Chart comes from Chart Porn.
Archive for the ‘United States’ Category
The three varieties of Junk Touchers explained
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010Joe Lieberman versus the future of free speech
Saturday, December 11th, 2010In the last couple weeks we have seen a stunning reversal of attitudes in the U.S. government on the issue of freedom of expression on the internet. Government officials who have, in the past year, been righteously chastising China and Iran for their attacks on free speech turned on their heels and immediately joined the crusade to “use all the resources of the United States government” to suppress the publication, by Wikileaks, of cables embarrassing to the U.S. government.
As is often the case, First Amendment questions were immediately raised, but the government is discovering a new powerful way to sidestep First Amendment restrictions and due process. What used to require the complicated process involving lawyers and courts can now be accomplished with a simple intimidating phone call.
From the Guardian:
Amazon is the most interesting case. It provides so-called “cloud computing services” by renting out some of the thousands of computers used to run its online store. WikiLeaks moved its site on to Amazon’s cloud to ensure that it would not be crippled by the denial-of-service attacks that had brought other ISPs to their knees. But then the company received a call from senator Joseph Lieberman, the kind of politician who gives loose cannons a bad name, who had been frothing about WikiLeaks being “implacably hostile to our military and the most basic requirements of our national security”. Some time after that, Amazon terminated WikiLeaks’s account.
Lieberman then declared: “I will be asking Amazon about the extent of its relationship with WikiLeaks and what it and other web service providers will do in the future to ensure that their services are not used to distribute stolen, classified information.”
While the government would ordinarily face insurmountable legal obstacles in suppressing protected speech or expression at the source, they now have the option of shutting down the distribution of that expression using implied threats and intimidation. Given that the entire internet distribution network is privately owned by corporations extremely sensitive to such governmental pressure, the First Amendment is irrelevant.
But, in a way, that’s the least worrying aspect of Amazon’s behaviour. More troubling is what its actions portend for democracy. Rebecca MacKinnon, a scholar who has written incisively about China’s efforts to censor the net, wrote a sobering essay about this last week. “A substantial, if not critical amount of our political discourse,” she points out, “has moved into the digital realm. This realm is largely made up of virtual spaces that are created, owned and operated by the private sector.”
As far as the law of contract is concerned, Amazon can do what it likes. But this isn’t just about contracts any more. “While Amazon was within its legal rights,” MacKinnon warns, “the company has nonetheless sent a clear signal to its users: if you engage in controversial speech that some individual members of the US government don’t like… Amazon is going to dump you at the first sign of trouble.”
That Joe Lieberman sees the Constitution and due process as mere annoyances is not unusual. Congress is largely staffed with that mentality. What sets Lieberman apart is that he single-handedly invented and tested the mechanism which will eliminate First Amendment protections on the internet from this point forward. So, who did more damage to the United States? Julian Assange when he leaked cables that embarrassed the government? Or Joe Lieberman when he eliminated free speech protections from the internet?
Who will be Lieberman’s next target? Maybe the New York Times.
Of course, you still have the right of free speech. Joe just gets to choose whether anyone will hear you.
Wikileaks drone destroys Afghan village
Wednesday, December 8th, 2010From the Daily Mash:
The slaughter came just hours after the website, popular with paedophiles and smokers, published 250,000 secret documents that revealed, for only the 78 millionth time in human history, that governments are run by the sort of utter tosspots you wouldn’t have in your house.
So much for a censorship free internet
Wednesday, December 8th, 2010For anyone who has been following recent events involving Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange, it should be crystal clear that all the rhetoric in support of internet freedom by western democratic governments has been largely empty opportunistic propaganda.
Wikileaks has been systematically releasing documents that expose secret, highly embarrassing, and almost certainly illegal activities on the part of various U.S. government agencies, most recently the U.S. State Department.
Secretary of State Clinton spoke movingly about the critical need for internet freedom back in January:
Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day.
Of course, when you look beyond the words, the U.S. government views personal privacy as nothing more than a nuisance, but more importantly, all the lofty talk about internet freedom flies out the window if the U.S. is the target of unflattering information. Here is what Ms Clinton had to say about the recent Wikileaks document dump:
Addressing a press conference after holding a tripartite Foreign Minster-level meeting with her South Korean and Japanese counterparts in Washington on Monday, she said “the illegal publication of classified information poses real concerns and even potential damage to our friends and partners around the world.”
Suddenly, instead of free speech, she refers to it as illegal publication.
