Child Pornography « Sex Hysteria!

Archive for the ‘Child Pornography’ Category

U.S. Government silences 84,000 websites

Sunday, February 20th, 2011

In it ever increasing fervor to reign with supreme authority over all the communications of Americans, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recently closed down, under a secret court order, 84,000 websites using the all-powerful justification of protecting children.

Basically, among a hand full of other sites seized by ICE was mooo.com which is used to resolve the domain names of the 84,000 other websites. Until the matter was rectified, visitors to sites that use mooo.com were greeted with the following banner:

“Advertisement, distribution, transportation, receipt, and possession of child pornography constitute federal crimes that carry penalties for first time offenders of up to 30 years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, forfeiture and restitution.”

Nice work, ICE. You slandered thousands of people in the worst possible way and then have the nerve to brag about the great job you’ve done.

Anyone who thinks the United States is in some way different from any other country that wields absolute control over the internet is in for a surprise. The fact that the U.S. uses secrecy to shield itself from the public eye is ominous. There is, in fact, no way to know what the shuttered sites contain and the owners of those sites are not about to risk their legal defense by publicly refuting the government’s claims.

The mere mention of protecting children cuts the average IQ of the American public in half. Just like the 9/11 attacks had people stampeding to give up their Fourth Amendment rights, the mention of child porn has them stampeding to hand over their First Amendment protections.

The fact that this story barely gained any exposure in the mainstream media is a pretty powerful indication that the press can no longer be counted on to hold government accountable. In fact, if anything, the mainstream press is more a partner of the government than a watchdog over it.

Posted in Big Brother is Watching You, Child Pornography, Police Misconduct, Rights of the Accused, United States | 1 Comment »

Braving the limits of permissible expression

Sunday, January 23rd, 2011

In connection to MTV’s decision to tone down its new show “Skins” rather than risk prosecution under child porn laws, Solon has an interesting summary of how the participation of children mainstream imagery has tested the boundaries of expression permitted in the “land of the free”. Most of the examples will probably be familiar to you, but it’s interesting to revisit the pictures in the current environment of fear encouraged by government and the media in their perpetual pursuit of self-serving public attention.

I watched the 1978 movie “Pretty Baby” last night. While I had already seen it soon after it was released, I don’t really recall any sense of shock at its content. This time, watching it in the context of today’s paranoia that a pedophile lurks behind every tree, I sincerely doubt the movie, if released today, would have seen the inside of a theater without serious editing.

While these examples are about child nudity, U.S. Justice Department has again moved the line so as to broaden their definition of a prosecutable offense, under the term “child erotica“. Under this strategy, Alabama photographer Jeff Pierson was indicted in 2006:

In a federal indictment announced this week, the U.S. Department of Justice accused Pierson, 43, of being a child pornographer–even though even prosecutors acknowledge there’s no evidence he has ever taken a single photograph of an unclothed minor.

Rather, they argue, his models struck poses that were illegally provocative. “The images charged are not legitimate child modeling, but rather lascivious poses one would expect to see in an adult magazine,” Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the northern district of Alabama, said in a statement.

The ease with which the government can curtail free expression in the name of protecting children encourages more and more of it and, indeed, almost all internet censorship crusades worldwide currently leverage off the public’s enthusiasm to sign over their freedom in exchange for a vague promise of security for children.

Posted in Art, Censorship, Child Pornography, Movies, Nudity, Television and Radio, United States | 6 Comments »

MTV tries to steer clear of U.S. censorship laws

Thursday, January 20th, 2011

In an environment of vague U.S. censorship laws that govern what media outlets can and can’t do, MTV has decided to tone down its new show, “Skins”, rather than risk a chance that some ambitious federal prosecutor will target the network for a high profile career-making crucifixion.

They are particularly concerned about the third episode of the series, which is to be broadcast Jan. 31. In an early version, a naked 17-year-old actor is shown from behind as he runs down a street. The actor, Jesse Carere, plays Chris, a high school student whose erection — assisted by erectile dysfunction pills — is a punch line throughout the episode.

While simple nudity of minors is not outlawed by U.S. porn law,in the current environment of pedophile and child porn paranoia, state and federal governments have a history of threatening and harassing producers of material which is clearly within the bounds of what the courts consider protected expression. While its nice when corporations stand up for First Amendment rights, a business’s first obligation is to the bottom line and not to martyr itself for the cause of freedom at the expense of shareholders.

Of course, those scenes may be what attract young viewers in the first place. Jessica Bennett, a senior writer for Newsweek, wrote last week, “ ‘Skins’ may be the most realistic show on television.”

If there’s any thing you don’t want children exposed to, it’s realism.

