement.  All good christian fun.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

you are out of control (none / 0) (#132)
by adequate nathan on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:48:12 AM EST

Some lords did rape their 13-year-old brides. This was never a normal practice, any more than molestation is today. Deviant perverts exist in many cultures.

Your gratuitous shots at Christianity aren't making you look any smarter, either.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

If there's one thing worse than trolls, (none / 0) (#155)
by it certainly is on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:31:34 AM EST

it's the idiots who fall for them. IT'S LINUX NOT LUNIX YOU IDIOT!!!!1! IT'S CHRISTIAN NOT XIAN YOU DISBELIEVER!!!1!

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

oh come on (none / 0) (#158)
by adequate nathan on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:55:50 AM EST

It only counts as a troll if it's not sincere. I reserve the right to treat real morons as real morons and not tiptoe around them. The landscape is not littered with troll bombs except to an incorrigible troll.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Christian-baiting. (none / 0) (#160)
by it certainly is on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:18:44 PM EST

Learn to recognise it, god-boy.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

blah (none / 0) (#165)
by adequate nathan on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:35:18 PM EST

This guy has more on his mind than pushing my buttons.

You have trolls on the brain.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Actually, (none / 0) (#176)
by it certainly is on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:33:01 PM EST

I'm just assuming he's an atheist like myself.

While I recognise that Christianity is a reverent religion that's done immeasurable good for the world, it doesn't stop me rubbing xian noses in the muck -- southern baptists, kiddy-fiddling priests, witch burnings, flat earthers, creationists, the Irish Troubles, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc.

Of course, I keep some things to myself, like all those non-religious wars we keep having, and the fact that not everything done in the name of Christianity is actually Christian in nature. It wouldn't be as much fun watching them squirm if they knew I actually respected and supported them.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

consider that this is the guy (none / 0) (#208)
by adequate nathan on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 04:37:19 PM EST

Who submitted the 'legalize prostitution' essay, and in about half of his comments managed to work in a kick at Christianity. I think he is passionately and irrationally anti-Christian, and he's making an ass out of himself. Therefore, he is sincere and cannot be trolling me. But YMMV.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Historical Note (5.00 / 3) (#107)
by Godel on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:35:43 AM EST

Actually he's right, although the men were closer to 20s or 25, not 30. Basically most people were poor, a man had to grow up, learn a skill, and get a home of his own. This takes awhile. Girls on the other hand were a financial burden to their families. Parents with 6+ mouths to feed were more than happy to have their daughters married off to a responsible man as early as possible. Most girls married shortly after puberty, and most men married in the late teens to mid 20s. Why do you think teenage unwed pregnancies are such a problem today and they weren't in the past? People in the past still had sex, but the girls got married almost as soon as they were able to so it wasn't a problem. Ironically parents actually preferred their daughter to marry an older man than a boy her own age because the man was usually more financially secure and more likely to take better care of their daughter and any children she had.

Our modern cultural ideas of waiting till 18+ to get married and marrying someone the same age are a product of the industrial revolution and universal education. Boys and girls are socialized almost exclusively only with their peers, and due to compulsory education, it's very difficult to start a family before 18. Historically, our current system is the abberration from the previous thousands of years of human history.

One of my biggest fascinations is history, specifically the Roman and post-Roman eras of Europe. If you doubt what I'm talking about take a look through your family's genealogy data and you'll probably find quite a few great-grandmothers who were married at 13 or 14.

[ Parent ]

What is wrong with development (none / 0) (#238)
by jman11 on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:07:24 PM EST

And in the middle ages there was a lot of other bad shit.  Why can't the world develop?

Do the fact that people did something in the 16th century justify it now.  Are Catholics now eminently burnable due to the incidents in the UK during the dark ages?  What about the inquisition?  What about the raping and pillaging by conquering soldiers?  This was all part of medieval life.

The world has developed, so has the idea of wrong and right.  People now live to 70 instead of 30, people don't have families of 6 mouths and stuggle to feed them.

P.S:  If you really want a justification of child sex try the Romans.

[ Parent ]

You're extrapolating... (none / 0) (#291)
by tkatchev on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:40:57 AM EST

...your own prejudices onto historical facts. And the facts clearly say that sex with children was definitely not accepted norm in the Middle Ages. (It might not have been as widely prosecuted back then as it is now, but then again in the Middle Ages there wasn't a single crime that was widely prosecuted.)

Also, you should realize that back then marriage and sex were two completely unrelated areas of life that oftentimes did not intersect.

The notion that marriage must be necessarily an extension of romatic love is a very recently invented idea.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Stupid, stupid arguments (4.50 / 2) (#97)
by DarkZero on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:01:16 AM EST

How can we impose our twisted morals on what people like? In the 16th century, it was very normal for a 30 year old guy to marry a 13 year old girl, pedophilia is just a recent invention, as is the idea of "children".

According to the actions of many royal families over the years, incest wasn't quite as out of the ordinary in past centuries as it is today, either. Does that mean that incest is a good thing? Does it mean that incest doesn't have any ill effects? No? Then your argument is bullshit.

I think if someone wants to see child porn, let them see it. Because you know what happens if they don't get their fix? They go after REAL children, YOUR children!

Exactly. After all, if we're mature enough to admit it, I think that all of us men can confess that we, at one time or another, have gone around kidnapping and raping every woman in our neighborhoods because we went long enough without a Playboy. It's just a fact of nature, people! We can't help it!

[ Parent ]

I will explain it more simply for you (1.00 / 2) (#103)
by anonymous pancake on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:51:07 AM EST

Man wants sex with women... he either a) jacks off to porn B) finds a real women

man wants sex with little boy: he a) jacks off to child porn becuase thats the only way to satisfy himself easily.. if no child porn is available... he will b) search for a real child.

If anything.. we should be making cgi child porn to satisfy the pedophiles... that way, everyone wins.


---
. <---- This is not a period, it is actually a very small drawing of the prophet mohhamed.
[ Parent ]

So we should be (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:58:10 AM EST

able to label a piece of kiddie porn "No child was harmed in the making of this picture".

The rational part of my mind thinks you're probably right. The emotional part has just run off screaming.

One of the issues though, is that the victim/survivor will sometimes see her/his image either in print or on the web. That causes a massive amount of pain.

 
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Re: So we should be (none / 0) (#215)
by OneWord on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:12:51 PM EST

Hello tzigane,

[Forgive the tone of this reply, it was originally intended to explore the after-effects of images on victims but has turned into an investigation of one of your claims.]

I wanted to say first off that what happened to you (if it did) is a very horrible thing. I say "if it did" only because of the severe nature of what you cite and having a friend who knew someone for over a year who told a story like yours then turned around and admitted it was made up. I'm not saying yours is, but that because of that I can no longer accept anything at face value.

Anyway...

In reply [#85 - I think I said] you state:
"...there were a *lot* of still shots too. I have run across a couple of those on a child porn site and it was devastating."

In reply [#171 - Uhm] you state in reply to [#130 - Here's a question]:
"I had heard from an acquaintance who is in law enforecement about a particular site, he thought one of the pictures was me. Because he was not permitten to actually transmit the picture (via IM or email) he gave me the url and asked me to check. It was me, and my acquaintance was able to get the whole site removed because of thast."

In reply [#104 - So we should be] on another thread you state that:
"One of the issues though, is that the victim/survivor will sometimes see her/his image either in print or on the web. That causes a massive amount of pain."

I am wondering why this site, which clearly contained illegal media (you were abused and photographed below the age of 18, and your image(s) were on this site, therefore this site had images of an illegal nature) could not be shut down without your identification of your images.

I find the details of this account slightly suspect. IMO the site should have been shutdown anyway, regardless of your involvement, and that if your involvement was 100% required to the point of causing "massive amounts of pain", that instead of giving you the url to said site (being illegal IMO, you visited and viewed image(s) of an illegal nature in your own home) that you should have gone to the law enforcement agency and seen the image(s) there using their systems under supervision to protect yourself from any later legal issues regarding visiting that site.

I could understand having to identify the images in a case where fake or morphed pictures were "not illegal" but as it stands any image suggesting sexual intercourse or abuse to be illegal already and not in need of identifying but not otherwise.

I await your reply, cya.

[ Parent ]

Sorry! Wrong thread!! (none / 0) (#217)
by OneWord on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:18:02 PM EST

Sorry, this was intended to be in reply to [#171 - Uhm]

[ Parent ]
Hey troll (none / 0) (#159)
by tetsuwan on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:16:21 PM EST

You mean wanking makes you not want to have sex with real women? Yeah right.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

That's not the question. (none / 0) (#167)
by valeko on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:47:53 PM EST

The question isn't what he "wants," but what he will actually do, or, more pertinently, not do.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Incest (none / 0) (#323)
by RJNFC on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:05:41 PM EST

According to the actions of many royal families over the years, incest wasn't quite as out of the ordinary in past centuries as it is today, either. Does that mean that incest is a good thing? Does it mean that incest doesn't have any ill effects? No? Then your argument is bullshit.

Your ideas behind incest are a product of myth. There are no physical reasons for incest to be avoided except in the event of a dangerous recessive gene being passed to offspring, a circumstance which we can now scan for. Also, given the success rate of birth control pills the entire offspring idea can be negated. This leaves only the question of harm to the participants. Assuming that willing participants must natually be past puberty (or they wouldn't be willing) then we can safely rule out ill effects due to inability to engage in intercourse. Now the idea of a power issue existing between the participants complicates things but since you cited the 16th century example I assume you are referring to the intermarriage of cousins or siblings. There have been cases of siblings who were seperated at a young age falling in love later on and having no problems (other than being very surprised when they found out). I would argue against any claim that this sort of intermarriage has any problems at all. You are using incest for shock value but in fact *your* argument is the bullshit one. I stand with the previous post.

[ Parent ]
Uh-huh, and? (4.20 / 5) (#122)
by dipipanone on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 06:01:54 AM EST

I think if someone wants to see child porn, let them see it. Because you know what happens if they don't get their fix? They go after REAL children, YOUR children!

And what do you suppose those children getting porked in kiddy-porn are? Blow-up dolls? Clones? Space aliens?

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
Lemme play Devil's Advocate here. (5.00 / 2) (#183)
by kitten on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:05:14 PM EST

In the 16th century, it was very normal for a 30 year old guy to marry a 13 year old girl, pedophilia is just a recent invention, as is the idea of "children".

I'm going to take a stab at defending this statement. I'm not sure I personally agree with what I'm about to say, but it may be something to think about.

It wasn't that long ago that what we now consider "children" were the heads of state for some powerful nations. King Tut, I believe, was merely 12 at the time he ruled Egypt, arguably the most powerful nation at the time.

Obviously there is no magic age at which someone suddenly develops the ability to state clearly what they do and do not want. But is it possible that our society and culture creates the issue, with all the hue and cry of "Won't someone think of the children", and constantly attempting to shield them from anything "deviant" or "harsh"? We raise children in a sheltered, fantasy-land bubble where everything is sunshine and flowers, and then we wonder why they're unable to deal responsibly with real-world issues when the time comes.

By treating them this way, perhaps we are stagnating their growth. Treat them like adults, and perhaps they'd be better equipped, mentally speaking, to handle things.
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
As a survivor (4.94 / 18) (#75)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:17:32 AM EST

of 10+ years of kiddie-porn I'll make a few generalizations. First let me state I am using my real account. I am not ashamed of what happened in my life then, it is  part of who I am now. There are a couple of people here who know me in real life and I hope they're not too shocked. I have accepted what happened to me, I do not like it but I cannot change it.

A prepubescent girl is not physically able to accomodate the adult male. There will be a certain amount of damage done to the girl. Sometimes this can be treated and sometimes it cannot. A scared 13 year old girl may be just as damaged physically as a much younger and smaller child.

Many girls who are used for porn are drugged. The creeps who used me gave me and the other girls alcohol. A loaded gun pointed at the head will generate cooperation too.

Sometimes we were beaten and tortured to insure we would not tell anyone what was happening. The local priest was no help; he wound up joining the process.  

The makers of kiddie porn are evil. Those who purchase it encourage the producers.

In the years I was used in the making of kid-porn I was in over 500 movies; there were at least 200 different men involved. Because of that my lifetime risk of cervical cancer is much greater than average. My last movie was made in 1963, before AIDS and hepatitis B were prevalent. For that I am thankful.

I cannot begin to describe the psychological toll this took on me and the other girls. One committed suicide. I have had a lot of very expensive therapy and I am as well-adjusted as any of my peers here. Most people don't know about what I went through. Even with the therapy and the support of my Spouse I still fight depression every day. Some days I win and some days I just fight.  

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann

I empathize with your pain (4.80 / 5) (#82)
by dh003i on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:47:42 AM EST

As I was also molested as a child by a neighbor.  However, people downloading child-pornography aren't harming anyone.  For the vast majority of those cases, we can't even prove the material they downloaded was produced by photographing child-molestation; could have been produced by making above-age people look under-age, or by using 3D-creation programs, like Poser.  Furthermore, naked pictures of children aren't necessarily child pornography; by that logic, the mothers and fathers of nudist families should be in jail.

The people who are downloading images of child-pornography may not be molesting children, because they were able to entertain their fantasy.

Also, your claims that those who look at child-porn promote child-molestation, while they may have been true before the internet-age, are no longer true.  The vast majority of any kind of pornography is obtained for free online, either by using google image search, searching for free porno websites, or kazaa.  Child-porn is no different.  No-one wants to pay for something they can get for free.  Thus, the vast majority of those who look at child-porn on the web are promoting nothing.  

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

I think I said (4.75 / 8) (#85)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:58:20 AM EST

that *purchasers* of kiddie-porn encourage the producers. Free downloads might not encourage the producers but child molesters often lure an unwilling victim with pictures of other kids being molested. *That* certainly harms the child who might otherwise resist. I know that some of the men who raped me used child porn that way because they said so!

Along with the movies of me there were a *lot* of still shots too. I have run across a couple of those on a child porn site and it was devastating. It *does* still hurt me that those pictures are out there.

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

In the modern era, that's a non-issue (4.00 / 1) (#88)
by dh003i on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:08:17 AM EST

In the modern era of violence on TV and what-not, even children know that simply because something's in a movie or a picture doesn't make it ok.  Your point also mis-appropriates responsibility.  Those who download child-porn, or even offer it online, did not molest children or help molest children using imagery.  Those who actually molested children did that.  Your argument is sort of like saying, "gun-makers are responsible for murders because murderers use guns".  In reasonable socities, people aren't held responsible for secondary and tertiary consequences of their actions over which they have no control and cannot predict.

That said, for the victims of child-porn, there are ways to deal with this even if the distribution and downloading of child-porn isn't illegal per se.  As a libertarian, I value the right to privacy, and take its violation as a serious crime -- as serious as theft.  Those like yourself who's privacy has been violated byt he distribution of child-porn should be able to mandate the prosecution of the distributors for privacy violations.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

Here's a question (4.20 / 5) (#130)
by Stick on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:40:22 AM EST

What were you doing looking at a childporn site anyway? You have broken the law.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
Uhm (5.00 / 4) (#171)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:20:35 PM EST

I had heard from an acquaintance who is in law enforecement about a particular site, he thought one of the pictures was me. Because he was not permitten to actually transmit the picture (via IM or email) he gave me the url and asked me to check. It was me, and my acquaintance was able to get the whole site removed because of thast. Victim complaints are useful.

 
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Ahh (none / 0) (#213)
by Stick on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 04:49:42 PM EST

I thought you'd also been doing research.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
Re: Uhm (none / 0) (#220)
by OneWord on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:20:17 PM EST

Hello tzigane,

[Sorry about the double post, I replied the first copy to the wrong thread and wanted to make sure this was where it was supposed to be originally].

[Forgive the tone of this reply, it was originally intended to explore the after-effects of images on victims but has turned into an investigation of one of your claims.]

I wanted to say first off that what happened to you (if it did) is a very horrible thing. I say "if it did" only because of the severe nature of what you cite and having a friend who knew someone for over a year who told a story like yours then turned around and admitted it was made up. I'm not saying yours is, but that because of that I can no longer accept anything at face value.

Anyway...

In reply [#85 - I think I said] you state:
"...there were a *lot* of still shots too. I have run across a couple of those on a child porn site and it was devastating."

In reply [#171 - Uhm] you state in reply to [#130 - Here's a question]:
"I had heard from an acquaintance who is in law enforecement about a particular site, he thought one of the pictures was me. Because he was not permitten to actually transmit the picture (via IM or email) he gave me the url and asked me to check. It was me, and my acquaintance was able to get the whole site removed because of thast."

In reply [#104 - So we should be] on another thread you state that:
"One of the issues though, is that the victim/survivor will sometimes see her/his image either in print or on the web. That causes a massive amount of pain."

I am wondering why this site, which clearly contained illegal media (you were abused and photographed below the age of 18, and your image(s) were on this site, therefore this site had images of an illegal nature) could not be shut down without your identification of your images.

I find the details of this account slightly suspect. IMO the site should have been shutdown anyway, regardless of your involvement, and that if your involvement was 100% required to the point of causing "massive amounts of pain", that instead of giving you the url to said site (being illegal IMO, you visited and viewed image(s) of an illegal nature in your own home) that you should have gone to the law enforcement agency and seen the image(s) there using their systems under supervision to protect yourself from any later legal issues regarding visiting that site.

I could understand having to identify the images in a case where fake or morphed pictures were "not illegal" but as it stands any image suggesting sexual intercourse or abuse to be illegal already and not in need of identifying but not otherwise.

I await your reply, cya.

[ Parent ]

OK I'll answer as best I can (5.00 / 1) (#225)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:42:25 PM EST

"I find the details of this account slightly suspect."