The shallow, self-serving rhetoric of politicians is one thing, but the current crusade has clearly gone beyond talk. Wikileaks is now reporting daily onslaught of challenges posed by everyone from foreign governments to commercial enterprises trying to distance themselves from Wikileaks so as to not be caught in the blast radius of governmental retaliation. The U.S. government has not admitted to being a part of the war against Wikileaks and Assange, but does anyone really expect them to? If anything is clear from the leaked documents (and history in general), the U.S. government does not feel any obligation to explain itself nor does it feel bound by law. In other words, while Mr Assange is forced to play by the rules, there are no rules for the government that is out to get him.
Speculation, based on past events, is that the U.S. government has pressured other governments as well as various financial and network service providers to stop doing business with Wikileaks. And commercial enterprises in the U.S. routinely cave in to governmental intimidation regardless of the legality of the requests. Furthermore, the sex charges against Mr Assange originating in Sweden don’t seem to pass the smell test.
Attorney Ron Kuby, appearing on FBN’s Freedom Watch, essentially gives Assange zero chances of avoiding extradition, first to Sweden, and then to the U.S. I think he’s right, although I hope he’s wrong. As NKVD head Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria told Stalin:
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”
Although the U.S. has yet to identify any U.S. laws that have been violated, the information made public by Assange and Wikileaks is so embarrassing to the U.S., that there is virtually no way they can permit it to go on. In a mood of panic, a number of U.S. political leaders have called for the prosecution of Assange under the 1917 espionage act while others have advocated his summary execution. He will be taken down regardless of legality and we will never know the behind-the-scenes details unless they are divulged by some future whistle-blower.
Obama promised to bring transparency to government, but broke that promise. Julian Assange made that promise and kept it. Real democracy cannot exist in a nation where the government is so secretive and arrogant that it doesn’t even feel obliged to inform its citizens of military attacks on other countries, but instead orchestrates an intentional campaign of deceit.
Deception and secrecy are the enemies of democracy and the free flow of information is its friend. When it comes to the matter of Wikileaks versus the U.S. government, Wikileaks holds the moral high ground and Mr Assange wears the white hat. And yet, if you’re a U.S. citizen, your government is about to crush him in your name.
On a final ironic note, The U.S. will play host to the UN’s World Press Freedom Day in 2011. Of course, it really doesn’t matter. It’s just all for show anyway. Free speech and a free press is government’s worst enemy and no one knows that more than government.
Barbie Doll child predator porn cam!
Saturday, December 4th, 2010
Toy maker Mattel is eying the child predator population as an untapped market to bolster its bottom line. Anyone who watches cable news these days, knows that child predators represent a significant portion of the population, for which there are barely enough children to go around. One can hardly blame a toy company for seeing dollar signs at the mere thought of the absolute deficit of tools available to assist child predators in their mission.
CNN, in kind of a how-to video, evaluated one of the latest entries in the arsenal of pedophile gear which just happens to be an innovative predator-cam cleverly disguised as a harmless Barbie doll. Meet Barbie Video Girl!
But, the ever watchful FBI is already onto Mattel’s plan to outfit the pervert population with advanced child porn video production technology and has issued a warning.
According to the CNN report:
The FBI is warning law agencies that the new Barbie “Video Girl” doll could be used as a tool by pedophiles to make child pornography.
In an alert entitled “Barbie ‘Video Girl’ a Possible Child Pornography Production Method,” the FBI said the doll has a built-in hidden camera in the chest and a small LCD screen for video display in her back.
The FBI alert backs up their warning with cold hard numbers illustrating the pervasive use of Barbie dolls as an enticement to lure children into the clutches of child sexual predators from coast to coast:
“FBI investigation has revealed instances where an individual convicted of distributing child pornography had given a Barbie doll to a 6 year old girl,” the alert said.
It is certainly commendable that the FBI has taken time out from its mission of tracking down terrorists out to annihilate the American population in order to warn the public of the imminent danger posed by what most people naively see as a harmless doll.
While Mattel may be boycotted by parents who see only the negative side to child predators, those parents probably wield only a tiny fraction of the market power commanded by the huge population of pedophiles and their various trade associations.
It’s no wonder Barbie Video Girl is one of Mattel’s toy of the year award nominees.
Given Barbie Video Girl’s body scan profile, she will probably be denied access to air travel.
Barbie Video Girl TSA Full Body Scan
Disclaimer: This post contains parody.
Thanks to readers Maggie McNeil and BoogaFrito for the links to this story.