It is unclear when MTV first realized that the show may be vulnerable to child pornography charges. On Tuesday, a flurry of meetings took place at the network’s headquarters in New York, according to an executive who attended some of the meetings and spoke only on the condition of anonymity. In one of the meetings, the executives wondered aloud who could possibly face criminal prosecution and jail time if the episodes were broadcast without changes.

Of course, what makes this interesting is that MTV has no clue whether they would be breaking the law or not. The laws are so subjective that no one can know what constitutes a violation in advance. The first chance you get to know that you’re breaking the law is when you’re tried and convicted. So the solution is to steer clear of anything that might excite some self-serving over-zealous prosecutor who sees high profile sex crime prosecutions as a pathway to higher political office.

Posted in Censorship, Child Pornography, Television and Radio | 6 Comments »

Pedobear Fashion

Friday, January 7th, 2011

For those who aren’t familiar with this cute character, Pedobear was an invention of 4chan forum posters who used it to mock people interested in sexually suggestive pictures of children. I wrote about Pedobear back in September when the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department issued a moronic warning equating he character to a cartoon pedophile.

For you Pedobear fans, a website called Catch Kuma is selling a Pedobear hat. Is this the beginning of a new cartoon icon? Will we soon be seeing Pedobear on Saturday morning cartoons eventually leading to a feature length animated production? How about a theme park called Pedobearland (west coast) or Pedobear World (east coast)? Only time will tell.

Thanks to Sex Hysteria reader Erick for the heads up.

Posted in Child Pornography, Humor, Paranoia, Pedophilia | Comments Off

Will inernet censorship lead to censorship?

Tuesday, December 21st, 2010

That basically sums up what this article is asking:

Will ‘Porn Lock’ in UK and France Lead to Internet Censorship?

It epitomizes the logic in people’s minds that it isn’t censorship if it only targets bad stuff.

The most frightening aspect of the current torrent of internet censorship proposals, coming from countries that supposedly espouse free speech, is the near vacuum of opposition coming from the mainstream press. There is no doubt that the traditional media see the uncontrolled internet free-for-all as a threat to their very existence. In a world where every industry has learned how to harness the power of government to tip the balance in their favor, it would be no surprise that the major media would look to government for protection from their biggest competitor.

Of course, the government can’t help unless it has control. And, just as certain as the sun will rise tomorrow, eventually government will control the internet as they already control every other industry. Does anyone really believe the internet is going to be the one single exception?

Posted in Censorship, Child Pornography, France, Pornography, United Kingdom | Comments Off

Supercomputer watches as you surf the web

Monday, December 13th, 2010

What task could possibly be more important for America’s most powerful computer than to watch over your shoulder as you surf the web just in case you’re transmitting kiddie porn (or maybe something else the government doesn’t like)?

According to the Daily Mail:

The most powerful computer in America is being used in the hunt for paedophiles.

The Jaguar supercomputer, which can carry out trillions of calculations a second, has been put to use help track down people who send child porn over the internet.

Scientists at the Oak Ridge Facility in Tennessee have been able to use the lightning fast supercomputer to find where the vile images originate from.

The article goes on to explain that law enforcement can easily find those who possess child porn, but have a hard time finding the source of the material. To the government and anti-porn crusaders, simple possession is as great an evil as producing the material even though only the latter actually abuses children. But, since arrests on possession are much easier to score (thanks to sting tactics) and prosecute, that’s where the resources or assigned.

The lead investigator on the project at Oak Ridge, Robert Patton, has developed algorithms that analyse traffic, looking at the search terms people are using on peer-to-peer, file-sharing networks.

Search terms that indicate someone is looking for child porn are flagged, and the algorithm watches to see how different IP addresses respond to the queries.

It’s not like there are any Fourth Amendment issues involved in wading through everyone’s internet activities hoping to find a crime they can pin on someone. Of course, maybe the computer is already monitoring everything we do on the internet and this simply amounts to one more screening algorithm. One thing is for certain. Nothing generates a rush to give up Constitutional protections like the claim that it’s to protect children.

‘ We want to be able to say ‘Hey, of all of the data you’re looking at right now, here are a handful of IP addresses that you should investigate further.

‘Hopefully, the work that I’m doing here will help save somebody’s life.’

Probably not. More likely is that will lead to another high profile prosecution for the creation of cartoons (like Japanese anime or the Simpsons) that the government doesn’t approve, but which don’t hurt any children.

