Archive for the ‘Massachusetts’ Category

Monday Links

Monday, February 7th, 2011
  • After an anonymous tip, a female teacher in Ohio is accused of having sex with five of her male students. She “faces up to 81 years in jail if she is convicted of 16 counts of sexual battery and three offenses involving an underage person.” The sexual “battery” charge presumes that the sex was unwanted.  I’m guessing that’s probably not the case (although reality does not play a major roll when it comes to the legalities of sex with  minors).
  • Florida is going to consider banning “simulated” obscenity, whether clothed or unclothed, in material accessible to minors.  Perhaps next year they will outlaw having dirty thoughts within 1000 feet of a minor.  No more suggestive cheer leading moves or dancing in Florida.
  • to minors by adding a clause that says that “a suspected sexual predator purposely and knowingly sent obscene electronic messages to a minor”.   This is apparently a attempt to reconcile free speech rights with their desire to restrict free speech rights.
  • Biblical porn: “My lover thrust his hand through the hole, and my insides groaned because of him.”  Surprise!  The Bible is conflicted about sex!

Federal court blocks Massachusetts obscenity law

Friday, October 29th, 2010

According to the Reporters Commitee for Freedom of the Press:

A federal district court in Massachusetts Tuesday granted a preliminary injunction preventing the enforcement of a Massachusetts statute that criminalizes the dissemination of electronic material that is “harmful to minors.”

Electronic material “harmful to minors”?  I’m pretty certain the law is not about minors.  Perhaps the wording would be more accurate of it prohibited the dissemination of electronic material to children that might be harmful to adults by possibly causing them to pop an artery.

Of course, the fact that the First Amendment protection does not extend to children is nothing new.   The California Supreme Court is hearing a case next week about whether children under 18 can be denied access to computer games that the sate deems inappropriate for them.    This is, of course, simply an extension of the notion that the senior parent in any family is the government.

Local TV station investigates Chatroulette ‘risks’

Tuesday, May 18th, 2010

Basically, this Springfield, Massachusetts affiliate decided to hop on the Chatroulette hysteria bandwagon and found…  basically nothing.  But that didn’t stop them from hyping it up.

Checking out Chatroulette actually leads to checking out a whole lot more of people than anyone should ever see.

And precisely how much of people should anyone ever see?  Being a member of profession that owes its very existence to the concept of free speech, exactly how much is too much?  Where would you, as a journalist, draw the line with regard to what other people are allowed?

While many people on the other side of the chat are fully clothed, some of them were online for something else.

Are you being intentionally ambiguous?

Of course you don’t have to stick around for the show if you don’t want to. All you have to do is hit “F9″ on your keyboard which instantly hooks you up with another person. However, there’s no guarantee the next chat will be any less obscene.

Nice of you to mention that only people who want to be there are ever actually on Chatroulette.  But it’s nice that you’re looking after them, sort of like a parent even though you don’t actually even know any of them and not all are children.

It’s also interesting that you’re now using the word ‘obscene’, although you’re still only vaguely implying that anything offensive popped up.

What’s worse, there are children mingling among the tens of thousands on Chatroulette. We found an 11 year old boy using the website. Chances are, he’s seeing the same things we did. Parents say, it’s frightening.

Wow.  You came across a child.  Just one?  And he apparently saw the same things you saw, which may or may not be anything at all.

Easthampton parent Laurie Medina says “It worries me and makes me nervous that someone could be trying to get to my kid.”

Springfield mother Debra Hubster says “Why would you want a little kid to see something like that. It’s scary. It’s gross.”

Well, that’s precisely why children have parents.  Parents have the option of tell their kids, “No”.  Of course, there’s always the option of dumbing down all communications on the internet (and everywhere else for that matter) to the level of an eleven year old…

But another man told us he comes on the site to meet nice girls… even “sexy girls”. When we asked him what he thought about young children being on the website, we quickly got “nexted.”

Heaven forbid that someone would be looking for sex on a social networking site.   Maybe he “nexted” you because he could see that you were cruising for material to hype the ‘dangers’ of Chatroulette in order to boost ratings.  He was probably there to socialize and was  assaulted by you rudely interjecting yourself into his business as part of your crusade.  Given the number of reporters doing the same thing these days, he probably has to weed through dozens of reporters to find anyone to “socialize” with.

While you may think Chatroulette is harmless since it’s people who don’t know who you really are or where you live, you’re wrong. Check out Chatroulettemap.com, a site full of photos of Chatroulette users right here in Western Mass and around the world. Essentially a stranger takes your IP addresses, a snapshot of you from their computer and posts it on an Internet map for the world to see.

Does it give your street address?  Your phone number?  Is it really any less secure than Facebook or Myspace or Google?  Or are you just trying to make it sound scarier than it really is?

The creator of Chatroulette claims he has been able to block new information from being added to the page. But, there is really no way of knowing whether or not that’s true.

Well, probably not for someone of your limited journalistic prowess…

Another anonymous young Chatroulette user we spoke with from Ireland says “You can talk with other people from other countries. And, see some boobs.”

And, as everyone knows, the sight of boobs is known to cause irreparable brain damage.  When I was a kid, I had to sneak a peek at National Geographic to get brain damage.  At eight I played doctor with a neighbor kid which, nowadays, would probably earn felony charges and a lifetime membership on the registered sex offender list.

I guess we should rejoice that the author didn’t refer to Chatroulette as the next crack cocaine, but it was characterized as being “addicting” (ie: fun).