The wording I used was unfortunate. I should have been clearer in my first post about the pictures, that they were found by someone I knew. You cannot imagine how difficult it is to write about this stuff in a calm and rational tone. I hope you never have to know. Most of my posts on this I type through tears, physical pain from severe arthritis and emotional pain from the subject matter. The page my acquaintance said he'd seen was not the page where I found the image hence my using the phrase "ran across." I apologize for being unclear.

There was a question about the site; some material was been morphed. My acquaintance needed a statement that "This picture is a real pic of what happened." The site could have been removed in other ways. My statement got it removed very quickly. At the time the image was found I was recovering from surgery, was unable to drive and travelling by car was extremely painful. We decided he'd send me the URL, I'd type and email him a statement which was also sent by snailmail later. It was unorthodox but it got the site removed.

I know of women who have deliberately gone looking for their pictures. As far as I know law enforcement does not prosecute victims who tell them of porn sites.

 
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Re: OK I'll answer the best I can (none / 0) (#336)
by OneWord on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 02:41:21 PM EST

I wanted to thank you for making such a prompt reply to me dispite your pain, I am sorry that you are in such pain. I am also sorry that it has taken me such a long time to reply to you.

I understand well how hard it is to type about certain subjects calmly, I have failed to remain calm and become very emotional several times in the past.

So the question Stick asked returns I believe; where did you run across these pictures and why where you at that site in the first place? If I have misunderstood forgive me, it looks like you are saying you ran across pictures of yourself, by yourself but that a friend from law enforcement also pointed out a site which had pictures of you. Is that correct?

On your account of why the URL for the site was sent to you vs. you going in to see it I have no objection.

Knowing the effect these images have on victims (and I understand why they would) do you think it is a good idea to search out what you know will hurt you more? I could almost relate it to someone being raped and then returning to the same place everyday to see if they would get raped again.

Also which do you think is better, for a victim to search for a while and find a picture of themself, or search for years and not find a picture? Do you think not finding a picture will stop them from searching or do you think it will trigger more frantic searching?

I have found in the past that I find it worse not knowing if something is there or not then I do finding out it is. Once something bad that I have been waiting for happens I feel bad that it happened but also better at the same time that all the waiting and stress related to that is over. The bomb has dropped and now the clean up can begin.

What are your opinions on this?

Thank you again for your prompt reply, I hope that your next will not be so prompt to give you a chance to relax a bit. This isn't a race :)

[ Parent ]

Searching (5.00 / 2) (#338)
by tzigane on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 03:49:52 PM EST

for images is the choice each victim/survivor has to make hor herself (or himself, in this reply I will use female pronouns, I realize many victims are male).

The acquaintance who alerted me to the site where my pictures were has asked me several times to actively seek images of me. I have not done so as it is extremely painful. Whether I will do so in the future I do not know.

I also would have to be extraordinarily careful to wipe any trace of those images from my computer. I have a 16 yo son who does not know the messy details of what happened to me. He built my computer, maintains it and occasionally uses it (I've got the DVD drive and th CD-W on my machine.) I cannot imagine the effect it might have on him to see his mother as a child in those situations.

You write "So the question Stick asked returns I believe; where did you run across these pictures and why where you at that site in the first place? If I have misunderstood forgive me, it looks like you are saying you ran across pictures of yourself, by yourself but that a friend from law enforcement also pointed out a site which had pictures of you. Is that correct?"

I was given the original URL by an acquaintance who is in law enforcement. He thought he had seen images that might have been me on that page. There were no images on that page when I visited it. I clicked around the site and was about to leave it when I did see see pictures of me. My original post was unclear, I have apologized for that unclarity.

I have reason to believe that there are more pictures of me out there somewhere. There were a lot of pictures taken of me, and the photography was excellent. The men who took the pictures were extremely perverted and the images reflect that. Most of the prints and negatives are somewhere! There were other relatives involved in a small way, if they wound up with the pictures I know they'll be available somewhere.

It is wrong for those pictures to be out there! The thought that someone is looking at, leering at, me as a small child is disgusting. Every child who is molested and photographed faces that same feeling. Yet there are those who say that since the pictures have been taken and the harm has been done it is OK to allow other to download those images. I cannot agree.  

But I do not have the strength to debate them right now. All I can do is to present the survivor's perspective on the issue. I know of no survivor who would approve of having her pictures made available to *anyone* except possibly prosecutors who are going to jail the perpetrators.

The voices of victims and survivors are not heard usually above the clamor of those who want child porn images freely available. It is unfortunate that there is so little understanding of what we had to endure for those images to be made.

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Another reply (5.00 / 1) (#228)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:54:22 PM EST

" I wanted to say first off that what happened to you (if it did) is a very horrible thing. I say "if it did" only because of the severe nature of what you cite and having a friend who knew someone for over a year who told a story like yours then turned around and admitted it was made up. I'm not saying yours is, but that because of that I can no longer accept anything at face value. "

I understand why you might not believe me. That is your right. But please understand that I am not responsible for what your friend's acquaintance did. That individual may have been abused in some way or not. We cannot know.

I know what happened to me, I've never denied it and I have spoken of it to people since I was in college. To you that may not prove anything. That's OK. Your belief/disbelief does not affect me. (I m pretty secure in who I am at this point!) But my descriptions are not anything I have just started talking about. True I have posted little about it here on K5.

My therapists, Spouse, friends all know I have talked about this over many years. Yes, it happened. Yes, it was severe.

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Re: Another reply (5.00 / 1) (#337)
by OneWord on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 03:33:23 PM EST

Hello again tzigane,

It isn't that I don't believe you, it is that there are parts of me that don't want to believe you, and parts of me that do. I would like to try to settle one way or the other.

I have involvements in the "dark side" of things, no, not that sinister. That part of me wants to discredit you and make you go away. There is another part of me that wants to get all uncertainy about you out of the way and support you if it can.

I'm not that old, I won't say how old, just 20ish. I have attractions, and while I am comfortable with those attractions I am still trying to understand where my morals stand on all these issues.

I would like to say that before I started reading the threads here I had certain fixed beliefs about CP and the harm it causes and what to do about it. Now I'm not so sure anymore.

So I am learning, I hope I'm learning, I pray I'm learning.

Best regards.


[ Parent ]

In another thread (4.50 / 2) (#339)
by tzigane on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 04:22:51 PM EST

I state that it is OK for a male to be attracted to very young but sexually mature females. Sex is biologically about reproduction, young healthy females are more likely to have healthy babies.

If you find yourself sexually attracted to prepubescent children I would beg you not to act on that attraction! A young child cannot accomodate an adult man without physical damage to the body. The psychological toll is worse. If you find you want to act on that sort of attraction please go to a therapist. Do not hurt a child!

Uncertainty is OK, I'm not sure what to do about child porn, beyond severely punishing those who produce it. The idea of "thought police" is scary. But having images of abused kids out there is scarier.

If you cannot decide whether or not to believe me that's OK. I cannot produce proof of what happened to me except for the pictures and you can be sure that I would never voluntarily show those to anyone. I've stated that X-rays of my hands, feet and knees show old injuries; but there's no proof of what caused those injuries. My medical records are full of "the patient states..." which is not proof.

Keep on learning, it's a life journey. Ask questions and keep an open mind.

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Re: In another thread (none / 0) (#344)
by OneWord on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 02:02:17 AM EST

Hi tzigane,

I wanted to thank you up front for not attacking me, I assumed because of who I was that you would. I thank you for not doing so.

I am actually attracted to all age ranges from some infants to some elderly. When I say attracted I mean just that, an attraction, not going out and trying to have sex with these people. The idea of having sex doesn't overly thrill me for even legal age girls and guys. I'm bi too [ducks]. And I'm into about everything and anything. I don't believe any of it to be harmful however since I don't go seeking relationships.

I do think that the source of CP should be what is targeted. However I do not believe in punishment, I don't believe it is affective. You could put all criminals to death and it might have an effect in removing all bad from the world but I suspect it wouldn't. I would however like to see better treatment for all criminals, people don't do things without reasons and I believe that everytime those reasons are perfectly fair and logical to the criminal. We need a way to change that, which might be impossible but it is better to try then just locking them away to die IMO.

I believe the real treatment is in dealing with problems before they get out of hand, through making sure every child has; a solid grounding in ethics and why those ethics mean something, a solid grounding in epoithy and how others feel, their parents need to be targeted too, to make sure these lessions aren't just skipped. These lessions need to be taught at school also, before reading, before writing, and before arithmitic, social classes, strong thought out ones about ethics, etc.

Parents, especially single parents need better government support to help them raise their children and meet their needs. A no tolerance stance needs to be taken on bulling in school, that it isn't "just good clean fun", nor is it "horseplay". There is a difference, a big one. And schools are just starting to realize this.

And lastly, STOP SPANKING KIDS!@!@!! grr!

Sorry to rant, I really feel strongly about most kids issues.

I'm not seeking any physical proof, medical records, etc. I'm just trying to get a feel for who you are and what you are like.

Thank you, I try to learn something new everyday (doesn't say I succeed, but I try :)

Bye, thanks for the reply!

PS- Sorry, I am too tired to address your other reply tonight, I'll see if I can get it balanced in tomorrow.

PPS- Forgive any spelling errors please, I don't have a spell checker installed on this computer yet.

[ Parent ]

Why would I (5.00 / 1) (#345)
by tzigane on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 03:05:21 AM EST

attack you? You're K5 user number something-or-other. You call yourself OneWord. I do not know your real identity. And attacking is not really my style, I've not got the energy for it. I've found I get more accomplished with less energy if I stay calm. Hey, it works in theory. ;-)

So long as you do not have sexual relations with very young children or with someone who cannot legally give consent (by reason of mental incapacity, drug use, etc) I have no problem. To me normal sex is between consenting adults in private and whatever you want to do is OK.

I am in favor of locking up those people who molest children, not so much for punishment but to keep them off the streets and away from kids. In this context I am referring to prepubescent kids, not teenagers who look older. Most molesters were the victims of molestation, so there needs to be intensive counselling available for kids who have been harmed. That might prevent some from continuing the cycle.

You are right about treatment for problems that criminals may have. Most who are in prison will get out and if their problems are not addressed they will get into trouble again. There needs to be therapy programs for all violent offenders.

A bunch of years ago there was a boy kidnapped in Northern California, he was held by his kidnapper for 7 years. He escaped when the man attacked another young boy. The kidnapper went to prison for (I think) 7 years and was then released on parole. After living quietly in a community for several years he tried to buy 4 yo boy and has been arrested.  

I agree with you about teaching kids ethics, compassion and morals. I've tried my best to do that with my kids. It is hard when TV is saturated with violence. We would all be better off in a gentler society. Bullying and hazing are wrong, thanks be schools are finally dealing with it. Bullies often need psychological counselling and not enough of them are getting it.

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Obvious question? (3.83 / 6) (#89)
by MSBob on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:13:04 AM EST

Where the hell was the police to protect you? Were they less sensitive to child abuse reports then than they are now? Did you and your friends try to tell the cops what was happening? I'm just surprised how it's possible that some people can commit such hideous crimes without ever getting caught!

Either way I hope those who molested you have been prosecuted and are locked up.

I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

[ Parent ]
My last movie (4.77 / 9) (#92)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:36:13 AM EST

was in 1963. The police simply didn't believe me. At that time in the USA it was extremely unusual for child molesters to be prosecuted. Little girls were just not believed! But this was in the days when rape victims had to be beaten to a pulp before anyone believed they'd been raped against their will.

When I was about 11 I had called the sheriff because I was injured. The deputies showed up at our house and my father (one of my tormentors) lied to them and denied that I had been hurt. That injury was never treated, fortunately it healed and I have had not too many problems because of it. My father beat me horribly for that.

Shortly after I turned 13 the porn business was halted by my father; I was beginning to look like a woman instead of a little girl. When I was 16 I found the business records and gave them to the local sheriff department. They could do nothing because the statute of limitations had expired.

I've got several bothersome lifelong orthopedic problems because of the actions of the men who used me. My father swatted me across the left knee with a length of 2 x 4 when I was about 4. He damaged the insertion of my patellar tendon and set me up for lifelong knee troubles. I've had 4 surgeries on the L knee and had to have my right knee repaired. (Many years of excess strain took a toll.)

 
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Expired???!!! (4.16 / 6) (#93)
by MSBob on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:50:11 AM EST

How can a crime as hideous as this ever expire?! I'm not from the US so I'm unfamiliar with any laws in there but hell you even had the abuse documented on tape!!! What do you have to show up with to successfully prosecute one for child rape? Get an officer to witness the act himself?

I suspect the 'molesting father' theme is quite common in cases like yours... A person who should be there to protect you doing something like this. What a f**king animal!

I still cannot comprehend how you cannot successfully bring your father to justice... I guess I'll never fully understand the US culture well enough to grasp this.

Anyway I really feel for you even though personally have never been subjected to something as terrrible as this. I hope life is treating you better now, but you absolutely deserve some closure on this one...

I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

[ Parent ]
Justice (5.00 / 9) (#98)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:09:25 AM EST

finally caught my father. He went blind, developed a severe case of Parkinson's disease and wound up in a bad nursing home. He died in 1987. He suffered before he died. I feel no pleasure from the fact that he suffered. One of my life-lessons was to not hate him. Hatred gave him power over me, when I released the hatred I found my own power. And peace!

The statute of limitations in the US is sort of weird. Back then it was 3 years for most anything except murder. There was no statute of limitations on murder. It is different now, the victim has 3 years beyond their 18th birthday and there are some other bits that allow prosecution beyond that limit for sex crimes against kids.

I have a good life now. I am married and a full-time Mom/wife. 2 great kids: 21 yo daughter and 16 (almost 17) yo son. I do not have to work at a regular job so I can do community service stuff and take knitting commissions occasionally.

There's not ever final closure on something like what I survived. As I stated in my first post I have accepted what happened to me, I don't like it but I cannot change it. What cannot be changed must be accepted or you'll go mad! I can discuss what happened without feeling ashamed of it. Yes, it was bad and wrong but I was not the wrongdoer. I have found a measure of serenity that neither of my parents could have imagined. Acceptance has allowed me to speak to parents about sexual exploitation of children, these talks have been enlightening. If I have stopped even one child from becoming a victim it is Good.

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Awesome. (5.00 / 3) (#251)
by amarodeeps on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:43:25 PM EST

In the real meaning of the word:
I feel no pleasure from the fact that he suffered. One of my life-lessons was to not hate him. Hatred gave him power over me, when I released the hatred I found my own power. And peace!
(I'm not a Christian, just making a comment) This sounds a lot like how Jesus C. acted and not how a lot of Christians act. Wish that they, and everyone else on earth, actually did see the truth of this...

That's the way to be, not just for you, but for all of us. It's that much more impressive that someone who would surely be pardoned by everyone in this world for having such strong hatred for this man would have the attitude that you do. Best wishes to you, and I am truly in awe.



[ Parent ]
Thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#283)
by tzigane on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:31:12 AM EST

I'm an atheist but I understand what you mean. JC's teachings could, if followed, make the world a better place.

I cannot say that I came to my indifference by great thoughts or profound wisdom. It was a chance that happened. My father entertained company by teasing my till I blew up. When I was about 17 I had decided to commit suicide; I saw no other path and was deprssed.

Some batch of relatives arrived and my father started in on me but I was too depressed to get angry. I just sat there and watched and as I watched my tormentor imploded. He could not a reaction out of me. That evening was the beginning of the end of my hatred for him. I did not kill myself; I managed to escape and things got a lot better.

Thank you for your kind words, I wish you Good Luck and Good Health.

 
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Statute of Limitations (5.00 / 1) (#245)
by cpt kangarooski on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:31:21 PM EST

Basically it's a combination of a particular approach to justice as well as administrative convenience.

An inordinate number of criminal and civil offenses occur constantly. Far, far more than could ever be resolved in the courts. To permit any action that occured at any time in the past to be brought to court would bring things to a crashing halt. Imagine your grandmother being sued in small claims court for the cost of a tin of liberty cabbage that she shoplifted during WW1 -- is this what we want the system to be used for?

Similarly, would it be just to allow the state or civil plaintiffs to sit idle for a long period of time, and then only bring out a suit at their convenience, springing it on a defendant in a way that was harmful to them regardless of the outcome of the suit? (i.e. harmful because of the costs of a defense at all) If a litigant wishes to bring suit, it is up to him to do so in a timely manner. To put it another way, it is a sort of application of the concept that time heals all wounds.

There are exceptions -- murder does not have a statute of limitations. But that's about the worst possible criminal offense that there is.

So if the S.O.L. on a particular cause of action is set at a few years (e.g. copyright infringement is, IIRC, 3 years civilly or 5 years criminally) and no one catches the culprit during that period, then those seeking redress are S.O.L. themselves.

There can be unfortunate effects, but overall I believe that it's for the best, and I wouldn't change it.

I guarantee you that Canada also has a statute of limitations, and for the same reasons. There may be a difference in the length of the period for particular causes of action, but that'll be about it.

--
All my posts including this one are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
[ Parent ]

Age of consent?????? (4.40 / 5) (#94)
by hughk on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:50:55 AM EST

I understand that you were forced and I am deeply sympathetic. That is most definitely rape.

In some parts of the western world, a girl as young as 12 can have consensual sex. In other parts, the age is 14. In most, the age is 16. I certainly remember when the photographs of partially clothes or unclothed young girls was considered art.

If a girl is old enough to have consensual sex, should she be allowed to appear naked in a photograph?

If a girl is old enough to agree to appear naked in a photograph, when is she old enough to agree for herself being photgraphed having sex?

[ Parent ]

My first movies (4.75 / 8) (#100)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:29:46 AM EST

were made when I was under 2 yo. No sane person would consider a 2 yo as rational enough to consent to sex!