Probably just discussing child porn probably gets their attention…

Posted in Big Brother is Watching You, Child Pornography, Tennessee | 7 Comments »

Innocent man kills himself after child porn raid

Sunday, December 5th, 2010

In the current climate of child sex abuse hysteria, even the mere suspicion of being involved with child porn can destroy someone’s life and wreck their family. When it comes to children, the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is dispensed with in favor of the lynch mob mentality. And, when it comes to “saving children” even a vague hint of suspicion is all it takes to set the wheels of “justice” in motion.

Such was apparently the case with a UK man, Michael Curtis:

A grandfather gassed himself just hours after child porn police raided his home – even though he was innocent.

Last night his widow launched a bitter attack on the police after hearing at an inquest how detectives who seized his computers found nothing illegal.

Michael Curtis’s home was raided and three laptop computers seized after intelligence led officers to his address after he stumbled upon one indecent picture and viewed it for a matter of seconds.

And what was it that led the cops to invade his house and seize three computer belonging to Mr Curtis? What evidence made him a danger to society that warranted such action?

Detective Sergeant Howard Berry told the coroner: ‘There was no evidence but there was intelligence. Police in Luxembourg traced access to the website to the address.

‘A picture had been viewed which was of an illegal nature. Intelligence came to police through international channels. Then there was a decision to investigate further and the warrant was issued.’

Although the article doesn’t say, it would come as no surprise to most people if the so-called “intelligence” was derived from law enforcement’s new best friend in the war against sex and drugs: the sting.

Mrs Curtis described the raid and questioned the competency of law enforcement :

‘The police when they turned up to the house treated him like he was guilty and treated him exactly like they would a convicted paedophile.

‘I don’t understand how accidently looking at one single picture for a matter of seconds in March 2009 has filtered down into an investigation in July 2010.

‘They must have known he didn’t look at any other pictures or visited any other website afterwards. Surely they can come to the conclusion he stumbled upon it?

Mrs. Curtis makes a common mistake. She assumes cops and prosecutors are interested in evidence of innocence. They are not. They are interested in the only two things by which they are judged: arrests and convictions. They love prosecuting sex crimes that can be tied to children. They are career makers and the public worships them for it. After all, there is no such thing as being too aggressive when it comes to protecting children. And if a few innocents get chewed up in the gears, it’s no big deal. People are always willing to sacrifice someone else in the name of making kids safe. Unfortunately, as I already spelled out here and here, prosecuting child porn possession doesn’t make anyone safer.

Much appreciation to reader, Richard for posting a link to this story in a comment.

Posted in Child Pornography, United Kingdom | 7 Comments »

The case against child porn possession laws

Friday, December 3rd, 2010

Yesterday, I posted about a study that suggested child porn may reduce the incidence of child sex abuse. Child pornography is a topic that nearly always evokes a socially programmed irrational reaction of shock and discomfort. To even discuss the merits of child porn laws can put you on the fast track to alienation by even your closest friends. Fortunately, having no friends gives me a distinct advantage in that regard. Yes, that was humor.

Laws that criminalize the mere possession of child pornography violate ethical legal principles in several ways.

Someone who merely possesses child porn cannot be blamed for the creation of that material if he played no active role in its creation. While production of child porn using real children can rightly be called child abuse, someone who obtains the material after the fact is not a party to it’s creation.
Child porn is not evidence that someone is willing to sexually abuse a child anymore than possession of adult porn is evidence that someone is willing to rape a woman. Minority Report is fiction, not reality. The American justice system cannot legitimately punish someone for a crime they have not yet committed, so punishing someone for possession of child porn on the presumption that such material identifies them as likely to commit a future crime is not Constitutional. For every case where the media or advocacy groups try to tie a sex crime to pornography, there are literally millions of examples of porn consumers who have not committed or shown any interest in committing any crime. The proof is overwhelming that porn does not generate crime. In fact there is growing evidence that the wide spread availability of porn has reduced crime.
The possession of child porn does not make someone an accomplice to the production of future child porn. The logic behind child porn possession laws is that one’s interest in child porn, as evidenced by their possession of it, generates a market that will lead to the creation of more of it. This is, again, punishing someone for supposedly committing (actually just encouraging) a crime sometime in the future. A free country does not punish citizens for crimes that haven’t happened yet and it doesn’t punish people for crimes in which they played no knowing role.
Child porn possession prosecutions are not motivated by the intent to protect children from sex abuse. Congress has repeatedly attempted to use child porn laws as a means to criminalize activities that don’t involve children at all and prosecutors routinely charge child porn arrestees under obscenity laws because no children were involved in the creation of the material. Such material includes that which uses young looking adults, graphic arts, computer generated imagery, or even non-illustrated text. The clear intent is not to punish people for injuring children, but to punish the mere fantasy of sex with children (ie: thought crime). Indeed, simulated child porn is prosecuted as vigorously as child porn that uses actual children in its production clearly showing the complete lack of concern about whether children were harmed.
Last, but not least, and independent of any of the above arguments, the First Amendment to the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law “abridging freedom of speech, or of the press“. There is no exemption for obscenity or pornography. No law means NO LAW. While Congress and the Supreme Court have invented numerous exceptions to the Bill of Rights, they can only do so with the acquiescence of the public. Government cannot legally ban expression without a Constitutional Amendment. As we know, of course, government will do whatever it can get away with.