Prostitutes abused by court in Massachusetts

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

A federal judge rejected a plea agreement of a Chelsea district court clerk accused in February of exchanging favors for sex.

From Boston.com:

Under the agreement, former Chelsea District Court clerk-magistrate James M. Burke would have spent 12 months and one day in prison, paid a $5,000 fine, and undergone two years of supervised monitoring.

If a comparison were made, I bet there would be a stark contrast in penalties faced by lowly clerks like Burke as compared to judges and prosecutors when it comes to abuse of power.   When was the last time you heard of a judge or prosecutor facing prison for misconduct?

A grand jury indictment returned last year alleged that Burke used his position to extort sexual services from women and deprive them of their constitutional rights, “which includes the right to bodily integrity.”

Burke allegedly forced a woman charged with prostitution to perform sex on him in an empty courtroom and sexually assaulted another alleged prostitute after locking her in a room at the courthouse.

Back when Burke was charged, the Boston Herald quoted federal authorities calling this “a perversion of the legal system”, but extorting sexual favors from prostitutes is hardly an unknown occurrence whether it be at he hands of the cops, prison guards, or other justice system authorities.  A harsh punishment is a welcome rarity.

Mencken’s Law

Wednesday, April 7th, 2010

Whenever A annoys or injures B on the pretense of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel.

Basically, that sentiment applies perfectly to almost all laws that ban victimless ‘crimes’.

H.L. Mencken uttered more words of wisdom in his lifetime than will ever come out of Congress in its entire existence.

Read a little Mencken history at the Boston Phoenix which relates how his magazine, the American Mercury came to be “banned in Boston”.

Happy International Sex Worker Rights Day

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

Today is the third annual International Sex Worker Rights Day, a tradition that started in India with a festival of 25,000 sex workers.

According to weeklydig.com, the Boston chapter of the Sex Workers Outreach Project (SWOP)  is sponsoring event all week:

“At this point, we’re not here to write or push laws. We don’t even have our own lawyer,” says Melora Marshall, SWOP Boston’s founder. “We want to be able to respond as a community when crimes are committed against us, and do whatever we can to reduce the rates of violence and crimes we experience.” According to Marshall, violence against sex workers often goes unpunished, fostering a fractured community that doesn’t believe it has any rights. SWOP Boston’s events for Sex Worker Rights Day look to fix these problems “all in a week,” Marshall says with a laugh.

I say skip the baby steps and start advocating legalization.   Arrest for trying to earn a living is the first form of violence.  I would also suggest they focus on exposing the hypocrisy of a women’s rights movement that actively campaigns against the right of a women to use her body in any way she sees fit.

Obama Campaigns to elect Day Care Sex Abuse Witch Hunter to Ted Kenndy’s vacant Senate seat

Friday, January 15th, 2010

President Obama, in order to keep intact as much of his Health Care support as possible, is actively campaigning to elect Massachusetts Attorney General,  Martha Coakley to the U.S. Senate seat.

Not only was she part of the crusade that left the lives of  dozens of innocent families in smoldering wreckage, she has defended and re-defended her participation.

Gerald, Violet, and Cheryl Amirault who operated the Fells Acre Day Care Center in Malden, Massachusetts, were accused of child sex abuse in 1984 and were then prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to long prison terms.  One of the prosecutors in the case, Scott Harshbarger, riding the wave of publicity created by the sensational crusade was eventually elected Massachusettes Attorney General.

As in almost all of the day care hysteria cases of the 80s and 90s, the magnitude of the travesty of justice only became stunningly obvious when the children’s  interview tapes, virtually the only evidence against the Amiraults, were examined.  As the legitimacy of the convictions was increasingly called into question, prosecutors dug in their heals and fought, tooth and nail, to keep the Amiraults in prison even as their case disintegrated before their eyes.

By the time Coakley arrived on the scene in 1999, this process was well underway with even the media and public siding with the defendants.  As the pressure mounted and it seemed likely the Gerald Amirault would be released, Coakley agressively campaigned against him, ultimately delaying his release until 2004.

While, in the public mind (as well as the minds of many legal authorities involved in the case) the prosecutions were clearly bogus, Coakley and many of the other prosecutors in this and other cases still maintain that the defendants were guilty rather than admit an error that could possibly impact their precious careers.  It’s enough that these cold blooded monsters are still employed without their being even further rewarded with the personal attentions of a U.S. President to help them get elected simply to hang onto a  senate seat.

Coakley, coming in when she did, shared none of the blame for the original prosecutions.  She, more than anyone else, had the opportunity to turn the ship around and restore some semblance of sanity to state’s behavior.  She also had the benefit of knowing that similar cases all over the country were being exposed for the witch hunts that the were.   Nonetheless, Coakley aggressively continued to torture the Amiraults rather than do anything that might be conceived as backing down.  Coakley was too busy thinking about Coakley and her climb toward the Attorney General’s office to put an end to the train year wreck that began 15 years earlier when some over-zealous prosecutors saw Fells Acres as a chance at fame and glory.

If anything stands out about the day care sex abuse cases, it’s the absolute absurdity of so-called evidence that interviewers supposedly teased out of the children even after they repeatedly tried to tell investigators that nothing happened.   No one in the prosecutors office who had access to those tapes can be excused from responsibility for the assassination of those innocent people.

Credit goes to Radley Balko at theagitator.com which is where I first learned  about the connection between Coakley and the Fell Acres witch hunt and found the link to the excellent Wall Street Journal article.