The age of consent issue is a thorny one. The last movie I was in I was about 13 I am unsure which side of the birthday it was, as it was about 39 years ago please forgive my faulty memory.

I can understand a 40 yo guy drooling at an 18 yo girl, or 16 yo. Younger than that I have trouble with.

Your last two questions are beyond my ability to answer. The rational part of my mind is drowned out by the emotional part.

Part of the problem is boundaries. Where do we draw them and how flexible should they be? Sex petween peers is generally OK. When does the age gap stop two people from being peers? I do not know. And the older I get the more unsure I am about this stuff.

Here in California people under 18 are not permitted to sign contracts. If they sign it is not legally binding. Perhaps that standard might apply to being photographed while having sex. If you cannot legally sign the contract then maybe you should not be doing that.

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

David Bailey (4.25 / 4) (#129)
by hughk on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:39:40 AM EST

did a lot of photographs of girls about 20 years ago. Were they artistic, well yes. Were they erotic, well again yes, but in a not in an explicitly sexual way. What I do know is that if I scanned and put these photos on the web, I could be prosecuted, even though they were in a normal photographic magazine.

Parents of said girls wanted their daughters to be photographed, and I gather so did the girls - so it was no problem to get model releases signed.

I link child pornography and sexual abuse loosely together. They revolve around the non-consensual sexual use of children and constitute a kind of rape. Do those Bailey photos count as such?

I have friends who have been general practitioners and teachers. I would often hear stories as they tried to unwind about the abuses that they came across and this is before young teens were as sexualised as they are today (even pre-teens).

I have never come across the 'professional' CP scene so I don't really know how bad things can get. I once did a hunt down after a discussion on CP and counted three to five clicks (and no credit card) to get a non-sexual but naked image of an underage girl, and not a thumbnail. Obviously, I would be able to find worse if I looked harder or paid for images.

Unlike you, I have not been abused. Some friends of mine were (by a homosexual relative aged about 30 of one of them). One boy was about 14. The 'victim' knew what he was doing and he received 'presents' for it. No drugs involved, to my knowledge. Was it good, well no - but as the perpetrator and the 'victim' agreed, it couldn't be seen as that bad (we regarded the boy as mercenary and stupid).

As regards the age of consent rules, I like the Dutch approach where they have a limit of 14. However, no person in a position of authority over the child (i.e., a teacher or other youth leader) is allowed have a sexual relationship with the child. Also, until the child is 16, I believe that the parents may object to such a relationship and as such, the older partner may be prosecuted.

[ Parent ]

The age (4.66 / 3) (#177)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:34:19 PM EST

difference between your friend and his older relative makes true consent difficult. If it happened in California it was very likely prosecutable.

I am not familiar with the photographer you mentioned. I usually don't have a problem with innocent pictures (think baby in the bathtub being cute) of very young children. After about 4 years of age, when most kids are really beginning to develop personal boundaries I have reservations about photographing kids nude.

 
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Useless factet (2.00 / 1) (#297)
by ScudEast on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:46:13 AM EST

Just so's you know, I think that the acroynym CP when referring to pornography usually stands for Corporal Punishment. Don't ask how I know this.

[ Parent ]
Stupid laws. (5.00 / 3) (#179)
by kitten on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:48:43 PM EST

If a girl is old enough to have consensual sex, should she be allowed to appear naked in a photograph?
If a girl is old enough to agree to appear naked in a photograph, when is she old enough to agree for herself being photgraphed having sex?


Good questions. I happen to live in Atlanta, and of course these laws vary from state to state, but overall what I'm about to describe is fairly standard in the US.

Here, the "age of consent" is 16.

However, possessing nude photographs of someone under 18 is illegal. So you can have sex with a 16 year old, but you can't take pictures of her. Someone please explain the logic here.

Further, nobody under 18 may purchase or possess pornography, and providing access to pornography to someone under 18 is 'contributing to the delinquency of a minor', which I no doubt spelled incorrectly. So, you can still have sex with the 16 year old, but you can't watch a porn movie with her. Wouldn't want to corrupt her, you know.

Also, I find the following scenario interesting. Let us suppose we have two teenagers, Joseph and Mary. Let us suppose they are 15 years old, and they have sex. Mary becomes pregnant.

Now, on one hand, the state claims that Joseph, being 15, is too young to give consent to sex, presumably because he is too young or immature to fully understand what he is doing and the ramifications of his actions. Yet the state will also claim that Joseph is now responsible for this child's support. Does anyone else see a problem with this?
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
We allow (4.66 / 3) (#190)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:54:01 PM EST

kids to drive at 16 but they are too young to sign a contract to buy a car. I doubt that a 16 yo has the life knowledge to understand what sexually explicit pictures might mean 15 years down the road when she decides to run for the school board. Most 16 yos are not wise enough to understand that sex can cause life-long complications either. :-)

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Kids (4.00 / 1) (#247)
by cpt kangarooski on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:36:07 PM EST

Minors can typically sign contracts. (a baby probably couldn't, but babies are pretty dumb and can't even grasp simple concepts like being quiet during a movie ;)

However, because they're a minor they often have the ability to void a contract if they feel like it since we're concerned that they'll be taken advantage of. Thus, no one wants to sign a contract where a minor is one of the contracting parties -- it's risky.

Minors, given their druthers, would surely love to sign contracts all over the place, make use, and then void. (which may or may not leave them scot free -- depends on local law)

IANAL (or a minor)

--
All my posts including this one are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
[ Parent ]

Better safe than sorry (5.00 / 1) (#237)
by jman11 on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 06:59:50 PM EST

It's under the theory of better safe than sorry.

Is it an unreasonable restriction to have that you can't take nude photographs of someone?  No.

Is there a problem with child pornography?  Yes.

I think's it's pretty justifiable to err on the side of caution, particuarly when taking photos of someone nude is not a fundamental human right.

Also, I can't speak for the USoA, but I think in australia that the consent laws for young people (ie under 18s) have some closeness requirment.  I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case in some parts of the USoA as well.

[ Parent ]

Therapy (2.66 / 6) (#111)
by Eloquence on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 04:49:47 AM EST

Some questions:
  • How long did you go to therapy?
  • What kind of therapy? How long were the sessions? Did they involve hypnosis, drugs?
  • Were you already aware of the things that happened to you before the therapy? Or were your memories of the abuse recovered in the therapy?
  • Are you aware of the existence of False Memory Syndrome?
Because a lot of horror stories like yours were manufactured in therapy (satanic ritual abuse, multiple personalities), it has become very important to ask these questions.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]
Insensitive ass (4.33 / 6) (#121)
by dipipanone on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:57:18 AM EST

Because a lot of horror stories like yours were manufactured in therapy (satanic ritual abuse, multiple personalities), it has become very important to ask these questions.

As well it might be if the poster was talking about satanic ritual abuse or recovered memory. As it is, she's not talking about any of those things. She's talking about a relatively large underground industry -- which you can see on the streets of every major city any day of the week if you know where to look.

Now I've no idea who the poster is or what their history is. And I was never sexually abused as a child myself. However, I've been around enough of it to know that it's far from 'uncommon' and doesn't come into the same league as the bullshit about Satanic Ritual Abuse.

Take a look on the net sometime. What do you suppose is happening in those photographs and mpegs that people are being arrested for? The kids in those clips are *not* Photoshopped adults, they are real live kids whose lives are being stolen away to produce wank material for assholes.

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
You have no idea what you're talking about (3.85 / 7) (#127)
by Eloquence on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:24:03 AM EST

Read The Trade in Child Pornography for an overview of unsubstantiated hysteria regarding child pornography and the book Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy, and Sexual Hysteria to get an idea about the scope of the problem of recovered memory therapy. There is of course real child pornography; most of it was produced in the 1960s and 1970s and is circulating again and again around the globe (the common number of 4000-5000 photos probably refers to a single CD-ROM). As most pedophiles are aroused by 10-12 year olds (shortly before puberty), that's the age of most subjects. Most photos are nude/masturbation photos, some are sexual acts among children, a smaller percentage are sexual acts among children and adults (usually oral sex), and torture/BSDM type stuff hardly exists. The photos of "two-year-olds being raped", if they exist at all, are likely a very small set that is being reproduced again and again (probably often by accident as large groups of files are downloaded in batches from Usenet and file sharing networks).

The problem is further complicated by the insane US definition of child pornography as "anyone under 18 years" (in Germany it's 14). It is of course impossible to see the difference between a 17- and a 19-year-old, and while people are locked up for allegedly storing "child" pornography with 15- or 16-year-olds, Hustler & Co. happily advertise "teen sex" and "barely legal" pictures whenever they can.

The parent poster referred to suicide, torture, use of guns, involvement of people who the crime was reported to etc., and of course the police did nothing because "nobody believed" the children. Such outrageous claims may be true for a very small number of cases, but given the very real and massive problem of recovered memory therapy, caution when looking at such reports is in order, especially as this type of claims is typical for many, many recovered memory stories.

Of course those who are cautious are the first to be called "insensitive assholes" and the like, whereas the psychotherapists who have caused the problem of demarcation in the first place can merrily continue devastating families and minds.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]

be all that as it may (4.00 / 4) (#131)
by adequate nathan on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:45:14 AM EST

As the parent poster claims to have been permanently injured, to have police records from the 1960s documenting her claim, and to have obtained the business records of the ring in question, it seems to me that you owe her an apology.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Sorry, no (3.50 / 4) (#137)
by Eloquence on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 08:06:05 AM EST

1) Injuries: Children are physically abused more than they are sexually abused. See, for example, Child Abuse: Slaughter of the Innocents. This problem is largely ingored and amplified by the fact that child abuse continues under the name of "corporal punishment" even in schools. In recovered memory therapy, such memories of real past abuse often mix with invented tales of satanic rituals, alien abduction, or, in fact, child pornography production.

2) Business records: The poster states that she gave them to the sheriff, who did not act upon them (which seems highly unlikely). So does she no longer have the records? If she does, I would be very interested in seeing them.

Lastly, I do not "owe her an apology" in any case, because I have not accused her of lying or fantasizing.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]

give a man enough rope (4.66 / 3) (#152)
by adequate nathan on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:11:39 AM EST

If she does [have the records,] I would be very interested in seeing them....I have not accused her of lying or fantasizing.

Your words, not mine. Unless you think the poor woman means to Fed-Ex them to Germany so you can validate her claims.

While I can imagine a psychologist planting hysterical infant memories of lurid abuse, I find it somewhat harder to imagine a psychologist planting hysterical teenage memories of delivering documents to the police.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

My memories (5.00 / 3) (#186)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:32:22 PM EST

predate therapy. They are all mine and I recount them as accurately as I can. I try very hard not to use sensational language and I try not to sound like I am hysterically anti-everything.

I think if there's anything I'd want people to take from my K5 posts it is this: if you suspect a child is being abused in any way please do something. You could save a life

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

oh, I believe your story (5.00 / 1) (#212)
by adequate nathan on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 04:45:19 PM EST

My point is this: Eloquence suggested that a psychologist may have made you a dupe. I think that your actions throughout adolescence provide an external trail of evidence corroborating your memories. So, as his suggestion is very offensive in this light, I think it ought to be qualified or retracted.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Perhaps (5.00 / 3) (#216)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:13:22 PM EST

Eloquence would benefit from talking to a therapist who treats victims of sexual abuse? He might get a different perspective on the nature of sex crimes.

He's entitled to his opinions. I am not affected by his attitude. Posts of a supportive nature, such as yours, are good and I appreciate them.

Those who demand physical proof, medical records, x-rays and such sometimes have an agenda of their own that includes "See! There's no proof that this happened therefore it never happens." Eloquence may fall into that group, or not, I do not know. They now have the "recovered memory" club to use on us. I *know* what happened to me.

Several years ago I spoke to a parent group about sexual abuse issues. One man kept challenging me, demanding the name of my therapist and MD. He wanted to see the scars on my knee and he wanted to examine my hands and feet. He was very belligerent and very disruptive. A few months later he was arrested for violently raping a neighbor's child. He was convicted and sent to prison. He had molested his own kids too.

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

I first realised that jsm was a smart guy (5.00 / 2) (#222)
by adequate nathan on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:22:38 PM EST

When he wrote about how most people don't obtain their opinions through discovery. Their opinions are manifestations of their prejudices instead.

This couldn't be more obvious with Eloquence.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Prejudices? (none / 0) (#229)
by Eloquence on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 06:14:40 PM EST

And what would those be? I have never claimed that cases like the one described here do not exist.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]
oh give it up (5.00 / 1) (#233)
by adequate nathan on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 06:41:11 PM EST

I have never claimed that cases like the one described here do not exist.

No - you just assume that any particular instance is an example of hysteria and manipulation, without allowing the evidence to change your mind.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Which evidence? (3.00 / 1) (#235)
by Eloquence on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 06:48:17 PM EST

Where did I assume anything?

It seems to me like you are the one who is prejudiced.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]

I have to disagree (5.00 / 2) (#246)
by amarodeeps on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:32:24 PM EST

I've been reading through Eloquence's posts as well as yours, and I have to say that you are starting to get really unreasonable. While I find Eloquence's posts somewhat cold, or at least definitely on the skeptical side (as far as "I don't believe everything I hear on the internet, and this is a subject which I seem to have quite an interest in and knowledge of" which is totally reasonable, methinks, notwithstanding the fact that tzigane sounds totally reasonable and honest herself), s/he is not being rude, abusive, dismissive or etc. toward tzigane's posts, just eagerly inquisitive.

I have not yet seen evidence that Eloquence believes every case or even this one to be the result of hysteria or manipulation. I suggest you go back and re-read the relevant threads with a more open mind and less of a reactionary, emotional demeanor.



[ Parent ]
Your imagination, not mine (4.00 / 3) (#192)
by Eloquence on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:05:48 PM EST

In the large child abuse witchhunts of the 1980s and 1990s, claims of police involvement in some form were always common. Some SRA conspiracy theories even involve the CIA and FBI.

Nothing Ann said so far makes me think that she is connected to these groups. She seems like a down to earth person to me. However, cases like hers are very rare, and given the above history and the nature of the Net in general, it is necessary to ask questions. Even if the story itself is consistent, it could still be entirely made up -- remember Kaycee? I'm not interested in feeding my emotions as so many people in such discussions seem to be, I want to know the facts, preferably as hard as possible. Case studies are interesting because only knowing how and why crimes are committed can help us prevent them. Yes, Fed-Ex would be nice, but a scan would do, too.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]

Scans (5.00 / 4) (#200)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:40:10 PM EST

of my X-rays would be interesting but would not demonstrate how the injuries occurred. The file of medical records can detail my problems now but they will not show how those problems started except "the patient states..." which might not be good enough. My doctor accepted it, he's treating my problems.

No. I will not provide scans of the X-rays. I am sorry but it would be quite not-convenient for me to do this. You either believe me or you do not. I am a real, breathing, living woman who went through hell and survived. I do not have to prove anything to anyone.

I did not participate in the stupidity of the 80s and 90s; I was saddened by it because it hurt things for the real victims. The McMartin preschool kids who were interrogated were abused by their interrogators. The adults who were wrongfully accused and prosecuted were victims. Kids who will be victims in the future have been harmed because they are less likely to be believed.

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Physical abuse (4.00 / 4) (#182)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:55:43 PM EST

and sexual abuse go together.

I will debate you no further as it will not change your mind and my hands are quite sore this morning; I've got other things besides typing to do. The rheumatoid arthritis which affects me may have been caused by the injuries my father inflicted on my hands, feet and knees.

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

I referred to (5.00 / 6) (#180)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:49:47 PM EST

one suicide. That girl was so messed up by what happened to her that she killed herself.

There were guns involved. My father would point a very large handgun (I'm not sure what kind it was, it looked as big as a cannon to me) or a smallish rifle at us. If there was someone who was not cooperating he's click the gun. I don't think he ever shot anyone but he would fire a shot into the ceiling once in a while.

There was alcohol involved. It breaks down inhibitions. A slightly tipsy young girl is less likely to protest. We were not given enough to make us pass out or get sick.

During this time I had most of the bones in my hands and feet broken as a way of reminding me that if I told anyone I would be further hurt. Some of those injuries still show on X-rays. I have rheumatoid arthritis now, my doctor believes that the many injuries might have caused it.

Most of the kids used by my father's porn operation were realtives and neighbors. They preferred very young kids, under 10 if they could get them. There's no way any sane person could imagine that those kids were of legal age.

None of the things I remember are so-called "recovered memories." I have lived with these memories for most of my life. The "recovered memory" bunch has done almost as much harm to sex abuse victims as the perpetrators did.

The sheriff's deputy took the business records. He did not give me a report, he was not allowed to as I was only 16. My mother refused to get it for me.

 
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

A few more questions (4.00 / 2) (#189)
by Eloquence on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:51:36 PM EST

Feel free not to answer if you don't want to, but it would help me to better understand your case. As you state yourself, recovered memory "therapy" has done a lot of harm to real victims, and I find it very important to clearly distinguish real from false cases. No sane person would try to justify the acts that you say have been committed against you.

What is/was the position of your mother on the events in question? Does/did she claim that they did not happen, or does/did she belittle them?

Was this done by your biological father, or your stepfather? Was your father a regular drinker?

You state that you had therapy for 18 years. When did you start going to therapy and what was the motivation? When did you stop and why? Did you change therapists and if so, how often?

Given that these movies were produced in the 1950s, what technology was used - what cameras, what distribution medium? Was there a studio?

You say that the first movies were made when you were two. How do you know that? Did you watch them later?

You state that you were abused repeatedly for 10+ years. During that time, did you ever try to run away?
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]

OK, I'll try (5.00 / 5) (#196)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:25:35 PM EST

My mother was a clue-less college-educated dunce. She lived in denial and pretended everything was OK, even when I had gonnorrheal pneumonia at 7. I never truly understood her; I tried to make peace with her. She died about 10 years ago.