In a free country, what you think is your own business. Criminal law should be based solely on injurious conduct toward others. Laws against possession of child porn or obscenity are not about injurious conduct toward others. They are meant to punish thought crime.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and nothing in this post should be construed to be legal advice. Furthermore, and it is unfortunate that the current lynch mob mentality requires this, I am not and never have been physically attracted to children, do not own or trade in any child porn, nor do I advocate that anyone else do so.

Posted in Censorship, Child Pornography, United States | 10 Comments »

MSNBC joins the Amazon feeding frenzy

Sunday, November 14th, 2010

Never let it be said that MSNBC doesn’t know a profitable thing when they see it and the Amazon controversy over a book for pedophiles is right up their alley. MSNBC has posted the image below as evidence of the depravity that has consumed Amazon. Presumably there is something disturbing about the picture, but they blurred it so it’s anybody’s guess what that might be. MSNBC is way too responsible to actually include a an unedited copy of the picture they are condemning Amazon for carrying. Yes, way, way ,way too responsible.

The listings are disturbing, as you may be able to sense even from the blurred item pictured above. Nudist videos from Eastern Europe appear on the U.S. Amazon retail site; meanwhile, books and videos that feature scantily clad pre-pubescent Eastern European and Asian girls, specifically stated by an independent website as being between the ages of 11 and 17, are listed on Amazon properties in Japan and elsewhere, and on Yahoo in Japan. That there are more books and videos of this nature on Amazon and other online retailers is highly likely.

Where to begin. First, nudity in pictures is protected by the First Amendment. Nudity does not equate to porn for most people whose IQ is at least into the double digits, but MSNBC, being merely a part of the American free press, might not be aware of the extent that the First Amendment actually protects, you know, free speech. Amazon as well as many other retail book outlets sell books that show naked children, whether it’s nudists, medical books, art books, photography books, etc. And yes, that protection even extends to pictures of Eastern Europeans and Asians. From what I gather, MSNBC apparently draws the line at videos as if they are granted a lesser degree of protection than books.

I guess the real stunner is that Amazon is selling material showing pre-pubescent girls that range in age up to 17 which would be a real rarity given that girls usually reach puberty somewhere around age 10-12. I suspect the author is really talking about adolescent girls, but that won’t do if you’re trying to keep the story focused on the pedophile menace.

Then the story goes on about a girl, Masha, who was adopted as a sex toy at age 5. She was photographed and her photos were distributed to pedophiles (people interested in pre-pubescent, as opposed to adolescent, children).

Amazon would never have sold material like the pornographic photos of Masha; however, as Marsh pointed out to me, the site currently lists a lascivious “true crime” book, for sale by four used-bookstore partners, about Masha’s case, written by Peter Sotos, a man who once pleaded guilty to a child pornography charge.

So, Amazon is not actually participating in the illegal activities described, but MSNBC has no problem linking them all together based on something like the they-all-share-the-same-planet theory. Clearly Amazon should be conducting background investigations of all authors of books that discuss the child sex abuse topic . I mean how many can there be? While it’s true that topic is the center of focus for the entire sex hysteria industry, my guess is that there can’t be more than a few tens of thousands of authors involved.

“There’s a real disconnect on what the true nature of child porn is,” [lawyer and child advocate] Marsh said. “99.9999 percent of the material I deal with features pre-pubescent children being raped … the most graphic hardcore images you can imagine.

Really? Okay, so how many books and videos did MSNBC came across on Amazon that actually show pre-pubescent children being raped? Ummm. None? So apparently they’re zeroing in on that relatively harmless .0001 percent, huh?

People think downloading a picture of a baby in a bathtub is going to send them to prison. That’s not what we’re talking about.”

Yeah, people like that are idiots. They don’t lock you up for shit like that. They just take your kids away from you.

But there is a fine line. When it comes to young girls in swimsuits…

So how do people know exactly where the fine line is drawn?

“There are complicated legal tests that courts need to engage in to determine what is or isn’t legal,” [Marsh] explained.

