Child pornography makes it easy to entrap any citizen. Child pornography laws that severely penalize anyone for mere inadvertent possession of so called child porn (which may consist of 15 year old fully clothed adolescent girls dancing and gyrating -[Knox vs. USACopine scale]).

As the antifeminist incessantly points out, any man or boy that ever browsed any porn site may have potential child pornography pictures on his computer or his web browser cache. Now that "The Simpsons" cartoons can be called child porn, anyone can be subject to child pornography stings.

sexoffender2009roc4life3

And if s/he does not have child porn on the computer, that can be easily remedied. CP can be sent via spam emails, or the person can be entrapped to accidentally access it. No more need to frame someone by planting a pound of cocaine in his or her car. Just entice him to unknowingly visit a child porn site and his life is over.

Child pornography possession is a strict liability crime 2 3 4 5 6.  No intent, no knowledge is needed. Setting someone up is the perfect crime. And the entrapped’s property can be confiscated.

Dangerous entrapment of webmasters and blog authors | Inquisition21

The new form of entrapment is clever and deadly. A dissident has to be both reasonably successful in his activities and a danger or embarrassment to the police to be worth ‘taking out’. If he is reasonably successful, it means that he is being read over his web site and perhaps in spin-off media reports and is exposing facts which are embarrassing or even dangerous for the police. This in turn makes it likely that he has one or more professionally-managed web sites hosted by a server which provides him with daily statistics over a control panel. If, in addition, he is a good writer or employs good writers, traffic to his site will grow as will the number of links from other web sites. These links will come from two sources: from simple lists of ‘recommended’ web sites or from mentions in text, such as articles or in forum-type comments. If the link is a hyperlink, which is likely, it will show up in the daily statistics every time a reader of the remote web site page clicks on it, so that on a daily basis, perhaps after a 24 hour delay, the number of visiting readers from other web sites shows together with the URL of the sites and the number from each site that clicked each day. This web site, for example (inquisition21), has the good fortune to receive hundreds of such visits from hundreds of other web sites each month, some repeating every day or week and some new each day or each few days. […]

The web site www.jagforums-1.com is in fact set up with images of child pornography to entrap the innocent activist editor who is simply trying to see what new visitors to his web site are saying about his site. He makes one click on the hyperlink in the stats and he has images of little girls being involved in illegal activities, or whatever, on his screen. And even after he deletes them, unless he runs special clearing software, which takes knowledge and time, they are still on his hard drive. If the police are in cohorts with the criminal webmaster who has carried out this entrapment, they can raid before the clearance is complete.
Let us now examine some especially perverse aspects of this situation, and this editor can assure the reader that this is coming from one with very direct and personal knowledge of this situation, both as related to this web site, which has been attacked, and to the many individuals it tries to represent. First, it is virtually impossible to report this crime, for several reasons. […]

The biggest problem, however, is that you cannot safely say that you were the object of an entrapment attempt because, when you innocently clicked on the link, child porn appeared on your computer screen. This writer cannot even say here that it happened. It gets worse. If it is apparent from a brief look at the images that real children are being exploited in the course of this entrapment (although it is recognized that in most cases old images are used), one cannot report this crime. If anyone thinks that this is not so and that the police will welcome him as an innocent witness that person is naive. The seizure of one’s computers and exposure in the media are the very least of the certain consequences.


Brief Counsel: In the Digital World, What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You

Two years ago, in the hopes of being able to watch a "College Girls Gone Wild" video, Matthew White of Sacramento, CA, downloaded a file from Limewire.com that turned out to be child-porn. White immediately deleted the file, and thought nothing of it — until a full year later, when FBI agents came to White’s home and asked permission to examine his hard drive, and White said yes.

They initially found no evidence of any illegal activity, but after subjecting White’s hard drive to intensive forensic analysis in their lab, the Limewire file appeared — and with it the porn that Matthew had viewed (albeit momentarily) a year earlier. Although the FBI admitted that White had no current access to the porn they undeleted and despite White’s claim that he had no pre-existing knowledge of the file’s contents, the Feds arrested him.

Notwithstanding numerous publicly known complaints against Limewire.com for disguising illegal child porn files as something else, prosecutors told White he faced a 20-year prison sentence unless he took a plea bargain for three and a half years that included 10 years probation plus lifetime registration as a sex offender. Still claiming innocence, White took the deal.

Why did White cop a plea if he was innocent? Answer: possession of child-porn in any form — even unknowing possession — is a strict liability federal crime, like statutory rape. With strict liability, intent is not a factor:the act itself completes the crime. Under federal law, viewing any web content online automatically counts as possession because seeing it involves downloading images in RAM and temporarily storing (and thus, owning) them. Unless the facts are in dispute, there is no trial by jury. 

