Castrating sex offenders to save money

January 27th, 2011

A Virginia state legislator wants the state to consider castrating sex offenders so they don’t have to spend all that money keeping them locked up indefinitely in psychiatric “hospitals” after they’ve completed their prison sentences.

From the HuffPo:

Republican Sen. Emmett Hanger’s bill would require the state to study the use of physical castration as an alternative to civil commitment for sexually violent predators.

The civil commitment program’s budget grew from $2.7 million in 2004 to $24 million this year. Gov. Bob McDonnell has proposed spending nearly $70 million over the next two years to meet the increasing demands.

According to the article, Texas and Louisiana already allow for physical castration.

It’s interesting to see government officials in a quandary over the high cost of using the gimmick of civil commitment to heap additional punishment on people who have already paid for their crimes.  There is no doubt that they would have no compunction about summarily executing sex offenders at the end of their prison term if they could only devise some fiction that could justify it.

And the public would applaud.

Thanks to Maggie McNeil for the link.

Braving the limits of permissible expression

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.

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

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.

If we ban obscenity, we can ban hate speech

January 19th, 2011

Jumping on the current media trend that all newsworthy human activity can be tied to the Arizona shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Melanie Zoltan reviews the book, Degradation: What the History of Obscenity Tells Us About Hate Speech by law professor Kevin W. Saunders.

I have not read the book, so I am only going on Zoltan’s review.  The first half of the book defines how sex was transformed into a shameful activity by religious (particularly protestant)  powers and defines obscenity:

Church believed that respect for clergy was diminished by depictions of monks, nuns, and higher-order officials acting in sexual ways. Stories that portrayed church officials as such were slowly banned, increasingly so after the printing press allowed for wider dissemination of these stories. By the 13th century celibacy was required for Church clergy. By the mid-17th century, in the post-Cromwell era, as a more Calvinistic Protestantism took hold, sex was viewed as shameful.

Obscenity, then, derives from sexual depictions that degrade, or dehumanize humans.

It’s the second half of the book that gets our attention:

Saunders spends the second half of his book, having beautifully laid out the foundation for his argument in the first half, arguing that hate speech is the modern version of obscenity, and that the courts should treat hate speech under the First Amendment in the same manner as obscenity is treated.

“If hate speech is the current form of degrading speech, then past experience with the regulation of degrading speech would be valuable in examining how to regulate hate speech,” (99) Saunders posits.

Of course, I would argue that there is no exemption for obscenity in the First Amendment.  The Supreme Court pulled that invention right out of their collective asses.  The First Amendment was intended to protect speech that offends.  To say it doesn’t apply to offensive speech insults the intelligence of anyone with an IQ that reaches beyond the single digits.

Saunders concludes that: “Obscenity law is the law of offense, and hate speech is offensive for the same reasons as sexual obscenity. One has been seen as offensive because of the degraded view it presents of humanity. The other should similarly be viewed as offensive because of the degraded view of its target population.”

And as we all know so well, donning the mantle of victimhood by claiming to be  offended is a scam intended to give some people the power to control what other people say and do.

Other books by Saunders include “Violence as Obscenity” and “Saving our Children from the First Amendment”.

Sounds like another crusader whose mission is to force everyone into a third grade level cultural conformity.  I won’t even dignify the supposition that we should all rush to throw out the First Amendment because of what happened in Tucson.  That job has already been covered exceedingly well my the mainstream media.

The myth that Portland is a sex trafficking mecca

January 16th, 2011

When I’m scanning the search engines for prostitution news, there will always be certain hotbeds of activity on the part of the anti-prostitution groups. There is no end to the localities in the U.S. that seem to lay claim to being the trafficking capitol of the U.S. I’ve posted about at least one of these, but it’s become so common that it normally doesn’t get my attention anymore.    The typical news item is an interview of a spokesman for some rescue organization by a local reporter.  Rarely do any reporters challenge what the rescue groups claim nor do they interview anyone who opposes the anti-prostitution agenda.  Essentially, when rescue groups descend on a city, the mainstream press just passes on the their propaganda verbatim.

Portland is regularly one of those cities that is reported as being a major center for sex trafficking.  A search on Google for Portland and trafficking and hub yields over 60,000 links.  When you add children to the search term, it’s still 48,000.  Sex trafficking is one of those trendy sensationalistic stories that the news media love, true or not.

But now that claim has been questioned.  As stated so succinctly by international sex trafficking authority, Laura Agustin:

With cameras rolling on 82nd Avenue last year, Dan Rather dubbed the city “Pornland” in a documentary. “Nightline” declared Portland the “epicenter for child prostitution,” and “World News With Diane Sawyer” called the city a “hotbed of sex trafficking.” But as hundreds gather in Portland this weekend for the third-annual Northwest Conference Against Trafficking, with talks by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden and actress Daryl Hannah, an examination by The Oregonian reveals that no one really knows if the problem in Portland is any worse than anywhere else.

