Nebuchanezzar said:
I do resent the blocking of any non-child pornography related materials on teh interwebs.
Fuck the Children
Plain. Simple. Blunt.
The possession of child pornography should be legal.
Those who possess the photos rarely participated in creating them, and if they did not thrust and thrust and thrust themselves upon the children featured, how can they legitimately be prosecuted for a crime?
It is akin to a thought crime, a classification of "crime" that is becoming pervasive in the judicial system.
Current hate crime legislation allows for additional prison time and fines if a crime is committed based on the victim's superficial characteristics: race, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc.
If I throw a cup of steaming coffee in Lakeisha Jackson's face because I think all niggers should go back to Africa, a hate crime charge will inevitably deign my rap sheet. If I throw a cup of steaming coffee in Lakeisha Jackson's face, well, just because, I would get off with a lighter sentence.
Lakeisha Jackson suffers the same injuries in both instances, but being a crazy fuck will not rack up as much jail time as being a racist. The thought process makes all the difference.
In Laguna Beach, CA, police have begun documenting nasty verbal attacks on the theory that spewers of hateful language may become perpetrators of a hate crime.
According to Police Chief James Spreine, "It is not too far-fetched to believe that people who are entertained by yelling profanity and hate-style comments at gay or minority group members may also have a tendency toward more physical attacks."
Spreine posits that screaming, "Die, fag!" leads to actual brutality, and supporters of the criminalization of child porn possession assume that anyone who jerks off to eight year olds fucking intends to fuck an eight-year-old.
But if Pete Pedophile diddles his dangly part in private to child porn, prosecuting him amounts to punishing him for his unpopular thoughts.
Child pornography has been illegal in the US since 1978, and the federal government has been tracking it down and stamping it out with a vengeance. In 1982, in New York v. Ferber, the Supreme Court ruled that non-obscene child pornography has no First Amendment protection.
In 1990, in Osborne v. Ohio, the Court ruled that laws criminalizing mere possession of child pornography were constitutional. These court rulings were noted in state legislatures, which added penalties of their own on top of the federal penalties.
Going a step further, Congress passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996. Extending to the online medium, creating doctored child porn photos faced the same fate as possessing "Young And Tender XII." ("No actual children were harmed in these photos.")
According to the law,
`child pornography' means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, drawing, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where--
`(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
`(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
`(C) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.'.
Pushed to its limits, the CPPA could outlaw all works depicting youths engaged in sexual activity, even if the "youths" are adults portraying youths. Sticking a flute up your pussy in band camp is fine, as long as you went to band camp after turning the magical age of 18.
The Supreme Court, showing more wisdom than usual, declared the CPPA unconstitutional, but any legislation related to children that is struck down eventually returns with even more Draconian implications.
In Canada, a British Columbia judge ruled in January 1999 that possession of child porn was not a crime.
"There is no evidence that demonstrates a significant increase in the danger to children caused by pornography," wrote Justice Duncan Shaw of the B.C. Supreme Court in his ruling.
What people keep in their homes is "an expression of that person's essential self," Justice Shaw declared in his decision. "His or her books, diaries, pictures, clothes, and other personal things are intertwined with the person's beliefs, opinions, thoughts, and conscience."
Possession of words and pictures relating to the sexuality of minors could be used for legitimate purposes, Judge Shaw said, such as slaking desires illegal to act upon.
John Robin Sharpe, a 65-year-old divorced father of two faced four charges of possession of child porn. He represented himself in the case, arguing the prohibition against possession was an infringement of his to freedom of conscience under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In April 1995, police found computer disks in Sharpe's home containing a text titled "Sam Paloc's Flogging, Fun and Fortitude -- A Collection of Kiddiekink Classics, among other pornographic and alliterative writings. Another search a year later turned up additional pornographic books, manuscripts and stories involving children.
The material was described as "graphic" and "explicit."
Sharpe has said he truly believes that intergenerational sex - sex between men and boys, for example - can be a positive experience for both, but the courts have no evidence that he has had sex with boys.
If Sharpe's only known crime revolved around writing perverse stories about balling the young ones, and no actual children were sexually abused in the process, what was Sharpe's crime other than having an imaginatively twisted mind?
In July 1998, Veteran radio reporter Larry Matthews pleaded guilty to two counts of receiving and trafficking child pornography on the Net.
Matthews is well-known for his undercover work. For example, he lived on the streets during a news investigation about the homeless, and he spent time with draft dodgers for a 12-part series about young men who fled to Canada during the Vietnam war.
In 1995, Matthews, who has worked as an editor for National Public Radio, produced a three-part series on the explosion of child porn on the Net for WTOP radio in Washington.
In 1996, he continued his investigation, and even tipped the FBI off to one woman he said was peddling her kids on the Net, according to court briefs.
In 1997, he obtained child pornography during a news investigation about the online trade of the illegal material. His ultimate goal was to sell a magazine article about children being prostituted on the Net and law enforcement's track record for dealing with the problem, his attorneys say.