My biological father and his father were the business owners. Neither ever drank. They used alcohol as a drug on the kids they exploited.

My first therapy was when I was in college, changed therapists after I transferred. I was in therapy during the first few years of marriage, took  break and went back after I had my daughter and I have gone back intermittently as I feel a need. For the last 20 years or so I have had the same therapist. I go to her now only occasionally.

The studio was a converted barn in a rural area; the property owner might have been aware of what was going on. (There was electricity in the barn and running water.) They used big movie cameras, this was before videotape, I think. I don't know what kinds of cameras they used. I remember seeing film cans with "Kodak" on them. I don't know what size film it was but it seemed large. I do not know about the distribution, there was nothing in the records I found. Those concerned who was in which movie.

I was not-quite-two in the first movies. I was shown those when I was about 14; my father used them to humiliate me. I also saw those early movies listed in the records I found.

Running away? I tried and was beaten unconscious. We moved when I was 5 to a more rural area, I was locked in the house for 2 years; I went outside only when I was taken to the studio and I was wrapped in a blanket for the trip.

Please understand it is difficult on several levels for me to relate this. My hands are very swollen and sore today. Typing hurts. Remembering what happened hurts too.

It is tough to be articulate and calm about this stuff. If I detail the physical problems I have now as a result of the abuse I am sometimes branded a hypochondriac. But the injuries are real. The x-rays of my hands and feet show clear evidence of untreated fractures. My left knee is a mess and my right knee is recently repaired (Oct. 2001). Because of the knee problems I have had some back problems and had to have surgery in November.

I hope this help you to understand. Please email me if you want more details.

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 0) (#231)
by Eloquence on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 06:37:03 PM EST

I would have gladly waited for the reply, so thanks for writing immediately. Your story seems largely consistent to me and is different from typical recovered memory therapy tales in several ways. I'm a bit concerned that you later refer to recovered memories as a "club", I hope you do recognize the harm that these therapists have done. The only natural reaction to being frequently told lies is to be more skeptical, is it not? Is not the person who lied - or induced lies - the problem and not the one who properly reacts to this?

Of course, your response leaves me with more questions than answers: Why would a man abuse his own daughter in this way, and why would so many others cooperate? Only for the money? Pedophilia is relatively rare, and incest even more so (because of the biological incest taboo). On the other hand, 1950s/1960s America may have had a larger degree of sexual repression and resulting sexual deviancy. Still, the case seems extreme.

If money was the motivation, I wonder how this business operated -- did they sell the actual films (problematic because most people did not have the necessary equipment to play at the time), or did they let people pay for viewing? What happened to the movies - why did they never show up again (they do not seem to be part of the known body of child pornography, I have never seen them mentioned in the literature)? Even sexual deviants typically are appalled by extreme deviancies outside their own field of preference, so why did so many customers tolerate the abuse of small children?

Also, you speak of severe injuries to your hands and feet. If these can be felt so many decades later, it means that you could neither walk nor write properly or at all at the time they were caused. What effect did this have in school? I'm not sure about your answer regarding your mother; did or didn't she later admit that the crimes took place, perhaps after your father's death?

As for evidence, the only hard evidence would be any kind of legal records. As the authorities are required to investigate any child porn picture/film to find out if a prosecutable crime can be traced to it, if the authorities have the pictures, they must have records about them somewhere. As the victim, you could probably request these records. You could also speak to the media about your case, they would do the investigative work. I'm not sure if either options is of interest or relevance to you.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]

I do (5.00 / 2) (#239)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:10:42 PM EST

refer to recovered memory stuff as a club (not the kind of club you join, but rather the kind you whack someone with) because it is used to discredit *real* victims and *real* survivors who have live with their/our memories. Several other survivors I know call it RM-whacking.

Sexual abuse runs in families. My father was probably abused by his who was abused... and so on. My grandfather was an unfixated pedophile: he'd screw any prepubescent child. Because my parents were idiots I had to share a bedroom with him for 7 years. You don't want to know those details!

The business was not terribly successful financially because my father was a yutz about money. I am not too clear on what sort of films they used for the distributed copies of the movies. I was a little kid and the cameras seemed huge but they may have been ordinary home-movie rigs. I do not know. I don't think you'll find too much in the literature, I have probably not given you enough details about the names used. They were aware enough not to use their real names. You may, by now, know my full legal name and home address. :-) I am not hiding and that US gov't. database is current.

Another reason for the lack of financial success was a crooked preacher they tangled up with. Both my father and grandfather were fundy-Xians who were easy to convince with religious arguments. They were swindled out of most of their profits.

Yes I did have trouble in school. I learned to walk without a limp as that was a sign of weakness. I learned to write with both hands and to keep only one hand available for the whacks with the crescent wrench (my father's favorite weapon). I managed to overcome the learning issues as I was not enrolled in school until I was 7 and I had already learned to read and write. One of the books on the bookshelf was _Mein Kampf_ (apology if I spelled it wrong). I leanred very quickly not to quote that particlar book in Kindergarten.

After I started attending a private school run by associates of my parents I had less trouble. By then my knee was so sore i could barely walk and I was excused from physical ed. classes. No questions were ever asked about why my left hand was always swollen and red. (I am right handed and protected it more.)

The authorities are *now* required to investigate any kind of child abuse. Back then they were not. An officer's discretion was permitted. Because of situations like mine the laws were changed.

By speaking out I am possibly subjecting myself to hate mail, threats and genral harrassment. It has happened before and may again.

I have also received several emails of support and to those people I am grateful.  They have my best wishes for good luck.

A lot of people knew I lived in a strange household. A phone call or two or three might have saved me a lot of pain. I have no ill feelings towards those who did nothing, they now know what they condoned and it is between them and their consciences. I hope they find peace.

I hope that those reading this who might know of a child in danger will do something to help that child. You could save a life.

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

But how ... (none / 0) (#248)
by Eloquence on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:36:30 PM EST

.. are outsiders supposed to tell the difference, other than by asking questions? In that vein:

that US gov't. database is current.

Which database are you referring to?

The authorities are *now* required to investigate any kind of child abuse.

Yes, and they are required to make reasonable efforts to trace any picture to its origin, to determine whether a prosecutable case can be made. If they have your pictures in their database (which they should, as you have alerted them of their existence), they have a record about the case. It is this record that I am referring to which you could probably request.

I was a little kid and the cameras seemed huge but they may have been ordinary home-movie rigs.

I'm not sure I understand, in another post you stated that the films were shown again to you at age 14. Do you remember what equipment he used to show them at this age? What happened to the films? We are talking about 500 films with you alone, and probably many hundred more with other kids, I presume? Where were they stored? There was a long period from ~1965 to 1987 where you and your father were still alive and you were increasingly aware of your past abuse -- what happened to the films in that period? Any distribution would certainly be illegal, and this was before the digital age, so stopping the distribution of the actual physical films would have had an effect -- was any attempt made to do so?
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]

Reply (4.50 / 2) (#262)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 09:44:10 PM EST

You refer to me almost by name in a previous post. You may have gotten that from my web site, that's OK. If you wish to know more about the database please e-mail me and I will tell you. The address I use works with a bit of editing. Your questions are getting closer to details and that might be better taken off this forum. I am not unwilling to answer, I am getting wary of exposing too many details here.

The sheriff office here has no record of my contacts with deputies from when I was 11 or 16. That is a long time ago, they don't keep records that far back except on murder cases. As far as I know no one was killed in the porn operation, not directly anyway. It is my belief that my father murdered the girl who killed herself as surely as if he had killed her with his own hands. The law disagrees with me.

Yes, when I was 14 my father showed me some of the movies. The projector was behind me and the room was dark. I was so shocked at what I was seeing it did not occur to me to look at the projector. I did launch myself through the screen which was an ordinary home movie screen. By age 14 I had become a rather unpredictable and volatile adolescent. :-)

Most of the films that were made were not kept in our home, my father was too chicken for that. I think some might have been stored in a local church but I am not sure. I tried to find out what became of those films, but had no success. I was  in college from 1969 - 1974 and that took up all my time. I was married in 1973, went back to school in 1977 and had my first child in 1981. After my mother passed on I found several boxes of stuff with a few still pictures. I destroyed those prints and negatives.

 
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

film equipment (5.00 / 1) (#255)
by BCoates on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 08:42:21 PM EST

If money was the motivation, I wonder how this business operated -- did they sell the actual films (problematic because most people did not have the necessary equipment to play at the time)

8mm film projectors and cameras (for home movies and the like) were commonplace in the pre-vcr era. Go to a flea market or swap meet and you'll see dozens among the other old but not valuable things. It would not have been difficult or expensive for an individual to produce and duplicate low-quality porn with it.

I think film students still use them.

What happened to the movies - why did they never show up again (they do not seem to be part of the known body of child pornography, I have never seen them mentioned in the literature)?

Why would you expect the known body of child porngraphy to include even a fraction of all created works?

--
Benjamin Coates

[ Parent ]

I was (5.00 / 1) (#267)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 10:16:08 PM EST

not too observant when I was being filmed. Even in the last movies I just wanted to get it over with and be finished so I could take a bath. I almost deliberately didn't notice details that might have been useful later. It never occurred to me that those details might actually be useful.

When I was very young I was afraid of the cameras, I just knew one was going to fall one me. They did seem kinda big, and there were usually 3 of them. They looked a little like sideways Mickey Mouse ears.

As my father was a rather prolific maker of kid-porn you might expect it to have been spotted. And it may be mentioned in whatever research literature there is. It would have no connection, however, to me real name which is not too hard to figure out. I do know the names used in the business. No, it is not anything I will discuss.

 
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Not yet (2.50 / 2) (#240)
by dh003i on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:14:42 PM EST

You're right, video tech hasn't come far enough yet where you can manufacture virtual child porn in videos using programs.  But it's close, and that will soon be a reality.  Also, it is very possible to make someone older than the age of consent look younger than that age (i.e., make a 16-year old look like a 14-year old).

I'm amazed at the irrational attitude people take regarding child-pornography.  I was molested as a child by a 60-year old ex-navy officer, but that hasn't impaired my ability to think logically.

For most of the child-porn out there, you can't even prove that a child was molested in the production of it.  Your argument about creating a financial incentive to molest children is BS:  child-molesters don't molest children for money, they do it for some kind of twisted gratification.  As I said before, pretty soon it will be impossible to distinguish videos made using virtual computer characters and thsoe filmed using real people.

I'm surprised that pictures can still be admitted as a standard of evidence in courts today, given how easily false pictures can be manufactured that are indistinguishable from real ones.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

Are you saying (5.00 / 1) (#242)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:21:24 PM EST

that a movie of some guy banging an infant is not evidence that the child was molested?!?

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

sigh (2.50 / 2) (#257)
by dh003i on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 09:02:13 PM EST

No, that's not what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is that in a few years -- when PC's have the same kind of video-manipulation power that Hollywood's SGI-workhorses do -- it won't be.  Currently, videos can be edited and things fabricated to look photorealistic, making it impossible to tell what is real v. what is fabricated in a 3D-lab.  Currently, that technology is only available at a very expensive price.  In the near future, it will be available to everyone for the price of a PC, meaning that video-evidence will be worthless.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

Thanks. (none / 0) (#264)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 09:49:06 PM EST

I was truly not sure.  

You have mentioned that you were molested. I understand how messy and difficult it is to deal with. And you seem remarkably together for a young male who was violated by an older man.

If you have not done so you might want to consider a few rounds with a therapist. It might be very helpful.

 
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

I'll answer part of this (4.75 / 4) (#173)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:26:19 PM EST

I was in therapy, individual and group, for 18 years total. I am unable to take any antidepressants which were the only drugs recommended. No hypnosis. I would prefer not to discuss specifics of the sessions.

All my memories predate therapy. I want nothing to do with "Recovered Memory" stuff.

 
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Wow! (4.00 / 2) (#214)
by Builder on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:12:12 PM EST

I've read this and some of your followup posts in this thread. All I can say is that you have my utmost respect for making it through that and still being able to be a functional member of society! The world needs more people with your strength!
--
Be nice to your daemons
[ Parent ]
Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#221)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:22:31 PM EST

I've never seen myself as strong. My survival tool was passivity. Any show of strength was punished so I needed to appear weak.

If you ever see a child who might be abused please do something. You could save a life.

 
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

I was gonna post what he did (4.00 / 2) (#232)
by Galion on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 06:37:07 PM EST

But then he did. I'll just say again that after having read this thread it's really impressive to see what you've gone through and how you've come out of it. I hope the rest of your life was/will be much happier than your childhood.

[ Parent ]
Thank you (5.00 / 4) (#244)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:27:31 PM EST

My life after my escape from the mess has been darned good. I'm married (29 years worth to the same guy) I've got 2 great kids, and I have the freedom to do community service work, knitting commissions and stuff like that.

The secret to peace is letting go of hatred. Hate kills the one who hates! The hated one may not care. The opposite of love is indifference. I feel nothing towards my parents, both are dead now.

 
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Thank you too (5.00 / 1) (#252)
by Lochin Rabbar on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:44:52 PM EST

The secret to peace is letting go of hatred. Hate kills the one who hates! The hated one may not care. The opposite of love is indifference. I feel nothing towards my parents, both are dead now.

Yesterday I was going to post in the capital punishment thread. I was going to say relatives of people who have been murdered. Those that are consumed by desire for vengence and those that are not, and the latter group seem to be more able to come to terms with their loss. I didn't post because I couldn't get past the word forgive, which seemed the wrong word. Indifference now that is a good word for what I couldn't express.
--

"Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Prize", - Tom Lehrer
[ Parent ]

I appreciate what you are doing. (5.00 / 2) (#256)
by acronos on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 08:48:35 PM EST

The world is unlikely to change unless people become aware of what is happening. It is a sad reality that the price of our education is the painful dredging up of such awful memories.  

This is a part of society where injustice is immense.  The only thing in my mind that is more evil than rape is the rape of a child.  There is no more grotesque violation of boundaries.  However, thought police, while not the most offensive, still make it into my top five.  I think it is wrong of our government to make it a crime to see a picture.  I am torn between the injustice done on both sides.  While I completely acknowledge your right to privacy and the offensiveness of seeing pictures of yourself on the internet, I think it extreme to put someone on a sexual offenders list and give them jail time for downloading a picture.  I commonly receive two or three spam emails a day containing pornography.  I have never done anything to solicit these emails.  (Since I own three domains and I usually get the same email to each domain I have my suspicions where they got my name)  Yet, if someone has the bad taste to send me an illegal picture, I could be charged with "creating" porn because the image was assembled on my screen.  That is completely unreasonable, and quite frankly scares me a lot.  Even for the most evil crime on earth, there should be the balance of presumed innocent until proven guilty, and guilty should be of knowingly doing real harm to a child, not downloading a picture thinking it is legal adult pornography to suddenly discover that this one crossed the line between legal and illegal.  There have been several recent noteworthy cases where similar things have happened, and the way the law is currently interpreted the above would certainly be considered illegal.  There do not seem to be any answers that protect everyone.  Someone gets hurt anyway things are done.  The question I am asking myself is, does the emotional damage suffered by the victims really outweigh the destruction of the lives of someone who downloaded a picture and goes to jail for it?

Let me reiterate that hearing your story makes my belief in the freedom of speech and the freedom of mind seem much less clear cut.  I am very grateful to you for sharing it.  


[ Parent ]

I too (5.00 / 1) (#258)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 09:21:34 PM EST

have problems with the thought police. As a recipient of unwanted porn spam you should have protection from prosecution. I have difficulty with guys who have gigs worth of adult men having it off with little kids.

At some level we have to make the users of child porn see that they are hurting children.

 
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

The nature of harm (5.00 / 4) (#293)
by kerinsky on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:44:57 AM EST

I'd like to apologize in advance if I'm being insensitive or over offensive or hurtful in this post. I've had some bad experiences in my life, but nothing compares with what you've described going through. I can't imagine the pain of living, remembering or recounting these events.

That said pedophilia seems to be a harm that will not go away. Other than some utopian police state it seems unlikely that these behaviors are going to be universally stopped. Your descriptions of your childhood remind me of questions that have been bugging me for a while. What is the nature of harm? I'm not apologizing for any evildoers, clearly you were harmed directly by these people. What I'm wondering is why after having dozens of broken bones, threats with guns involving the firing of said weapons and an attack with a 2 x 4 that led to multiple surgeries and a lifetime of medical problems the thrust of your post seemed to be 'I was in over 500 kiddie porn movies, and I was physically abused too.'

Perhaps you didn't write it like that at all and I came away with the wrong impression, but it seems to me that we live in a world that accepts that rape is more harmfull than just about anything short of murder. We think nothing of a woman being in lifelong therapy for one sixty second even (this clearly isn't your case however, I'm just making a point) but isn't the harm of rape psychological? Some people seems to be more affected by such events than others. Why is this and is there a societal bias? Could being raised in a different environment blunt or nullify these psychological affects? I'm not a woman and I've never been raped so I'm sure I don't really understand, but why is a rape worse than someone holding a gun to your head in a hostage situation? Is it something fundamental to the human brain, or is it our upbrining? I wonder how much of the harm in rape is caused by society, by our upringing, by the universal expectation that rape is horrible.

Is a legion of ruined, or at least damaged, psyches the legacy of our sexual repression?

tzigane, or any other abuse victim, would it be hurtful to ask which is worse to you today the physical or sexual abuse? Why?

I've seen prostitutes on TV say that rape is no less harmful to them than to other women. To be crude, crass and overly logical, if you're willing to sell it for $50 then why would rape be worse than robbery? I cringed as I wrote that, but isn't it a valid question? Why do I feel bad asking it? Should I feel bad asking it?