I highly recommend reading an essay over at the Honest Courtesan about Barbie’s beginnings as a sexy adult doll named Lilli.
The case against child porn possession laws
Friday, December 3rd, 2010Yesterday, 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.
Amazon caves in to public censorship demands
Friday, November 12th, 2010In response to a public outcry, Amazon.com has discontinued sales of a book entitled “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover’s Code of Conduct”.
First of all, since Amazon is a private sector company, they have the right to sell or not sell any book they wish. Clearly, your freedom of speech is not a guaranty that what you write will be distributed by others. Furthermore, this is not a First Amendment issue because the government is not involved.
Having said that, free speech advocates have established a long and honorable record of warding off attacks by those who feel the right to free expression should only be extended to those with a socially acceptable message.
Pedophilia is, of course, an issue that evokes instant condemnation and any resistance to instant condemnation is itself instantly and equally condemned. The media, child protection advocates, politicians, and law enforcement have enthusiastically cultivated an environment of stranger danger where children are disappearing by the minute and no child is safe. It’s become a lucrative industry unto itself. Ironically, the vast majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated, not by strangers, but by those known or related to the family of the victim.
Overwhelmingly, customer comments condemned the sale of the book:
“It is ILLEGAL to molest children, and for Amazon to promote such is insane. I’m an abuse survivor, and am OUTRAGED Amazon would choose to promote this nonsense. I will not be purchasing anything from your website until this is removed,” one user wrote in a comment echoed by others.
Of course, it’s ludicrous to assume that Amazon is promoting anything merely by selling a book. If that were the basis by which book publishers and sellers operated, no controversial book would see the light of day (at least through a major outlet).
But, there were a few reasoned comments from people who were willing to brave the wrath of the outraged and make a case for why we don’t want an angry mob determining what we can or can’t read:
“While I think 99.9 percent of us object to pedophilia (even though I think this particular book was a publicity stunt/joke), I think we can all agree that we don’t want someone else censoring a subject matter that we may be interested in. Religion, atheism, homosexuality, etc. are some subjects that spring to mind … and they have been censored in the past until we realized that it’s best to let all information in (even if we don’t like some of it), rather than allow some authority or individual decide what we can and can’t know about based on their own opinions or motivations,” one user wrote.
What is most disturbing about cases like this is the rarity of arguments in favor of Amazon selling the book by any entity that relies on free speech. Most bloggers seem to support the outrage against Amazon. Ironically, one blog called SayAnythingBlog.com was quick to praise Amazon for caving to the pressure. Free speech does, after all, include the right to advocate for less free speech. From what I’ve seen, the mainstream press seems to be reporting this without actually joining in the hysteria, which is refreshing after their enthusiastic participation in the crusade against the free speech rights of craigslist.
Finally, if that weren’t enough, there are also some other more speculative theories behind the sale of the book:
But conspiracy theories over the book abound, with commenters citing it as a publicity stunt, a hoax, or perhaps a law enforcement sting.
“People… Relax… This book is obviously promoted by Amazon per request of FBI in order to track down and catch pedophiles. This book is obviously a bait for the sickos that are lurking around out there trying to prey on our children.”
As law enforcement (often in cooperation with ethically challenged sensationalistic media) now depends so heavily on trickery to generate sex crime arrests, it’s not much of a stretch to think that this could have been a ruse.
One final comment about the meaning of the word, censorship. It’s a common refrain by some to angrily proclaim that it is not censorship when a non-governmental entity refuses to distribute, broadcast, sell, or publish offensive material. I find it somewhat stunning that writers, who should know better, would make such such an utterly ignorant assertion. Censorship is censorship regardless of whether it’s done by a private organization or or the government. The difference is that, when the government censors something, it is under threat of prosecution whereas private entities only have the power to refuse to publish, sell, or otherwise distribute something. Censorship advocates can dress it up anyway they like, but in this case, as with the crusade against criagslist, the public, acting as an angry mob, successfully waged a war meant to force private businesses to censor material which those companies believed had a right to exist in a country that supposedly values the free exchange of ideas. That, my friends, is nothing to be proud of.
Hats off to reader Richard for alerting me to this story.
Microsoft looking after our morals?
Wednesday, November 10th, 2010It sounds like game maker Alchemist is in talks with Microsoft regarding offensive content in their new Xbox 360 game called Galgun meant for the Japanese market.
I find this trend toward dumbing down video games to sanitize the world for children irritating. California is currently defending a law that bans sales of violent games to minors. Is it illegal to sell an R-rated movie to a kid in California (or anywhere else n the country for that matter)? If so, how long before they outlaw that?