In her piece in the Oregonian, Nikole Hannah-Jones does what is unheard of in the mainstream media when it comes to rescue industry claims.  She questions the statistics, uncovering their utter lack of credibility.

That raises perhaps the most frequently cited number around child sex trafficking — that 200,000 to 300,000 U.S. youths are at risk of sexual exploitation. The U.S. Department of Justice lists the number on its website. Local law enforcement agencies, McKeel’s office and others have repeated it, and everyone from UNICEF, CNN, The Oregonian and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children have printed it.

The figure is problematic on two fronts. One, advocates often cite it as the number of children in the sex trade — not just the number at risk of sexual exploitation. Worse, the figure is based on faulty statistics from a 2001 University of Pennsylvania study by Richard Estes and Neil Weiner.

The study took data from an earlier study by Finkelhor, the University of New Hampshire researcher, that counted the number of runaway youths. The Pennsylvania study’s authors then came up with a percentage of these kids they believed to be at risk of sexual exploitation of any kind based on interviews with fewer than 300 teens. It was, Finkelhor said, a guess.

This study is also the source for another commonly cited statistic — that the average age that a child enters prostitution is 12 to 14. Finkelhor has created a fact sheet disputing these and other false child prostitution figures.

I have challenged that “average age of entry” figure here and here.

From what I’ve seen, including comments made on this site, the rescue industry continues to repeat their claims, even knowing they are wrong.  While freely using the inflated figures to rouse public opinion and stimulate funding and donations, when confronted with the fact that their claims are false, some in rescue industry  simply say that the statistics are unimportant because even one child is too many.

Nikole Hannah-Jones deserves a pat on the back for her thoughtful article.  She has no doubt incurred the wrath of Portland’s anti-prostitution crusaders, but she has done great honor to her profession and her newspaper for taking time to investigate.

Legislating fashion in Selma, Alabama

January 14th, 2011

No study of the American Civil Rights movement leaves out the historic events that took place in Selma, Alabama back in the 1960swhen the law was different for people who looked different.  If you were black, you were treated as something less that other people.

Then, as now, Selma is mostly black, but now they have the same rights as everyone else and they can vote like everyone else.

But not everything about Selma has changed.  In December the Selma city council once again decided to embark down the path of treating people who look different as something less than other people.  They passed a law legalizing police harassment of people who wear their pants too low.

Nice work Selma, Alabama.  You are once again an icon of social intolerance.

Josh Moon at the Montgomery Advertiser offers additional perspective:

Things are great in Selma.

The crime rate is near zero. The economy is so good they hand out hundred-dollar bills on the courthouse square. The streets are pothole-free. And the court dockets are all up to date.

I don’t have stats to verify any of that — in fact, the stats I have seen directly contradict all of it — but still, it has to be true. Because if it’s not, I’m going to need a Selma City Council member to explain to me how a group of elected offi­cials — presumably adults — would ever set aside problems in any one of those aforemen­tioned areas and choose instead to spend their time writing, de­bating and passing a law that bans saggy pants.

Yes, you read that correctly. Saggy pants — they outlawed them.

We think we’ve come a long way since the Jim Crow days, but have we?  When we still see nothing wrong in passing laws that simply target people for looking different than us, I’d stay we still have a long way to go.  Is this what they pay the city council in Selma to do?

One stop shopping: dental tools & sex toys

January 14th, 2011

For those of you who like to pick up a few beautiful stainless steel sex toys when you’re shopping for dental instruments (or vice versa), I suggest you check out Pakistan’s Engravo Surgico.  I highly recommend the Anal Hook, Penis Stick, and Cock and Ball Torture categories.

I like how they proudly sell sex toys side by side with medical instruments as if they are both equally legitimate and respectable markets.  It’s no wonder the U.S. has been bombing the shit out of them.

God sent this blizzard to punish gays

January 14th, 2011

According to Yahoo News:

Rev. Pat Robertson sparked controversy in today’s broadcast of his “700 Club” program when he claimed that God created the blizzard currently battering the Northeast “to punish Americans who were planning to drive to do something gay.”

The Reverend Robertson should probably be commended for converting more Christians to atheism than any other single person on earth.

And Robertson seems to have a special place in his heart for New Yorkers:

As for the millions of straight people in New York City who were also grounded by the bad weather, the televangelist said, “I think God probably wonders: If these people are really straight, then what are they doing in New York?”

I’m sure God has created a special place in Heaven just for ol’ Pat.

Oops! Minor typo.

January 13th, 2011

Click on the image to see the fine print.

Luxembourg considers legalizing prostitution

January 13th, 2011

Station.lu reports that Luxembourg may legalize brothels.

Currently brothels are legal in Belgium, Germany, Holland and the Czech Republic. Although Amsterdam is well-known for its sex tourism, the largest brothel in Europe, the Pascha, is in Cologne, Germany.