Yet in the end I still abhor rape, I only see murder and kidnapping as being potentialy worse. Maybe what I'm asking is wouldn't society be great if rape victims could just shrug it off while we locked up rapists for life?

If you think it would be great, do you think we could get there?

If we can't stop pedaphiles from doing this to our children can we instead raise our children so that they see things differently, that a man forcing his penis into your mouth is no worse than a man forcing his fingers in your mouth? Dentists do that every day and it's something that kids just deal with.

Or are humans hard wired to hurt and be hurt?

-=-
A conclusion is simply the place where you got tired of thinking.
[ Parent ]

Ultimate in powerlessness (5.00 / 3) (#306)
by Kintanon on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:57:46 PM EST

Being raped is the pinnacle of powerlessness. There is nothing else that can be done to you that emphasis how little control you have over the situation. The human mind is wired to attempt to control its surroundings at all times. We can adjust to our surroundings given time, but the sudden transference from "in control" to being raped doesn't give the mind the chance to adjust to having no control over it. That's just the first part of it though, you can get almost the same feeling from suddenly having the shit beat out of you with a 2x4.
The second part is the fact that sex is an act which most people participate in with someone who loves them, or that they at least have an attraction towards. The feeling it evokes are pleasurable and enjoyable. Rape is none of those things. An act which is normally filled with pleasure is turned into one of intense pain and helplessness. That feeling will then follow the victim for most, if not all of their life. Every time they have sex, if they ever do again, they will have the impression of that rape hanging over them interfering with the process and their enjoyment of it.
Add to that the impression that many people have that the victim is at fault, the embarassment at having to talk about sex, which in most western countries isn't really discussed in public. The process of having to go over and over and over the details, the trial where you have to spend a lot of time staring at the person that did this to you, and the fact that most rapists only actually spend 8 months in jail (Relevant statistics upon request) and you have a pretty bleak picture.

Some of these feelings are also generated by more conventional assault, and generate much of the same paranoia. But I've never met anyone who had the shit beat out of them that physically could not tolerate being touched by a man in any way anymore. I've met rape victims that couldn't make themselves shake my hand 5 years after the event. Most people I know who were involved in more conventional assaults were paranoid, sometimes for a year or two, but eventually relaxed.

This is just my prespective, I have at times taught rape prevention classes on the UGA campus in Georgia and in a couple of highschools in the state.

Kintanon

[ Parent ]

Rape (4.66 / 3) (#312)
by tzigane on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:48:08 PM EST

is the invasion of your body by another person. No one has the right to enter my body without permission! A rapist could leave me pregnant, he could infect me with a fatal illness and he certainly leaves me feeling used and unclean. In the interest of "walking a mile in the other person's shoes" I will ask you the icky question. Would you want some dirty, unwashed, smelly creep's semen inside your body? No, probably not. This paragraph may seem angry or hostile but I do not intend it that way.

As part of my healing and dealing with my own sexuality I had to separate different parts of what had happened. I dealt with the sexual issues first as that was what was making me crazy. Then I dealt with the orthopedic and gynecologic issues.

The medical issues will never go away. I face a very high risk of cervical cancer. An insensitive clod once suggested that I have a total hysterectomy to eliminate that risk. Well, there are side effects to any surgery and the more invasive the procedure the bigger the risks are. So I am mostly intact and I have a medical exam every 3 months. My gyn. is a very good doctor and an understanding person.

My knees will never be totally right and I will never be pain-free. The harm done was permanent. The exact cause of the rheumatoid arthritis I have might never be known, but two rheumatologists thing that the repeated orthopedic injuries left me vulnerable to it. It is an autoimmune disease.

Psychological damage is harder for me to assess. I do not know who I might have been had I not been subjected to 10+ years of abuse. One therapist told me not to get too involved with that but rather to be who I am now. She was right, I think. The physical pain I have also impacts my life now, I can get very grumpy when everthing hurts too much.

I am comfortable with who I am. I've tried to be a good wife and mother, my kids are normal (and like normal kids they sometimes push my buttons).

Victims should have an absolute right to treatment of their physical and psychological injuries. They do not in many cases.

Every child should have an absolute right to grow up free from sexual abuse. Sexual predators who use children for their own pleasure must be imprisoned until they are no longer a threat.

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

No hostility detected (5.00 / 3) (#319)
by kerinsky on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:51:22 PM EST

Thanks for talking about this, I hope you're not in too much pain from the typing (I take that it would be overly hopeful for you not to be in any pain) I constantly try to revaluate my worlview. I often play mind games asking myself what my reaction to different situations could be as an alien first coming to earth, which sort of led to this line of questioning. I'll admit that if I were forcibly sodomized that I would almost certainly react more negatively than if I was shot or otherwise physically assaulted.

It makes sense to me emotionally, but it still confuses me intilectually that people seem to handle physical abuse better than sexual abuse. Maybe in the end it just offends my sense of propriety that people are capable of so easily ruining each others lives. The laws of physics I can grasp, if you cut off someones head they're going to die, but death is natural and final. There isn't any easy equation for the laws governing the psyche nor does the damage seem natural or inevitable. I really do wonder if we could somehow raise children that are somehow immune to the psychological devistation of rape...

-=-
A conclusion is simply the place where you got tired of thinking.
[ Parent ]

There's no vaccine (4.33 / 3) (#322)
by tzigane on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:23:08 PM EST

that will immunize someone to the effects of sexual violence. I'll speculate here because I don't really have a clue why. I'll confine my comments to hetersexual relationships because .... well, because. I think similar statements can be made about homosexual relationships.

We are horrified by sexual violence because the sexual act is supposed to (biologically) create another person; it also is a bond between the partners. It is an act of amazing intimacy (especially for the woman who allows a male to enter her body) and potentially incredible pleasure. Sex is supposed to take place in the context of a loving relationship and it is not supposed to hurt. (If you are an adult who finds pleasure in pain, that's OK with me so long as your partners are consenting adults)

To use the organs of reproduction to inflict violence just resonates with us. And rape of a prepubescent child is even more horrifying because of the innocence of that child. Any sexual contact between an adult and a prepubescent child is wrong!

I hope that makes some sense.

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

I too have asked this question. (5.00 / 5) (#332)
by acronos on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 03:21:12 AM EST

I believe that there are some parts of the human mind that are more fundamental than others.  I think there are several layers to the human brain.  Some biologists talk of the the hind brain as the reptilian brain.  It is one of the oldest sections of the brain.  It is also a significant factor in human emotion, and I believe it is what is damaged in a sexual assult.  Sexual assults screw up one of the most fundamental emotional ties in the human brain.  They screw up our experience of affection.

I believe the most significant factor motivating human beings is the affection of other human beings.  Our families are based on it.  Some of our strongest desires center around it.  Young monkeys without the affection of other monkeys don't just get depressed, they die.  They die not for physical reasons or violence but for psychological ones.  Monkeys that are beaten daily actually do much better than ones that are in total isolation.  If we don't get air, we die.  If we don't get food and water, we die.  If we don't get affection, we die.  There is no other psychological factor that is so significant that I can think of.  Some things are just fundamental.  

For me there is one thing that evokes the strongest emotions in me.  Nothing else even comes close.  My strongest emotions are evoked by on my needs for affection from and for other people.  When I try to speak in front of other people, it is my fear of their rejection that terrifies me.  There is very little that motivates me like when I look in my wife's eyes, and I genuinely see that she loves me.  I suspect when I hold my child for the first time will be a significant event.  This need is very fundamental to being human.

When someone rapes me, I believe it is at this level that things are scrambled.  This thing that is programmed at a very low level into my brain is suddenly violated.  I am unloveable.  I am unworthy to be touched.  Fundamentally, this is not how it was supposed to be.  This is a sacred gift, and now it has been stolen.  Simultanious connections in the brain fire between this sacred preprogramed affection and pain and rejection.  My brain is scrambled.  What emotion is strong enough to unprogram this new connection.  There may be a few, but probably from that day on I have a new program connected in the brain.  I am unloveable.

[ Parent ]

over-reaction (4.10 / 10) (#76)
by dh003i on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:26:35 AM EST

Arresting 1,500 people for looking at child-porn?  What a bunch of shit.

Molesting children should be treated the same as rape -- life in prison or even death as the consequence.  Why?  Because it is essentially raping a child.

Looking at a child porn hardly constitutes any crime against that child.  Manufactoring child pornography by paying child molestors for pictures, or paying them to molest children while pictures are taken, is a different matter, which should be treated like child-molestment.

Sorry, but I don't buy for a second that most of these 1,300 people who were arrested are dangerous to children or anything else.  There is a big difference between (say) fantasizing about something (which images may assist, and ultimately prevent from becoming an actuality) and actually doing it.  Fantasizing about having sex with children is harmless.  Actually molesting children is harmful.

It's amazing to me how some people can not understand the difference between thinking about something (or fantasizing about it) and actually doing it.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.

Supply & Demand (4.00 / 3) (#90)
by Bios_Hakr on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:15:05 AM EST

Sometimes, it is impossible to block the supply.  In many countries arround the world, the age of consent is <16.  You cannot extradite someone who is breaking no law.  OK, that isn't always true, but it should be.

Now, If you cannot stop the supply, then attacking the demand is justifiable.

For instance:

If I am 27 (which I am) and I go to Thiland (which I haven't) and have sex with a 11 year old boy (which I didn't), have I broken any laws?  Should the USA prosicute me upon return?  Should Thiland bar me from entering the country?  Should Thai police be aware of the laws of every country in the world and not let USians have sex with someone >17?

I think sending a message to a person who demands kiddy porn is a good way to stop the people who supply it.


[ Parent ]

under australian law (4.25 / 4) (#102)
by Baldwin atomic on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:33:40 AM EST

it is illegal to have sex with an under-age child whilst overseas.

It specifically says so in the booklet you get with your passport...


=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Opinions not necessarily those of the author.
[ Parent ]
UK law too (4.50 / 2) (#274)
by greenrd on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:16:10 PM EST

In the UK the equivalent offence is something like "Travelling abroad with the intent to molest children" or something like that, IIRC.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

Belgian law too [n/t] (3.66 / 3) (#168)
by Galion on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:02:12 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Hope I die before I get old... (4.16 / 6) (#120)
by dipipanone on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:45:12 AM EST

Looking at a child porn hardly constitutes any crime against that child.

Well, lets see how you'd like it, shall we?

Imagine you were a six or seven year old kid, and I'd managed to persuade *you* to suck my cock -- either through naiveity, inducements or coercion, how I did it really didn't matter much. By the time you'd left the room, you'd almost certainly be feeling abused and wretched about it.

But you can't put it behind you, because I managed to shoot some pictures of you, with my big fat prod stuck right down your little kiddy throat. And I've distributed those pictures all over the internet. And people who might fancy some little kiddy throat, but who haven't yet worked up the stones to procure one for themselves -- because they're semi-respectable in their other life, and too ashamed, or because they worry they might end up in jail with Bubba's cock down *their* throat, and that isn't actually their fantasy at all, no sirree Bob -- all those people, all over the world are beating off frantically fantasizing over the image of a pre-pubescent dh003i having his child's mouth rammed with my fat man-cock.

And these pictures will continue to circulate for the rest of your life. But that's fine, right? After all, who does it hurt, aside from the poor little disposable wretches who've been used in this way?

But you wouldn't mind any of that at all, would you? After all, what crime against you would I be committing?

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
Nah. (3.50 / 2) (#135)
by valeko on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:56:21 AM EST

Violent pre-teen porn is different, and I'm not sure that it reflects the desires of most people that we choose to label "paedophiles."

Better scenario: you're a quite post-pubescent 15 or 16 year old girl and I shoot some nude pictures of you, with your consent.

Oh, big deal that is! Yet statutorily, it's pretty much child porn.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

What will happen when (4.00 / 1) (#320)
by tzigane on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:03:47 PM EST

that girl is 30 years old and applies for a professional-level job. If those pictures have been seen by anyone on the hiring comittee she's *not* going to be hired.

At 14 or 16 a young person is not really able to comprehend the long-term consequences of something.

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Well. (5.00 / 1) (#326)
by valeko on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:34:24 PM EST

I agree. But my point is, the same problem can arise if she's 18 or 19, and we don't make that illegal.

As for a 14-16 year old's inability to comprehend something, I strongly disagree. They're unable to comprehend it only because we treat them like infants.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

That is true (4.00 / 2) (#328)
by tzigane on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:42:10 PM EST

But at 18 in California (where I live) we give young people the right to make contracts and vote. I would hope that an 18 yo would be a little wiser that a 14 yo or 16 yo.

An 18 yo who agrees to be photoraphed nude, whether it is pornographic or not, is making that decision as an adult. A 16 yo is not.

 
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Fine. (4.00 / 2) (#330)
by valeko on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 01:50:56 AM EST

But do you think that's a good thing? I know some 36 year olds that aren't mentally fit to make contracts, and some 14 year olds that are.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Well (4.00 / 1) (#331)
by tzigane on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 02:13:58 AM EST

personally I think any woman who agrees to be photgraphed nude in any situation is nuts! I'll admit a serious bias, as I was photo-ed nude too many times against my will.

We have laws which are to supposed protect the young from their folly; that line must be drawn somewhere; and it is drawn arbitrarily. After age 18 you have to take responsibility for your actions to a much greater degree.

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Right. (4.00 / 1) (#333)
by valeko on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 07:48:19 AM EST

And, what of the efficacy of these laws? Are they protecting anyone from their folly (I'm speaking far more generally than photography here)? What about the ones that wouldn't commit a folly in the first place -- do they have something to gain by not being considered a valid human until age 18?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

That's a good question. (4.00 / 1) (#335)
by tzigane on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 09:39:18 AM EST

I've tried, with my kids, to teach them that they'll have a different set of rules when they reach 18. My daughter has (so far and knock on wood) been OK and she's 21. My son is 16 and he seems pretty sensible, so far. I've also tried to teach my kids that "Behavior has consequences, if you don't like the consequences then don't do the bahavior."

I've seen too many kids who have no idea about that. They do something stunningly dumb and are shocked when they have to face the consequences. Their parents have always bailed them out of their messes and suddenly the parents cannot do that and the kids are shocked.

Ultimately it comes down to what the kids have been taught at home, I guess. Both my kids got very tired of hearing things like "Think about this, if you do a then b will happen and you don't like b."  There are also some kids who just do not get the message, no matter what their parents do those kids will have to learn everything the hard way.

18 is not a magic age, but it is the line that many governments have drawn. The same rules must apply to everyone. Would you have a standardized test of common sense given to every kid a puberty? Who would score it? What would happen to those who have not passed it by age 40? There's been a huge uproar here in California about the high school exit exam, I cannot imagine what would happen if we had an "adulthood exam!"

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Good point (2.50 / 2) (#144)
by dipierro on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 09:01:04 AM EST

but in that case, the porn distributors are already breaking the law, at least by US law (and I presume by UK law) by illegally using your image.

Frankly that's what I would have voted for in the poll. Illegal to create. Illegal to distribute. Not illegal to possess.



[ Parent ]
Not illegal to possess. (4.00 / 1) (#188)
by Luddite on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:50:27 PM EST

Not illegal to possess.

In this case, people were paying for a portal that provided child pornography. Paying for something creates demand. Demand creates the motivation to increase supply. Supply increase means molesting more children. This is probably the case when money isn't even trading hands, definately the case whien it is.

[ Parent ]
I don't buy it (3.00 / 2) (#195)
by dipierro on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:15:29 PM EST

In this case, people were paying for a portal that provided child pornography.

Allegedly.

I don't buy the whole paying creates demand which increases supply which causes molestation which supports terrorism which makes the baby Jesus cry argument. If you hire someone to molest children that's one thing. But if you are merely buying something which is already created, while I can see that as immoral (as much as buying gasoline is), I don't think it's worth the time, energy, and money of the government to make it illegal. Certainly not to create a sting operation entrapping people. Spend the money enforcing laws against people actually directly causing harm.



[ Parent ]
Bullshit (4.00 / 1) (#198)
by dh003i on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:30:19 PM EST

This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard in my life.  Priests and other child molesters do not molest children because they can make money selling child-pornography.  They molest them because they have fantasies that they cannot or choose not to control, and do these things in real life.  In short, they molest children because they have sick desires which they do not control.

Since most porn -- of any kind, child or otherwise -- is obtained for free, your entire argument falls apart anyways.  Child pornographers may be sick people, but they still use economic common sense like the rest of us.  You don't pay for something you can get for free by going to a newsgroup or searching Google Images, or Kazaa.

The entire argument that looking at child-porn financially support child-molestation is bogus in the modern world.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

Eh? (4.33 / 3) (#273)
by greenrd on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:13:25 PM EST

Since most porn -- of any kind, child or otherwise -- is obtained for free,

Well, that may be so or it may be not, I don't know, but the adult porn business is huge, despite the fact that you can get porn for free on the net. So your argument kind of falls apart.

You don't pay for something you can get for free by going to a newsgroup or searching Google Images, or Kazaa.

Uhhhh... you have done such searches? You may be breaking the law by doing so.

The entire argument that looking at child-porn financially support child-molestation is bogus in the modern world.

Really? Are you saying newspaper reports of child porn rings trading in kind and in cash are made up out of whole cloth? Are you claiming some sort of conspiracy theory here, and if so what would be the motivation to make up these cases?


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

Nope (3.00 / 3) (#327)
by dh003i on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:35:57 PM EST

I don't know, but the adult porn business is huge, despite the fact that you can get porn for free on the net. So your argument kind of falls apart.

This doesn't prove that most porn isn't obtained for free.  Maybe the adult porn business makes billions by selling millions of porn videos and images.  But there are billions -- perhaps even trillions -- of porn videos and images downloaded off the internet for free, some of them legal to download, others not.  THe legality of it is irrelevant:  the point is, most porn is obtained for free.