I’m so fucking old I remember when parents actually had to supervise what their kids read or watched. I’m not kidding. I really used to be like that.
National crackdown rescues 69 child prostitutes
Tuesday, November 9th, 2010The FBI has issued a press release about a 3-day operation that claims to have “recovered” 69 child prostitutes.
The operation included enforcement actions in 40 cities across 34 FBI divisions around the country and led to the recovery of 69 children who were being victimized through prostitution. Additionally, nearly 885 others, including 99 pimps, were arrested on state and local charges.
The release then goes on to explain that the local charges may be supplemented with federal obscenity charges.
While an impressive 885 arrests were made, the release goes on to say that the task force has only landed 625 convictions in its entire seven year history, so one can presume that the majority of those arrested in this operation will ultimately not be convicted of any serious crime, much less trafficking in child prostitutes.
Although it is certainly an honorable mission to protect children from being used in the sex trade, some skepticism is warranted when it comes to claims by both law enforcement and organizations like National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Both entities, but especially the latter, are practiced at inflating the problem as well as their accomplishments to suit their own agenda.
According to the NCMEC:
An estimated 800,000 children are reported missing each year – more than 2,000 children every day. An estimated 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys will be sexually victimized before age 18.
Statements like this are carefully crafted to imply that every child is at risk for being abducted into child prostitution. The literal interpretation is that thousands of children in the U.S. disappear each day and hundreds of those are being sexually exploited (and yet a nationwide crackdown by 2100 personnel from 186 different law enforcement agencies netted only 69 of them?).
But the reality of the war on prostitution is not as it’s portrayed by the rescue industry. The statistics about child prostitution are intentionally inflated to garner public support for a mission that mainly targets adult sex workers.
According to a recent article by Joanna Chiu:
While the FBI’s Operation Innocence Lost is supposed to focus on the exploitation of minors, according to attorney Sienna Baskin from Urban Justice, “in the process [it] arrests hundreds of consensual adult sex workers.” Urban Justice’s Melissa Broudo also observes that the rate of sex worker arrests have risen during the past few years as a result of increased police and FBI activities:
In contrast to the rare child prostitute, adult prostitutes are numerous and easy prey for law enforcement trying to generate arrest statistics. Nearly all adult sex workers are repulsed by sexual exploitation of children, but by driving adult prostitution underground, rescue organizations and law enforcement agencies are sealing the fate of the children they claim to be concerned about. While those actually in the sex business are in the best position to detect pimping and exploitation of children, the aggressive crusade against them discourages them from reporting it. Who in the sex industry is going to report suspected abuse of children knowing that, by doing so, they will have to put their own freedom and livelihood at risk?
Make no mistake. The rescue industry, by targeting prostitution in general, are doing more harm than good when it comes to removing children from the sex trade. For that reason, one can only conclude that they are far more interested in advancing their own moral and political agenda than saving sexually abused children. Just another social crusade capitalizing on the slogan “for the children” without actually doing anything positive for children.
In which I admit to being a victim of trafficking
Monday, November 8th, 2010I think at this point it is only fair that I point out that I am, in fact, a victim of the high tech electronics industry and was trafficked from Nevada to my current state of residence by those who wished to exploit my youth and engineering skills for their own profit.
I should also add that the company that hired me conspired with transportation entities to facilitate my interstate travel and dislocation from my long-time home to a new and unfamiliar city where I would be dependent on their help to find accommodations, make new acquaintances, and establish a new life. I had to agree to work at the new company for a year after they paid for my move.
While I always thought my decision to take the job was voluntary, thanks to everything I’ve read about trafficking, I now know that such thoughts are a manifestation of being in denial. It is now patently clear to me that work is forced on us by the threat of poverty and the primitive desire to improve our lives. I fell victim to an offer of a much higher salary than I was previously getting and am now addicted to the extra income and more flexible hours. If I really had a choice I would most certainly not be working here (or anyplace else, for that matter).
As if that’s not enough, my wife was actually part of the conspiracy. Once, after learning that work is slavery and exploitation, I considered quitting, but she laid a guilt trip on me, telling me how having a job and a good income is a critical ingredient in raising a family. And you know what? We live in a culture that actually promotes that materialistic viewpoint. Needless to say, I caved into the psychological torture and stayed employed.
I feel doomed, but I hope to be rescued soon, so I can write a letter to the newspaper where I first saw the ad for the new job so I can castigate them for the part they played in my enslavement.