So, no one can really know in advance? They just have to take a guess and if they guess wrong they get their lives destroyed? Ok, so I guess everyone should steer clear of anything that might possibly, maybe, conceivably, potentially to someone somewhere (especially some prosecutor or child abuse panic-monger), looks vaguely like it might be material that borders on child porn because it includes pictures of children who are nude, or not nude, or dressed in swimsuits, or posed in a way that could be construed to by unchild-like. Ok, I think I understand, now.

As for Amazon — and Facebook, another current target of Marsh’s activism — he says free speech should not be the defense. “It’s not about First Amendment rights,” said Marsh. “It’s about what material a good corporate citizen should be making available to the public. And that’s the kind of decision Amazon should be making.”

Well, I think I have to agree with this. The way they define “the fine line” between what’s legal and what isn’t, there is no First Amendment. In order to obey the law, people have to know what’s legal and what’s not. That’s a little difficult if it doesn’t get defined until you’ve been prosecuted and the case is in the hands of the jury.

Only a complete imbecile would believe this is not a First Amendment issue. If publishing and selling books isn’t a First Amendment issue, it would be interesting to know exactly what Marsh thinks a First Amendment issue actually looks like.

I think its time to cut through the crap here. I can understand why MSNBC would publish this kind of idiocy. After all, ethically challenged NBC thinks nothing of creating crime just to give them material for their network. CNBC is one-sidedly covering this story as if the Amazon can be tried under Masha’s Law even though they don’t identify any actual child victims. Is it sleazy journalism? Of course, but this is not that far removed from the sensationalistic fear-mongering that CNN and Fox News engage in regularly to boost ratings.

It is clearly a First Amendment issue in the sense that advocacy groups like this aren’t just using social pressure to get Amazon to stop selling a book. Whereas child porn laws target those who use actual children to produce porn, the mission of law enforcement and advocacy groups is now becoming much broader, targeting material that doesn’t involve children in it’s production. This includes, both images and text. Imagery that used to require explicit sexual activity now only requires the child to be “scantily clad”. Whatever can be used to inflame the anxieties of a jury is all that’s needed. And those anxieties have been cultivated by decades of sensationalistic media hype.

The problem is simple. No child has ever been injured by some guy jerking off in his closet to a picture he ripped out of a Sears catalog or tore out of a teen magazine. The injury is done during the actual production of real porn using real children. Laws that go beyond that are thought control.

One final thought. If child advocates are so concerned about children who are abused by the child porn industry, why aren’t they aggressively advocating the elimination of penalties for porn that only simulates children, encouraging a shift away from porn that uses real children. The self evident answer is that, like all moral crusaders, their primary mission is not about saving anyone so much as punishing immorality.

Thanks to reader and fellow blogger Maggie McNeill for the heads-up on this story.

Posted in Books, Censorship, Child Pornography, Nudity, Paranoia | 7 Comments »

New fears about Australia’s internet filter

Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010

I have written much in the past about Australia’s plan to filter content from the internet that has been “refused classification”. Over the past several months, the scheme seemed to be all but dead. Support for it was dropped just prior to recent elections and it has seemingly fallen off the international news radar.

As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, Stephen Conroy, the plan’s foremost advocate has suggested it could not be implemented at the national broadband level.

“The filter doesn’t work through the wholesale network, it works through the [internet service providers] or [retail service providers (RSP)], the Telstras, Optuses, Primuses, that’s the level that it works at,” he said.

“It’s not technically possible for the filter to be applied at the National Broadband Network level, it can only be applied at the RSP level.”

While that may be true, the government could still bring pressure to bear on ISPs and RSPs to accomplish the same end:

But David Vaile, the executive director of the University of NSW’s Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre, said the government could still use its ownership of the wholesale fibre-optic network to “lean on” ISPs.

“If you have a commercial relationship when you’re the monopoly supplier, the terms you set are the terms people must follow,” Mr Vaile said.

“They’re re-nationalising the internet and to a large extent the telephone system as well.

This could mean that the government, rather than caving in to public complaints about the filtering have just decied to take a more circuitous route to accomplish the same end:

Mr Vaile said announcements in July that telcos Telstra, Optus and Primus had agreed to voluntarily block online child pornography material were classic examples of indirect pressure being applied.

“Telstra and Optus have voluntarily agreed to implement a form of the blacklist already, without legislation or any form of transparency,” he said.

“That’s pure persuasion and leaning on.”

And while the official pretense has been about blocking child porn, the fact is that the Australian black list goes beyond child porn sites into the realm of blocking political content.

Posted in Australia, Big Brother is Watching You, Censorship, Child Pornography, Politics | Comments Off