Uhhhh... you have done such searches? You may be breaking the law by doing so.

Again, missing the point.  The point is, this stuff can be obtained for free from Kazaa, Google, or Newsgroups.  The vast majority of porn people look at in the modern era -- at least in the computeristic US -- is for free.

Really? Are you saying newspaper reports of child porn rings trading in kind and in cash are made up out of whole cloth? Are you claiming some sort of conspiracy theory here, and if so what would be the motivation to make up these cases?

No, I'm not claiming there's some kind of witch-hunt conspiracy.  I'm suggesting that child-molesters don't molest children for money:  they do it because they're sick evil fucks.  I'm suggesting that, while a few people pay for child porn, the vast majority of it is obtained for free:  why pay for what you can get for free (you can't steal chid-porn because it is illegal to sell in the first place), and why leave a paper-trail?

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

Like I said before... (4.50 / 2) (#199)
by dh003i on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:37:55 PM EST

The guys who made those images and distributed them knowing they were obtained by the molestation of children are the one's who should be in jail, for child-molestation, aiding and abetting child molestation, and violation of privacy.

You can't make a legally sound case against people who look at child-porn, nor a morally sound one against them, for harming children.  For one thing, for the vast majority of child-porn on the net, you can't even come close to proving that a child was molested in the production of it, for the simple reasons I stated before.  Child nudity is not necessarily child porn.  Child porn can be manufactured from adult porn and child-nudity using simple programs like Adobe Photoshop.  The example you pointed out of a child with an adults penis in his mouth?   That's easy to create from nothing.  Picture of head of a child with mouth agap.  Nothing particularly bothersome there.  Picture of adult woman sucking man's dick, with mouth agap in about the same way.  Select penis with Photoshop, move to picture of girl.  Use clone  and other simple tools to make it look legit.  Presto, you have a picture of a child sucking a man's  penis.  There may be reasons why this could and should be illegal, such as defamation of that child by inappropriately using their image, but it hardly constitutes child-molestation or anything close to it.  If you want more flexibility, you can use a 3D program like Poser to make something from scratch and make it look photorealistic.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

You have stated (3.00 / 1) (#211)
by tzigane on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 04:43:19 PM EST

it too well. I am in tears.

   
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Embarrassing records (4.00 / 2) (#317)
by Sloppy on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:06:37 PM EST

Doesn't your argument apply to a recording of just about anything that happens to be humiliating? By that logic, pictures/video of any rape or assault or battery or maybe even con games, should be prohibited by law. Perhaps even murders, if you consider people close to the murder victims to be victims themselves. People want to put crimes against them behind them, but the records make it harder for them to go on with their lives.

But this one type of crime is a special case? Special cases tend to invite suspicion
"RSA, 2048, seeks sexy young entropic lover, for several clock cycles of prime passion..."
[ Parent ]

Pictures of sexual (4.50 / 2) (#318)
by tzigane on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:23:19 PM EST

crimes are probably the most degrading thing that can be floating around out there.

How would you feel if you saw a picture of yourself being anally raped at 8 years old? First imagine what that rape might feel like, then imagine it being photographed. Now imagine how you'd feel if you saw that picture in some public place. The Internet is a public place.

Pictures of victims of a con artist might be humiliating, pictures of an assault would be painful. Neither of those comes close to what a rape victim or survivor feels when images of their violated bodies are placed out there for anyone to wank at.

 
Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann
[ Parent ]

Production of child pornography. (none / 0) (#343)
by haflinger on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 08:56:23 PM EST

Most child pornography is produced without the involvement of children. A lot of it consists either of adults, or teenagers, dressed up to look like children, or things like stories and stuff which pedophiles write.

This isn't meant as a justification of it, BTW. I'm just trying to supply useful facts. ;)

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

no over-reaction (4.66 / 3) (#243)
by Lochin Rabbar on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:24:46 PM EST

There is a big difference between (say) fantasizing about something (which images may assist, and ultimately prevent from becoming an actuality) and actually doing it. Fantasizing about having sex with children is harmless. Actually molesting children is harmful.

It's amazing to me how some people can not understand the difference between thinking about something (or fantasizing about it) and actually doing it.

You may believe that you can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, but can your brain. Does the brain differentiate between a real stimulus and an imagined one? The answer is probably no, however counterintuative that may seem.

Consider the phenomenon of mental rehearsal a technique commonly used by professional athletes amongst others. Building a skill involves overlearning, repeating an action until it becomes automatic and fluid. This process can be speeded by the learner imagining themselves performing the action in detail and doing so perfectly. This technique can be extended to imagining oneself performing in pressure situations, and can be used to overcome phobias. How does this process work, simple the brain reacts to imagined stimuli the same way it reacts to external stimuli, by adapting or learning.

Now consider a man masturbating to child pornography, and consider what he is thinking about at the time. You then have all the ingredients needed for both classical and operant condition. The classical conditioning leading sexual arousal given the stimulus of a child, and the operant conditioning leading to a behaviour pattern.

Next consider habituation, put simply habituation is a phenomenon where repeated exposure to a stimulus will lead to a lessened reaction to that stimulus. In order to get the same reaction to a stimulus it is necessary to either find a new stimulus or to increase the intensity of a given stimulus. This may be linked to the common pattern of escalation found in sexual offenders, the graduation from fantasy, to flashing to rape for example.

It is usual for sexual offender to have large collections of pornography, and child serious child abusers will typically have large collections of child pornography. This does not suggest that pornography prevents child abuse. Wanking off to pornography may relieve immediate sexual tension but it does lead to moderation of behaviour. Studies indicate that the opposite may be the case.

This is not to say that every man who looks at child pornography will go on to physically abuse children, but but it does increase the likelyhood that he will. Child pornography is dangerous not only are children harmed in the making of it, but its consumption does contribute to the harm of other children. The procurement of such materials is a crime and rightly so.
--

"Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Prize", - Tom Lehrer
[ Parent ]

Bullshit (1.50 / 2) (#268)
by dh003i on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 10:37:53 PM EST

It is just as reasonable to say that access to child pornography prevents child-molestation, by providing a harmless outlet to a potentially harmful desire.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

Really? (4.33 / 3) (#314)
by Lochin Rabbar on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:45:48 PM EST

It is just as reasonable to say that access to child pornography prevents child-molestation, by providing a harmless outlet to a potentially harmful desire.

Then provide a reasoned argument with supporting evidence to support that assertion, or at least provide some sort of informed critique of my argument.

FWIW I believe the argument that a man needs to have some outlet for his sexual frustrations, be it pornography or prostitution, is bogus and self serving. As a male I find the implication that I have no control over my actions just because I have a dick offensive. Possession of a dick is not an excuse for being one.
--

"Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Prize", - Tom Lehrer
[ Parent ]

Things get very complicated very fast (2.66 / 3) (#321)
by levesque on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 08:07:57 PM EST

What are the unconditionned stimulie and responce used for your example of classical conditioning. Following that what are the variables of your operant example.

The ability to control/not control behaviour is a ratio between stimulie forces and behaviour controls, these are not constants, in the general population they follow normal distribution curves. I don't think this implies that you have no control over certain drives in certain situations.

I think the factors that bring a person to "self conditionning" must be addressed if a relevant reduction/prevention theory of child molestation can be elaborated.

[ Parent ]

They do indeed. (none / 0) (#354)
by Lochin Rabbar on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 10:10:29 PM EST

What are the unconditionned stimulie and responce used for your example of classical conditioning. Following that what are the variables of your operant example.

In the case of classical conditioning the US, in the first instance, could be the image of the naked child, and the response sexual arousal. The CS (conditioned stimulus) could be the image of something being done to the child, the pose, or even the event of opening the picture in a viewer or browser. The last one is quite interesting because it represents arousal occurring in the absense of any overt sexual stimulus, and like any CS it can become a US. Then the CS would be any image that happened to appear. Of course, the more a person indulged in such activities the more likely such learning will happen and the more established any CS will become.

With operant conditioning the most obvious variable is the reward of orgasm. Given that the intensity of orgasm can vary from mundane to highly pleasurable makes it quite an effective reward for operant conditioning, because it is unpredictable. The learned behaviour would be the behaviour being fantasised about.

The ability to control/not control behaviour is a ratio between stimulie forces and behaviour controls, these are not constants, in the general population they follow normal distribution curves. I don't think this implies that you have no control over certain drives in certain situations.

What about individuals with frontal lobe trauma where an individuals ability to direct their behaviour can be severely reduced? Given that many pedophiles were themselves victims of abuse it might be the case that such traumas are more prevalent than in the general population.
--

"Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Prize", - Tom Lehrer
[ Parent ]

I tire of this (5.00 / 1) (#355)
by dh003i on Sun Jan 19, 2003 at 12:48:51 AM EST

Human beings are not laboratory animals, and I tire of people speaking about them as if they are.

People are responsible for their own actions.  Looking at child pornography -- or reading it -- doesn't force anyone to go out and rape children.  That's their own personal choice, and child-porn isn't going to change their tendency to do or not to do something.

The idea that looking at child porn makes people more likely to rape children is absurd.  By that logic, looking at pictures of the concentration camp massacres would make one more likely to commit genocite, or looking at pictures of murdered individuals would make one more likely to commit murder.  Absurd.

There is no evidence what-so-ever to suggest that looking at child porn makes people likely to rape children.  People cite studies that say that all child-molesters have looked at child porn, which is meaningless.  Obviously, those who molest children will want to look at child porn.  That doesn't mean that child-porn made them child-rapists, nor does it mean that any significant percentage of those who look at child porn later go on to rape children.

These types of arguments against child porn run into constitutional problems under free-speach anyways, because even if they were true, they'd also apply for "child-porn" which is manufactured by computer programs, and stories which were made up.  Banning such -- as the USSC ruled -- would violate free speech.

The only real arguments to be made here are that those who distribute child porn knowing that it was made via the rape of children should be put in jail, for several reasons:  (1) They violated the privacy of that child; (2) Their actions amount to effectively raping that child again; (3) They knew that a serious crime was committed against a child, yet did not notify the authorities, thus are an accessory to the crime; (4) They did all this knowingly.  The right to free speech can only be abridged when another equally important right is at stake:  the right of children who are victims of rape to privacy.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

And btw (1.33 / 3) (#269)
by dh003i on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 10:40:12 PM EST

Btw, none of your theoretical hypothetical arguments justify arresting 1,300 people and imprisoning them for an activity that is in itself harmless.  Looking at -- or storing -- child pornographic pictures harms no-one in and of itself.  You don't get to arrest people because the actions they're currently doing might make them more likely to commit a crime.  If that were the case, you'd be justified in arresting anyone who plays the latest gore video game, like Blade of Darkness.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

Some perspective (3.66 / 3) (#315)
by Lochin Rabbar on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 06:09:29 PM EST

Drunk driving harms no one in and of itself it merely increases the likelihood that the driver will commit an act that does do harm. Such behaviour is because prohibiting it will lead to an overall decrease in the number of road fatalities. It's a trade off the right of the individual to indulge in a certain kind of behaviour against public safety.

I have argued that indulging in child pornography leads ro an increased likelihood of actual child molestation. Which is more important the right of an adult to masturbatory aids, or the right of a child to go unmolested.
--

"Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Prize", - Tom Lehrer
[ Parent ]

Please (3.60 / 5) (#325)
by dh003i on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:27:31 PM EST

Your argument is complete non-sense.  Drinking then driving makes EVERYONE -- anyone who does it -- a poorer driver, thus necessarily increasing the likelihood of resultant deaths for everyone who drives while drunk.  Not the same for child pornography, and even for cases where it is so, looking at child porn isn't what causes molestation.  Looking at child pornography does not make one a child molester.  Child molesters look at child porn.  Just because every child molester has looked at child-porn doesn't mean that every -- or even many -- who look at child porn will or are in any way likely to molest children.

This is simple logic.  A->B != B->A.  Just because all people who molest children look at child porn does not mean that all people who look at child porn molest children.  Basic logic, which should have been taught in high school math.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

Thank you for cconsidered reply. (5.00 / 1) (#352)
by Lochin Rabbar on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 11:58:37 AM EST

Your argument is complete non-sense.

Is this an improvement on 'bullshit' which is how you referred to my previous post, or do you take the two to mean the same. It seems that you frequently use the term 'bullshit' in reply to posts that you disagree with. Perhaps you should extend your vocabulary to avoid seeming so repetative. Here are a few alternative words for you to use: poppycock, tommyrot, balderdash, tripe, drivel, claptrap, bunkum, twaddle, asinine, codswallop, piffle, havers, and gibberish. If you feel uncomfortable not being crude you could always try one of the following: crap, bollocks, rubbish and trash. Anyway, now that we have established a theme for your posts let us go on and examine the on I am replying to in particular.

The most notable thing about your post is that it completely ignores the question at hand. The question was how could I justify punishing people for posession of child pornography given the premise that theory I presented on the effects of child pornography was valid. When a question takes the form given premise P how do you get conclusion Q then P is taken as a given. Criticising the answer to such a question by saying 'yes but P is not true' is not a substantial form of criticism. Now it is understandable that in reading a post in a thread a person might not fully grab the context of the thread in which the post is made. However you have no such excuse, because you set the question in the previous post.

However let us set your appalling lack of manners aside, instead let us look at the substance of your argument.

Drinking then driving makes EVERYONE -- anyone who does it -- a poorer driver, thus necessarily increasing the likelihood of resultant deaths for everyone who drives while drunk.

And my argument is masturbating to child pornography leads to a change in brain state that makes everyone who does it more likely to go on to actual child molestation. It may be only a small minority that go on to commit such acts, similarly only a small minority of drink drivers will actually go on to have accidents that kill or maim innocent bystanders. In each case the act is prohibited not because of the particular actual consequences, but because of the potential consequences that may occur. The law is used proactively to minimise the risk of potential consequences, and not merely to punish retroactively for actual consequences.

Not the same for child pornography, and even for cases where it is so, looking at child porn isn't what causes molestation.

I haven't claimed looking at child pornography is the cause of child molestation. What I have claimed is that masturbation with child pornography as a stimulus may be a contributory factor to child molestation. You're setting up a straw man here.

Looking at child pornography does not make one a child molester.

Correct, one may look at child pornography in the course of research, by accident, or as a sexual stimulus. It is the third of these possibilities that is of interest here, and doing that makes one a pedophile. The question at hand is does allowing pedophiles access to child pornography increase the risk of child molestation, and if it does is it better to restrict that freedom or to endure a higher incidence of child molestation.

Child molesters look at child porn. Just because every child molester has looked at child-porn doesn't mean that every -- or even many -- who look at child porn will or are in any way likely to molest children.

Not only have you set up a straw man, you have resorted to outright misrepresentation to do so. In my original post I stated, "This is not to say that every man who looks at child pornography will go on to physically abuse children, but but it does increase the likelyhood that he will." Did you actually read the post before responding to it? So now you go on to knock down your straw man.

This is simple logic. A->B != B->A. Just because all people who molest children look at child porn does not mean that all people who look at child porn molest children. Basic logic, which should have been taught in high school math.

Simple deductive logic, aplied to a straw man. No one has claimed that all people who look at child porn molest children. What has been claimed is that your claim that "fantasizing about having sex with children is harmless," because in at least some cases such fantasising is a precursor to the actual act, and that indulging in such fantasies may prevent child molestation occurring. You were given an argument that used inductive logic to demonstrate that your claim was highly probably false. Perhaps you should have payed more attention to the poor teacher that was trying to teach you logic.
--

"Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Prize", - Tom Lehrer
[ Parent ]

It's been said before, and I'll say it again... (3.20 / 10) (#81)
by Imperfect on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:42:29 AM EST

There's far too much focus here on the symptoms, and not nearly enough on the cause. People wanking to 12-year-old girls? Well maybe that's because 12-year-old girls are running around dressed in clothing that would make Christina Aguilara blush.

Also, something that hasn't been said: We in North America are far, far too paranoid and bass-ackwards in how we raise our children to regard sex. Our televisions tell us it's the best thing in the world, while our parents tell us to never, ever do it. WTF? Our national attitude towards sex is more harmful than the paedophiles, because that's what continues to encourage them!

So condemn them, sure. Punish them, sure. But never, ever act surprised.

Not perfect, not quite.
Kiddy porn (4.42 / 7) (#91)
by Bios_Hakr on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:20:18 AM EST

Kiddy porn is not wanking off to a 12yo dressed like a ripe 19yo.  Kiddy porn is wanking off to a 12yo dressed like a 10yo.

Imagine telling a 40yo man that he shouldn't find 18yo girls attractive.  Unless he is gay, you can't do it.  Now, how about a 17yo girl?  16?  14?  Even a 12yo dressed in sexy clothing (provided she has the right parts) will turn on any man.  That is the way that the human mind works.

The broken human mind tells the same guy that a 12yo girl (without the right parts) dressed in conservative clothes is sexy.

I couldn't even imagine what would make a 40yo man attracted to a 2yo girl.  I mean, WTF?


[ Parent ]

Yep. (4.25 / 4) (#136)
by valeko on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:58:46 AM EST

A) Even a 12yo dressed in sexy clothing (provided she has the right parts) will turn on any man.

B) I couldn't even imagine what would make a 40yo man attracted to a 2yo girl. I mean, WTF?

Yet incredibly, our child pornography statutes are entirely blind to this difference. 15 year old, 2 year old ... same thing??

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Yes (5.00 / 2) (#234)
by jman11 on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 06:46:36 PM EST

That is why sentencing is discretionary.  The charge is merely a, usually, broad definition of an act, it does not dictate the severity.

The result of this is that while the laws enacted are the same there is still a difference in severity.  To create a different crime for every grade of act is ludicrous.