Matthews infiltrated and engaged the digital underworld where sexually explicit images of minors are traded or sold to get his story.
The FBI's Innocent Images program in Baltimore, Maryland, uses a similar strategy, with agents lurking anonymously in chat rooms to catch adults who solicit minors or offer up child porn. Matthews apparently stepped in the middle of one such sting and was indicted last summer on 15 counts of possessing and transmitting child pornography.
Regardless of Matthews' true interest, the government's stance is that the mere glance at child porn makes one susceptible to prosecution.
The government argues that merely viewing child porn, even if it's not for prurient interests, is worthy of 18 months in prison -- the sentence handed down to Matthews after his guilty plea. Had Matthews been found guilty at trial, he had faced up to 15 years in prison and more than $250,000 in fines for each count against him.
The ruse the government used to ensare Matthews is entrapment, similar to "Operation Looking-Glass" of the early 1980s.
But even those trafficking in child porn rarely face a sentence as harsh as Mike Diana.
Mike Diana, the creator of the comic book "Boiled Angel," found himself tangled in a long legal battle because of his artwork.
His comic book "Boiled Angel" graphically depicted such subjects as child abuse, date rape and violence stemming from religious intolerance.
Several months after authorities contacted him in regard to the Gainesville murders, Diana got a subscription order to "Boiled Angel" that had a Largo, Florida area return address.
He had never gotten orders from community people before. His comic book had a small circulation among friends, and nobody else knew about his zine, as far as he knew.
He didn't figure out at the time that it was the local authorities subscribing to his comic book. Before they moved in on Diana, they got "Boiled Angel #7" and "#ATE."
The latter issue was Diana's cannibalism issue, which featured an interview with "Cannibal Killer" Otis O'Toole. He talked about making bar-b-que sauce from little boys and rambled on about other absurdities. The state attorney's office took it seriously and issued its summons for publishing, advertising and distributing lewd and obscene material .
The prosecutor told reporters that "Boiled Angel" contributed "to the breakdown of the moral fiber of the country." He said Diana should seek help and stay away from children.
Convicted of "distribution of obscenity" in 1994, Diana's sentence included: a $3,000 fine, mandatory psychological testing, enrollment in a journalism ethics course, and three years of probation, during which time his residence could be inspected without warning to determine if he was in possession of, or was creating, "obscene material."
And while his comic book wasn't labeled as child porn, another part of his sentence ordered that he have no contact with children under 18 years of age.
"You can't be arrested for the stuff in your head. He's not hurting anyone," Mike Diana's father said.
Said Pultizer-Prize winning cartoonist Art Spiegelman: "I think the Florida decision is barbaric. It seems like backwoods, Faulknerian thinking." He added that the court was confused "between the dreams and hallucinations put on paper -- which requires discipline and self-control -- and acting out those inner demons."
If those who possess child porn don't act on their inner demons, who are they hurting?
Granted, if these people did not crave nudie photos of kids, there wouldn't be a market for them, but treating these people as criminals certainly isn't going to help them overcome whatever problems they have.
Prosecute those who exploit the precious, little kiddie-widdies -- sweatshop workers get better wages, after all -- but provide assistance to those who seek out the fruits of the exploitation.
If society continues to send pedophiles back into the general population, how can they ignore the issues that cause them to seek photos of children in compromising positions?
But where does one draw the line?
I'm reminded of the case of a 24-year-old man convicted of a kiddie porn-related charge for taking sexually explicit photos of his 17-year-old girlfriend. She was old enough to consent to sex, but not old enough to consent to having those sexual acts photographed.
Is a 17-year-old a child? If so, why does the law allow her to consent to sex? If not, why was this man prosecuted?
Any mention of children sends people into a tizzy. Rational thinking flies out of the window. Mob mentality rules. "Crucify! Crucify! Crucify!" becomes the rallying cry. It's the same mentality behind placebo legislation such as Megan's Law.
While constantly looking under the bed for pedophiles -- because, if one believes the media, molested children are always the victims of strangers, usually ones they met on the AOL chat room DaddyAndDaughterLove -- they overlook the real threats. Around 80% of children are molested by family members or friends of the family. So, while parents are crusading to prosecute wackos salivating over photos of 8-year-old Mary J. Youngsnatch, they're not keeping an eye on Gramps or "Uncle" Mikey.
And if Mommy does find out that Daddy has been shtuping Brianna (and God knows who else in the family), more than likely, Daddy won't go to jail. He'll receive extensive counseling or Mommy will sweep it under the carpet.
Unless he tapes it, in which case, he'll receive counseling, and whoever buys it will receive hard time.
That's the real problem. Parents and crusaders don't want to look in their own backyards. It's easier to lynch the pock-faced sicko spending hours on IRC downloading naughty photos on his T1 line.
Before tackling as minor a problem as child pornography, the government and parents should look at who is really defiling children.
If they don't, we'll continue to see legislation impeding our freedoms in order to protect the children. Well, fuck the children.
Or if you're a pedophile: fuck the children, but don't record it.