Although we could have:
  - It's not really kiddie porn, but technically (15 yr old who looks 20).
  - Bad, but not too bad (12-15 year olds who don't look 20).
  - Badness, 5-12 year olds.
  - WTF? 0-4 year olds.

[ Parent ]

Hmm. (none / 0) (#342)
by valeko on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 08:31:22 PM EST

The result of this is that while the laws enacted are the same there is still a difference in severity.

I'm not so sure. Pictures of a 16 year old are as much "kiddie porn" as pictures of a 12 or 5 year old, and it would seem to me that you get put in the slammer (or on crippling lockdown) regardless.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

No, kiddy porn is... (1.00 / 2) (#219)
by Demiurge on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:19:34 PM EST

wanking off to a 12 year old, whether she's dressed like Britney Spears or the Pope.

[ Parent ]
WHAT? (4.00 / 1) (#230)
by OneWord on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 06:18:46 PM EST

Huh? Child porn is wanking off to a 12 year old? Huh? Shit, I had thought it was pictures or other media showing children under the age of consent involved in sexual activities. Go figure.

[ Parent ]
umm... (4.00 / 1) (#101)
by Baldwin atomic on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:30:43 AM EST

that old "if they don't want it, they shouldn't dress like that" is BS, don't even think of using it as justification.

I do agree with the second half of your post though, our societies (Australia is the same) are way too conservative about sex education.



=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Opinions not necessarily those of the author.
[ Parent ]
I don't know about you, but... (3.50 / 4) (#116)
by dipipanone on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:28:19 AM EST

The sight of a 12 year old kid dressed like Christina Aguilira doesn't actually make me want to rush into a quiet corner somewhere and jerk off -- any more than previous generations of 12 year olds who played at dressing up in mommy's clothes did.

But shit, look at those new born babies, flaunting themselves naked on bearskin rugs? It's no wonder some men try to split them in two, teasing us in that way. As mature adult men, we're completely unable to control any thoughts or impulses we have, and so if we should happen to rape a neonate, it's quite obvious that the infant is to blame.

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
I said that wrong (none / 0) (#357)
by Imperfect on Mon Jan 20, 2003 at 04:42:23 AM EST

I've been over this countless times with countless people, so when I re-hash it I sometimes leave parts out in my haste to get to the good part of the argument. My bad.

The second part should have come first, as it is integrily tied to the whole "12-year-olds dressing up as sluts" thing. The problem is that our society encourages that kind of thing in the media. It is portrayed as correct that young girls should look, act, and be sexual. Then they go out and do just that. And people wonder why older men start finding that attractive? It's because the media and society portrayed by that media have told them it's alright. I mean, look at these commercials.

Blah, I'd explain myself better now if it weren't 5am at night and there were more of a hope that someone would read this later.

Not perfect, not quite.
[ Parent ]
Too many witches (3.75 / 8) (#95)
by Blarney on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:52:30 AM EST

The numbers here are outrageous and don't pass the bullshit sniff test. They picked up 1500 people - that's way more than there could possibly be. Being sexually attracted to children is a rare disorder, but listening to this you'd think that there was some baby-molesting bastard living on every block. It's a witch hunt. How many of these "pictures" are actually pictures of abused children that were intentionally downloaded and stored in order to obtain sexual gratification? I don't know. How many Satanic cults are currently sacrificing babies to their dark god in the United States? I remember a time when respectable newspapers would claim hundreds. The real number? Most likely NONE then and now.

The obvious thing that has happened here is that some government operative planted some pictures of prepubescent children being sexually abused on various websites and newsgroups, seized the logs (under threat of charging some sysop with abetting), and arrested every person who could be traced to any credit card order form or IP address associated with the transfer of this "illegal" file. Now the "suspects" get to troop in to court and massively plead to slightly reduced sentences in order to avoid facing a jury bent on delivering mob justice. It's a fishing expedition, done with an electronic fish finder. Lots of convictions, agency looks good, more funding next year pat on the back good job ---- and how many pictures were pulled down by scripts or Usenet clients, filed away, and never looked at again? How many were deliberately deleted when people found what they were, only to be "recovered" by police scanning the unused sectors of the hard drive for the sequence of bytes that they already knew was there?

The "child porn" laws are bad laws because they are broad - deliberately so. Do they draw a distinction between a guy who has a rack of CDs labeled by age, race, and type of sexual act and between a pornhound with one blurry picture that might be a 12-year old girl mixed in with thousands of normal pornographic pictures? Can these laws differentiate between a high school girl in a short low-cut prom dress, the "cute" baby pictures of herself that my psycho ex keeps on Geocities, or nude photos someone took of his 17-year old wife - and a child being raped? I don't think they can and I don't think this is an accident. Some people want a witchhunt - they always do. Always the same reasons. Every day another Salem happens somewhere.

It's a sad day for England. I hope Townshend gets away.

Being sexually attracted to children (none / 0) (#96)
by OneWord on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:54:33 AM EST

What makes you think it is such a rare thing?


[ Parent ]
Why it must be rare (4.14 / 7) (#105)
by Blarney on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:19:31 AM EST

First of all, it's rare because there just aren't enough grown men who regularly have sex with young teenage girls. Think about just what men will go through to get laid - presents, lies, painfully rehearsed charming anecdotes - these would all work much more easily on a sweet young child then on a mature woman who knows all the tricks. The law is pointless - no horny man will let the police, an angry father, a jealous violent boyfriend, or anything else deter him from what he is programmed to need. Yet men chase after women their own age the vast majority of the time - why? Well, I think most of us prefer to, are biologically designed to.

All this fuss about Internet, Internet child molesters. Get real. If you're hanging out in #littlegirlsex channel, you're not talking to any actual children and you already know that. Just fellow pervs fantasizing with you, and the occasional cop who wants to spoil your fun with a nice long jail sentence locked up with people who want to murder you for being a perv. Want to meet children? Go to the damned mall. Ever see pedos enticing preteen girls at the mall? No? That's because they're rare. If they weren't you'd see them there every time.

Secondly, I just can't believe in a world where these desires are so common. We all know that police fail miserably at preventing "victimless" crimes like downloading pornography - look at how well marijuana prohibition is going. If the British police arrested 1300 on their first major Internet child porn sting, and if these arrests were actually justified, you'd expect that millions of British people had collections of child pornography on their home computers. That doesn't seem reasonable to me - and if it seems reasonable to you, then you've swallowed the lie already so go and get your torches and pitchforks, it's witch burning time.

[ Parent ]

Not rare disorder, its universal (5.00 / 2) (#108)
by StephenThompson on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:51:03 AM EST

I have never met a man who is not attracted to 17 year old girls. The legal definition and biological distinction are not even close. I think the typical age of puberty for american urban girls is 12 or 13 now. If you mean "pre-pubescent' children then the numbers are lower, but I doubt so low as to be rare even compoared to homosexuality.

[ Parent ]
Not the same thing at all. (5.00 / 3) (#128)
by it certainly is on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:36:17 AM EST

I can't speak for fucked-up Yank laws that don't let you have sex until 2 years after you do, and don't let you drink alcohol until about 8 years after you do, yet let you have your gun at 9 and your car at 15 (15! What 15 year old actually needs a car? Don't they have buses or parents to get junior to school? It's just a ploy by car manufacturers to sell their cars to candy-eating kids. Same with SUVs -- nobody needs one, but advertising has manufactured a national desire for them. But i digress.)

However, there's a difference between fancying "jail-bait", you know, sexy girls with breasts, hairy snatch, etc., and paedophillia. Whatever the state decides is a "child" cut-off age -- 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, etc., has nothing to do with whether you're a paedophile or not. I'll agree with you if you're saying that people prosecuted for doing sexy jail-bait are hard done by.

But paedophillia is something quite different. It's the sexualisation of pre-sexual children. These are children who biologically don't have any sexual thoughts. These are children whose greatest pleasure is their doll house or their train set. And yet, these paedophiles lust after them. This is what's wrong. And I very much doubt that 1 in 10 men are paedophiles. At least gay men only lust after pubesent or post-pubesent men.

Actually, the number of paedophiles may be artificially inflated by kiddy-rapists. It's like prison rape -- homosexual prison rape doesn't mean the rapist is homosexual, it just means he likes rape. Rape is power, not sexuality. Not all kiddy rapists are going to be actual paedophiles.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

children and sexual thoughts (5.00 / 2) (#141)
by truffle on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 08:41:48 AM EST

We like to pretend that pre-pubescent children don't have sexual thoughts, but they do. What they don't have is strong hormonally driven sexual desires. Kids don't play doctor because they want to grow up to be doctors.

meow
[ Parent ]

Yeah, OK. (none / 0) (#142)
by it certainly is on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 08:48:30 AM EST

I remember what I thought of Gadget Hackwrench when I was a little kid, too. I perhaps could have phrased it better. But I do remember finding porn and being quite disgusted by it when I was 8... nowadays I think it's great.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Slightly offtopic, but... (none / 0) (#271)
by damiam on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:01:12 PM EST

15! What 15 year old actually needs a car?

There are a lot of good reasons for a 15-year-old to have a car (in most states, however, they can only get a learner's permit). A lot of 15 year olds have jobs, do a lot of activities, and have busy parents. Transportation can be a major problem. On the flip side, there's no reason for a 15yo not to drive, if he/she's competent.

Personally, I think they should abolish the driving age, but make the tests a few orders os magnitude more difficult. If a 10yo is a good driver and can reach the pedals, why shouldn't they be allowed to drive?

[ Parent ]

True (5.00 / 1) (#280)
by fenix down on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:04:33 AM EST

If you live in a suburb, you really need a car. When I was 15, I was a 15 minuite drive (at least) to the closest commercial real estate (Goddamn "great place to raise children"). And it wasn't even like I had the option of an hour walk to the Chinese food/movie theater strip mall. There were no sidewalks and you had to cross a 4-lane highway to get there. If you're in Europe or you probably get trains or busses or something, but that doesn't happen in the US unless you're in a pretty big city. If you don't want to get hammered into the cement by an Envoy going 75 on a residential street, you gotta beg somebody to drive you ANYWHERE you wanna go. I'm in NJ, where I think the learning permit age is 17 or something now. That's just awful. Half these kids won't be able to drive after dark until they're in college for fuck's sake. Hmmm, inexperienced kid drivers with nearby parental supervision, or 21 year-olds geting their first car out of college with 6 months experience behind the wheel 4 years ago. Who's the genius who came up with this plan...

[ Parent ]
This is the major problem with the US. (5.00 / 1) (#285)
by it certainly is on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:54:32 AM EST

Very little of it is any use without a car. Thank your paranoia-driven parents for "living the American dream" of hiding as far away from those evil cities as they can, and thank American retailers for being so nice as to pass on the huge travel costs directly on to their customers! Just think, instead of building a retail site where people actually live, so they could easily get to it, you can build it in the middle of nowhere! Customers will come to you all the same, because your milk is 1 cent cheaper than your nearest competitor! Even though it cost them 5 cents in ridiculously cheap petrol to get to you!

So yes, it's really wrong to fuck people over by mandating they drive a car and providing no other alternatives. It's not just kids that have this problem, it's also people like blind/sight-impaired folk and the elderly. But at least they have the choice of where to live.

Anyway, in the UK, we have slightly less tolerance for kiddy car drivers - basically, if you're a man, you have to go on your parent's insurance policy until you're 24. You don't have to, but every insurance company in the country gives under-24 men an astronomical premium. Why? Because 90% of all accidents are caused by these fucking boy-racers. Hell, they can cause an accident all by themselves!

It's not inexperience that causes these accidents. Boy racers who've had their license for 2 years still cause a whole load of accidents. Women drivers, late learners and sensible young men don't cause all these accidents. It's almost certainly 100% attitude. These bastards are treating the car as some sort of amusement or toy, or like a computer game. They continually accelerate and decelerate sharply, they don't slow down on sharp bends because they're addicted to the feel of kinetic forces. They don't pay attention to others on the road, because they're too busy hooting and hollering with their equally stupid passengers. I hate them, and really think they should have their arms and legs removed so they can't drive.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

sexual abuse of children not so rare (none / 0) (#143)
by truffle on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 08:52:37 AM EST

The preponderance of child pornography on the net, given how socially unacceptably it is viewed, would seem to suggest there is a large market of persons interested in viewing pictures of child pornography. This suggests that it's not that uncommon for men to be sexually aroused by viewing these pictures. If this was a truly rare condition, the pictures wouldn't be out there.

Keep in mind in the pre-internet days it was a lot harder to access this material. How many men were out there who were not accessing it because they didn't have an easy source? It's reasoanble to expect that the introduction of an accessible source of imagery would increase the percentage of persons who access such images. The fact that the Internet is often viewed (incorrectly) as 'anonymous' and 'private' makes it even easier for men to access the stuff, as they do so with little fear of getting caught.

None of this means that the number of guys out there who are commiting sexual assault against children is on the rise. Probably most people viewing these materials are casual observers, who may be viewing morally objectionable materials, but have no intention to sexually harm a child.

meow
[ Parent ]

by this logic (none / 0) (#194)
by speek on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:14:58 PM EST

An awful lot of us must enjoy getting off to you know what. And before you say, "well, that's just one site" - that's one more than the number of child porn sites that I know of. And throughout this discussion, I've yet to see a link to one. Maybe it's just because it's illegal, and everyone on K5 are such good little boys and girls who obey the law.

Riiight.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

The Goatse.cx is just that (4.50 / 2) (#236)
by Galion on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 06:49:01 PM EST

it is _the_ picture. The FBI Operation Wonderland was a club that people could sign up to if they had a minimum of 10000 pictures. A lot of people were arrested as a result of this operation. Now it's fair to say that if that was the minimum, there were a large amount with more than that and probably a small amount with loads more (these are just guesses). So that's a hell of a lot more than that _one_ picture of some old guy's asshole.

[ Parent ]
and yet (5.00 / 1) (#254)
by speek on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 08:16:39 PM EST

Still no links. Still no pictures that I've seen. These days, I don't believe anything that no one can show me, sorry. I've seen far too much misdirection and outright lying to be convinced by words alone. Maybe those 10000 pictures weren't distributed by the FBI in the first place, but I doubt it. And maybe they're "all over the internet", but I've yet to see one.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

have you looked for any ? [nt] (none / 0) (#265)
by zzzeek on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 09:51:01 PM EST



[ Parent ]
of course not (none / 0) (#276)
by speek on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:27:36 PM EST

But there's lots of stuff I've run across I never looked for. Never any child porn.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

I guess lots of things dont exist then (none / 0) (#301)
by zzzeek on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 11:06:00 AM EST

considering those of us who have had kiddie porn stuff pop up on our PC's are not to be believed by you, and we are certainly not going to store the stuff and email it to you as proof, and you are not going to seek it out, it seems things are much more simple when you decide they dont exist.

[ Parent ]
describe it (none / 0) (#303)
by speek on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:03:57 PM EST

What have you seen?

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

kids in the 12-13 range posing nude [nt] (none / 0) (#305)
by zzzeek on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:45:31 PM EST



[ Parent ]
You're like the (4.00 / 1) (#304)
by Galion on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 12:23:58 PM EST

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, ff you don't see it, it doesn't exist ;)

How about you do what a previous poster did and just _try_ and look at see how quickly you find stuff. He got non-nude in 3-5 clicks, you could probably get stuff off kazaa faster.

[ Parent ]

it's a balancing act (4.00 / 1) (#307)
by speek on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 02:10:13 PM EST

between believing everything everyone tells you and only believing what you see for yourself. I do tend more toward the latter, admittedly, but I'm not as extreme as you would like to think. I've read a bit on the subject, so I have some basis for my skepticism here. Project Avalanche was a project based on the cracking of a single web site, from which 250,000 people's names were mined, including 7,200 from England. I don't deny the stuff exists - I question how prevalent it is, how easy is it really to find, how old the material is (a lot dates back to the 60's), and how many of those 250,000 really thought they were getting pre-pubescent porn.

I don't believe in UFO's either. I know. Stupid bastard.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

OK (4.00 / 1) (#309)
by Galion on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:32:53 PM EST

I judged you wrong, but you have explained your POV better here. Now I would agree more with you, it's true (from what I've read anyway) that a lot of stuff is very old and very common, but there is still new stuff being made.

I have also done a fair amount of reading on the subject, as it is a Big Thing in my country, so there's a lot of lies flying around.

I don't believe in UFO's either. So I guess we're both stupid bastards.

[ Parent ]

KaZaa Lite, my friend [nt] (2.00 / 1) (#272)
by damiam on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:02:40 PM EST



[ Parent ]
you've seen images there yourself? (nt) (2.00 / 1) (#296)
by speek on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 09:32:51 AM EST


--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Yes (3.00 / 1) (#310)
by damiam on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:15:54 PM EST

Turn off the filtering, type in some innocent (or not) search terms, and you'll see all kinds of stuff you never wanted to know existed.

[ Parent ]
Paedophilia and Witchcraft (4.00 / 6) (#99)
by hughk on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:28:29 AM EST

Every age has its demons, and those demons are used by public figures for their own good. It is right to be concerned for the protection of the child, however this is really, really going too far.

In recent times we have seen a paediatrician being accused of paedophilia, no not because the doctor was inappropriately interested in her patients but because some idiots didn'nt know the difference.

A controversial British TV program Brasseye satirised this behaviour. However the UK and the US seem to be leading the world in the hype. Other countries such as Belgium seem to be less bothered.

Like witchcraft, once accused, there is nothing you can say under the rack of public opinion. The best you can do is to confess all and accuse as many others as possible. All it needs are a few words like "lolitas" or images of children and you will have trouble (I have heard even swimsuits may be problematic).

It would be a little sad if you had a Russian girlfriend with whom you were corresponding via Email who happened to be called "Lolita". It is a normal name there but could lead to some misunderstandings.

Most sexual abuse continues to happen within the family, not by strangers. It is often known about (hard to hide a pregnant 13 year old) and the social services are stuck making a difficult decision whether or not to prosecute because of the overall effect on the family. Nowadays, they nearly always do, which itself can be a major problem.

Back to the topic, will all those 1500 users of child pornography turn into abusers? Well no, unlikely. Will a few of them, well perhaps possible. But where do we draw the line? The police have better things to do, which they are failing at, such as keeping the kids off dangerous drugs (which in turn is responsible for the high levels of youth violence and burglary in the UK).

Heh (2.00 / 1) (#114)
by gazbo on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:00:29 AM EST

But how many little girls would call themselves 'Lolita' on the intarweb? I guess the numbers would be classed as experimental error next to the hordes of FBI agents using that name.

-----
Topless, revealing, nude pics and vids of Zora Suleman! Upskirt and down blouse! Cleavage!
Hardcore ZORA SULEMAN pics!

[ Parent ]

The dimunitive is Lola... (4.00 / 2) (#124)
by hughk on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:01:28 AM EST

Russians often use nicknames, for example Irina becomes Ira. Lolita becomes Lola and I met one once. It would have been kind of nice to have dated her just to say that I had been out with a "Lolita", but she was 50 and married.

[ Parent ]
Interesting (none / 0) (#170)
by Galion on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:17:12 PM EST

That you cite Belgium, the country of Marc Dutroux, as an example. OK, we don't have The News of the World with their naming & shaming, but there is an incredible hate towards paedophiles from the mob.

I can't help but think if the tabloids in England aren't contributing to/creating the hype sometimes actually, they seem to create every other mass-insanity in the UK. Anyone else think this?

[ Parent ]

Bread and circuses (none / 0) (#178)
by it certainly is on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 01:39:00 PM EST

Raising people's ire with sensationalist reporting is what sells newspapers. People have this need to hear bad news, so they can say "it ain't right!" to themselves and pretend that they're not nearly as bad as "that lot". Paedophiles, childsnatchers, rapists, gun crime, mugging old ladies, wars, bent politicians, etc. Scandal and intrigue sells like hotcakes. Ask yourself how many papers you saw with an extra "9/11 edition".

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

True (none / 0) (#224)
by Galion on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 05:33:16 PM EST

But if you look at the international press, the U.K. really shines. One that does immediately spring to mind is Germany, they have a few that are almost as bad/as bad as the English red-tops, their appetite for sex and corruption is incredible. They just love setting up straw men before burning them down in the most horrible way, and AFAIK it really is rather unique (in its extravagance).

[ Parent ]
Parents taking photos at School Plays (5.00 / 2) (#191)
by mickwd on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:59:57 PM EST

I believe there was a recent instance in the news where a school or local education authority tried to ban parents from taking pictures of their own children taking part in a school play.

The reason given was that such photos of children may be acquired by paedophiles - even though the photos obviously have no sexual nature whatsoever.

My memory is a bit hazy on the details, and I'm not sure how the issue was resolved, but I remember hearing something to the effect that parents would have had to obtain consent forms from the parents of all other children appearing in the play if they wanted to take photos.

There was a minor public outcry about this, but it shows the pressures that people who deal with children feel themselves under concerning the subject of paedophilia.


[ Parent ]

School plays (none / 0) (#197)
by notmyrealaccount on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 03:25:39 PM EST

Was only able to find this on BBC - it happened (and was overturned as I remember) in Norfolk and Edinburgh.

Norfolk ban
Edinburgh ban suspended


[ Parent ]

oh no, protect us from the paedophiles! (3.80 / 5) (#140)
by truffle on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 08:39:17 AM EST

First off, I'm sure 75% of the people accessing that Web site have an explanation as to why they were doing it other than getting off on child porn, but I'm also sure 100% of those explanations are lies.

Why lie? Because viewing sexual materials about children is viewed as one of the most socially deviant activies you can engage in. Perhaps the most socially deviant, because of the strong strong need in our culture to protect children from sexual predetors. Many people would gladly kill sexual predetors to stop them from harming children.

But what is a paedophile anyway?

Is a paedophile someone who has some form of sexual relations with a child? Is a paedophile someone who views photos of child pornography, or read fictional stories? Both these types of person would probably be called Paedophiles by most, but one directly sexually affects a child, the other observes existing material or fiction. The term is used interchangibly, because the public has no interest in recognizing them as two separate types of people. It is in the public's interest to associate one who views pornography directly with one who performs child abuse.

As a society it is reasonable for us to act to protect children, however I think we need to keep in mind that for a person to have sexual interest in children does not in and of itself make them a wrong doer. It is action not thought that marks a criminal. While one might classify sexual interest in children as an inherantly deviant line of thought, it seems to pervade humans of all cultures, which leads me to see it as another natural offset of human sexuality, which can lead to terrible acts.

In cases where a person views computer generated images, or reads fiction, it seems clear there is no harm. None the less, in Canada at least (and I presume the US) these materials are just as illegal to access and own. No child is harmed, but the thought and the access is deemed terrible enough. In this case I can not support the current laws. One can argue that harm is being none the less, as indirectly this supports child porn culture. One can argue that persons viewing this material are more likely to become paedophiles and commit sexual acts with children. This kind of tertiary thought control has no place in a free society however. Social condemnation is acceptable, but legal restriction is not.

In the case where images are viewed of a child being sexually abused, harm has happened because the child has been abused, if the viewer is then paying to access those pictures they are directly or indirectly supporting the production of the abusive images. While it seems reasonable to me that this be illegal, I believe the current laws are too strict. The reason they are strict is simple, to make serious examples of people to discourage others. I don't believe that people who view these materials should deserve an unduly severe legal punishment for this reason.

In the case where a person harms a child, I think the current legal process is just fine.

In summary, a person who is aroused by sexual material involving children, is not the same as a person who commits sexual acts with children. It is unreasonable for society to legally restrict entirely theoretical sexual expression involving children (fiction, computer generated imagery). It is reasonable to legally restrict accessing photographs, but the current laws are too strict.


meow

Supply and Demand (1.00 / 1) (#184)
by Luddite on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 02:09:19 PM EST

views computer generated images

but one directly sexually affects a child, the other observes existing material


The viewing of material on a website shows demand. Demand, especially when money is concerned, creates supply. In this case the supply is children. The less demand the better.

[ Parent ]
Less pictures/websites = less demand? (none / 0) (#206)
by valeko on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 04:17:06 PM EST

Yeah, you just keep thinking that. Making viewing child porn illegal doesn't make child porn go away, let alone deal with actual "predators."

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

No, less demand=less supply <NT> (none / 0) (#207)
by hedgefrog on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 04:26:23 PM EST



[ Parent ]
All that Glitters... (3.25 / 4) (#156)
by jd on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 11:32:09 AM EST

Although Gary Glitter didn't get much of a sentance, he's suffering much worse than anything the UK courts could apply. He's been banned from entering most countries, and has essentially become a non-national. He's become pretty much the ultimate in homelessness.

Do I pity him? Depends. I pity him for whatever caused him to become so sick, sure. But what he did was his choice, nonetheless. That he (and many others) will suffer life sentances - not from the courts but from the politicians - that can never be appealed and will likely harm any descendents, for many generations... Ah, now that is perhaps taking revenge a little too far.

If you want people to stop commiting crimes, you give them reason to stop. But if the penalty is going to be the same, whether these people stop or not... then how many are going to bother?

Then, there is the other side to all this. Thousands, if not millions, of images have been obtained by police in many countries. I can only think of one raid in recent times, mentioned on the news, that talks about the victims being found, or the originators being prosecuted.

Come on! These kids aren't invisible! There will be people who know who they are and where they are. The sooner the kids are in treatment, and the sooner the originating perps are caught, the sooner this kind of evil can be reduced from a practical epidemic to an insignificant sludge.

You can't rescue everyone, but that doesn't excuse the politicians, police and intelligence agencies from not rescuing anybody.

What bothers me... (4.57 / 7) (#164)
by Noodle on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 12:31:47 PM EST

...is that Townshend (who I think is/was a great musician and generally have a great deal of respect for) believes he has done no wrong, because he isn't a pedophile.

Correct me if I am in error, but it is not illegal to be a pedophile.  What is criminal is the possession or creation of child pornography.

I actually hope Townshend is prosecuted and found guilty.  Because if he isn't, it would indicate that the crackdown on child porn in the UK is actually a witch-hunt for pedophiles.  Which would be a very scary thing.

{The Nefarious Noodle}

Don't touch the potato. (3.50 / 2) (#241)
by sllort on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 07:17:01 PM EST

"What is criminal is the possession or creation of child pornography."

Will the FBI be prosecuted as well for posessing a sting web site which contained child pornography?

And if not, what makes them exempt? The fact that they are hunting the pornographers? In that case, why isn't Pete exempt?

I guess he wasn't licensed to ill.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
Legal != "done no wrong" (5.00 / 2) (#263)
by damiam on Tue Jan 14, 2003 at 09:44:50 PM EST

Legally, you're right. However, he doesn't say it was legal, he says it was "not wrong." I see no reason why it necessarily wrong to possess kiddy porn, as long as you aren't influenced by it. However, I do think it is wrong to abuse children.

If he possessed kiddy porn, and that's illegal, then he violated the law and will be punished if the system works properly. That doesn't necessarily mean what he did was wrong.

[ Parent ]

Harm (5.00 / 2) (#287)
by djotto on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:56:55 AM EST

I see no reason why it necessarily wrong to possess kiddy porn

I used to think like that, but consider: Imagine you're the grown-up survivor of a photo session. How would you feel, knowing your image was still out there, being collected and traded? It's a continuing violation. Not only that, but that those images are a type of currency, and that other children may be photographed so someone has something to trade for "your" pictures.

Fantasy material (artificially created images and text) I don't have to like, but I don't see a good argument for making them illegal to possess, as is the case in the UK.



[ Parent ]
So what? (4.50 / 2) (#294)
by valeko on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 07:55:49 AM EST

What if you are a young, perhaps illegally immigrated girl in her mid 20s, who is the survivor of four years of slavery to local organised crime/pimps, blackmail, rape, prostitution, and general abuse. You also survived quite a few photo sessions. How would you feel, knowing your images were still out there, being collected and traded and sold? It's a continuing violation.

But it's legal, no?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

Re (4.00 / 1) (#298)
by djotto on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:13:28 AM EST

You make a good argument for extending the law even further. Well done.

[ Parent ]
Maybe. (3.00 / 1) (#316)
by valeko on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 06:50:32 PM EST

But it would initiate a spiral of state tyrrany (believe me, I can take my argument and go as far as I please with it, right down to executing you for breathing air) that nobody is going to tolerate. Hence, I think the efficacy of my argument is greater for illustrating why the law should be reduced.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

By that logic (none / 0) (#347)
by gnovos on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 04:13:35 AM EST

Since murder is wrong, posessing tapes of, say, a shoot-out on the freeway, or from a bank surveilance camera or whatever should be illigal to possess?

A Haiku: "fuck you fuck you fuck/you fuck you fuck you fuck you/fuck you fuck you snow" - JChen
[ Parent ]
Re (4.00 / 3) (#348)
by djotto on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 06:00:19 AM EST

Yeah. The slippery slope argument.

Making law is about drawing a line in the sand. Shock horror, but it doesn't have to be consistent. It's a balancing act.

<snip rest of response>

I give up. Believe what you want.

[ Parent ]

Let me try this (none / 0) (#349)
by gnovos on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 06:36:17 AM EST

If you can just give me a convincing argument why child abuse is worse than murder, i'll buy... but considering death is the end of all earthly time, i'm going to have to REALLY be convinced that anything could be worse than that.

A Haiku: "fuck you fuck you fuck/you fuck you fuck you fuck you/fuck you fuck you snow" - JChen
[ Parent ]
"murder" and "child abuse" (5.00 / 1) (#350)
by djotto on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 07:27:52 AM EST

Ok, lets take two examples: touching the genitals of a sleeping baby once, and shooting someone in the stomach and watching them bleed to death. On my own personal scale of right and wrong, the second is probably the more evil act.

And another two cases: Repeatedly raping and beating a child from, say, age 6 to 15, and a doctor administering an overdose of painkiller to a terminally ill patient. This time, and again on my own purely personal scale, the first act is the worse.

My point, of course, is that humanity is all about shades of grey. The laws we make have to work in this ambiguous world - that's why we have judges, to interpret law. You can't say "x is worse than y", or "if we do a then we must do b, c and d", because that leads to bad laws.

Law is just local custom, a series of judgement calls. Our local custom says that sexual pictures of children are wrong. A picture of a murder... well, it's unpleasant but on balance we've come down on the side of freedom of the press. Like I said, it's all a balancing act.

[ Parent ]

Yeah, we would (5.00 / 2) (#351)
by John Milton on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 11:26:28 AM EST

If snuff films were real, we would certainly make it illegal to produce them. Child pornography isn't a crime accidentally caught on tape. It's a crime committed deliberately on tape for resale, trading, and personal entertainment. When people start shooting others on the highway and record it for their fellow sellers/buyers, traders, gawkers we'll have some room for comparison. There is no legitimate reason that society should tolerate someone who watches the sexual torture of a small child for entertainment. It doesn't matter if they pay for it or not.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
Well, actually... (none / 0) (#353)
by gnovos on Sat Jan 18, 2003 at 03:05:42 PM EST

Sure, holywood films aren't real, but they show lots of gruesome death and dismemberment...  pefectly legal, encouraged even.  However if they were simulated child porn, equally as fake as the previous movies, mind you, then they would be illigal.  I digress a bit from my original topic, because simulated child abuse isn't morally the same as actual child abuse, but it does speak to the skewed ethics we have.

A Haiku: "fuck you fuck you fuck/you fuck you fuck you fuck you/fuck you fuck you snow" - JChen
[ Parent ]
His Research Paper (5.00 / 3) (#284)
by ArtfulDodger on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 01:34:56 AM EST

The Smoking Gun has a copy of the research paper that he wrote on Child Pornography.

not always clear-cut (4.75 / 4) (#286)
by danny on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 02:04:54 AM EST

It would be wise to keep in mind that there is no clear-cut barrier between legal and illegal here. Heck, some 15 year olds do their best to look like they're 25 (though they sometimes apply so much makeup they look more like they're 60). And it's kind of an arbitary boundary anyway - the age of consent is lower in quite a few countries.

And even pictures of younger children naked can be perfectly innocent - here's my own example.

A few links that may be of interest:

Which is not to say that child abuse isn't a real problem, but that making possession of representations a criminal offence comes dangerously close to having "thought crimes" and needs to be done with great care - including, I would argue, a broad range of defences.

Danny.
[900 book reviews and other stuff]

Arbitrary =!=> no clear cut barrier (4.00 / 1) (#288)
by the on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 03:57:06 AM EST

I don't see any necessary connection between the age of consent being arbitrary and the barrier not being clear-cut. The clear-cutness of a barrier is independent of where you put it. It can be fuzzy and at 16 or clear-cut and at 14 or fuzzy at 21 or whatever. They are indepepndent notions.

--
The Definite Article
[ Parent ]
you're right (none / 0) (#329)
by danny on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 12:21:02 AM EST

It's actually both, I'd argue. An age limit is clear-cut but arbitrary, but the delineation between the pornographic and the non-pornographic is not at all clear-cut - it may depend on context, for one thing.

Danny.
[900 book reviews and other stuff]
[ Parent ]

research? (4.00 / 2) (#299)
by corian on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 10:36:12 AM EST

However, he claims that this was purely innocent research...

Didn't Winona Ryder already try that defense?

This Is Just Like ... (4.00 / 1) (#311)
by icastel on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 04:18:19 PM EST

... the War on Drugs. Screw the consumers and small-time offenders. But I bet the big fish will not get caught (whoever they might be).


-- I like my land flat --
This seems extremely topical right now as well. (3.66 / 3) (#313)
by amarodeeps on Wed Jan 15, 2003 at 05:37:56 PM EST

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0303/goldstein.php

Hope it is not redundant, didn't check all the other postings but I don't recall seeing anything about it on this story.



Does it matter why? (3.33 / 3) (#340)
by autopr0n on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 07:45:42 PM EST

It seems to me that the anti-kiddy porn laws are designed to kill the kiddy porn market, by punishing viewers it kills the market for kiddy porn and makes it an unprofitable criminal enterprise, which will keep people from making it, which will in turn prevent people from harming children.

If someone pays for kiddy porn, then they are subsidizing it's creation. It shouldn't matter why they downloaded it, as the law is designed to prevent kiddy porn from being made, not punish people for being perverts.


[autopr0n] got pr0n?
autopr0n.com is a categorically searchable database of porn links, updated every day (or so). no popups!
And... (none / 0) (#341)
by valeko on Thu Jan 16, 2003 at 08:27:56 PM EST

What if they don't pay for kiddie porn, but just happen to come across it?

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

5 if you meant the innuendo (none / 0) (#358)
by starsky on Mon Jan 20, 2003 at 09:25:41 AM EST

2 otherwise ;-)

[ Parent ]
Rich and Famous are above the law! (none / 0) (#346)
by gnovos on Fri Jan 17, 2003 at 04:05:10 AM EST

When will you people understand this.  He will be given a fine and sent on his way.  He will, of course, get a tabloid media deal worth fifty times the cost of the fine to talk about his harrowing ordeal.  He will then proceede to look for the "real child pornographers" on the 9th green of pebble beach.

At the same time, however, each and every sysadmin who's routers the childporn packets went through before they reached thier destination will all be summarily locked up in solitary confinement for no less that thirty years.

A Haiku: "fuck you fuck you fuck/you fuck you fuck you fuck you/fuck you fuck you snow" - JChen

Celebrity Caught Paying to Access Child Porn; Pleads "Research" | 359 comments (359 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!