In other words: if someone sends you a download link to the Holy Bible, which turns out to be child porn, your life is over. It does not matter that you are religious, never ever intended to see any porn.According to the voodoo theory of child pornography, the act of downloading and unintentional viewing by the religious Bible seeker victimized children. Makes sense, doesn’t it?   George Orwell’s 1984 finally turned reality.

The Problem of Internet Child Pornography (a very concise analysis, worth reading)

An Offending Typology

Variations among offenders translate into different patterns of Internet behavior. Offenders vary in the level of their involvement in Internet child pornography, the degree of networking in which they engage with other offenders, their expertise in employing security strategies to avoid detection, and the extent to which their Internet behavior involves direct sexual abuse of children. The following typology of child pornography offending has been suggested:[31]

  • Browsers: Offenders who stumble across child pornography but knowingly save the images. They are not involved in networking with other offenders and do not employ security strategies to avoid detection. Their browsing is an indirect abuse of children.

If you stumble across child pornography you are indirectly abusing children. A macabre joke, if this absurd voodoo theory would not ruin people’s lives forever

Private fantasizers: Offenders who create digital images (e.g., through morphing) for private use to satisfy personal sexual desires. These offenders do not network with other offenders, do not employ security strategies, and their private fantasies are an indirect abuse of victims.

An indirect abuse of victims that don’t exist is a good reason to imprison someone for a decade and ruin his life forever.

It makes more sense to burn a witch on the stake for having caused  a real hail storm that really happened.  Only Robert Kurzban can explain such nonsense:

 

Browser

A browser may come across child pornography unintentionally (for example via spam) but then decide to keep it. This is an offence if it can be proved they formed the intention to possess the material. In the absence of a confession, this may be shown by surrounding circumstances, such as repeat visits to a site. Whether a person is an accidental browser or not is a question of fact.

Wrong. As we saw before, if he does not decide to keep it, if he decides to delete it, it does not matter. If forensics can recover the deleted image, then he indirectly abused a child and thus deserves to suffer for the rest of his life (I wish I were joking, but this idiocy is serious)

Private fantasy

If a person has a private fantasy involving sex with a child, no offence is committed. If that fantasy is preserved as something more than a thought, then an offence may be involved. The representation of that fantasy in text or digital format on a computer may be sufficient to constitute the possession of child pornography even if the offender has no intention of sharing it with any other person. The case of Lenny Lawson, referred to above, is an example of a private fantasy collection in video format. For the offender engaged in private fantasy the risk of exposure is low, but it could occur in a number of ways: by tip-off from someone else with access to the computer or data storage device; in the course of searching a computer for evidence of other offences; when a computer is being serviced; when a computer is stolen; or even when a computer has been accessed remotely by a third party.

Trawler

Among trawlers there is little or no security employed and minimal networking of offenders. Taylor (1999) lists three motivations. The sexually omnivorous user is oriented to a range of sexually explicit material of which child pornography is simply a part but not the focus. The sexually curious user has experimented with child pornographic material but has not pursued it. The libertarian is driven to assert a claim to be free to access whatever material they wish  ATypology of Online Child ATypology of Online Child

The above source is very long and precise. Worth reading. Fictional children need to be protected from abuse through thoughts and viewing. Makes total sense.

Creating fictitious children under 16 Child pornography can be created without directly involving a real person. The words ‘describing or depicting’ are capable of including  text,  images  and  threedimensional objects. While these laws w e re  initially  framed  in  relation  to photographs, videos and film, the language extends to cover the development of online pornography. The offence provisions do not require a real person to be described or depicted,  and  they  include  fictional characters in  text or digi tally  created images of fictional characters.

More literature

Share

11 Comments

  1. jewamongyou says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    It would be interesting if somebody were to send child pornography to every politician and public official (who supports such laws) – and then turn their own weapons against them. That would be funny.

  2. Alan Vaughn says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    Wouldn’t work – they, the FBI and the police are all exempt from these laws, that’s also why they are all allowed to distribute large quantities of CP via their most important tool: ENTRAPMENT web forums and blogs.
    See full story about this here:
    http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=8&MMN_position=9:4

  3. The Child Sex Trauma Myth. #1: You must be a pedophile, if you defend child porn and pedophiles | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    […] make extreme efforts to not run afoul of any law, not even by mistake or accident 1 2 3 […]

  4. Fat Albert says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    They say that there are about 700.000 people on the sex offender registries ( state and national ). That’s a bit “odd.” You would think that there would be close to “TWO “MILLION” by now! ( at the rate they’re “busting” people ) I wonder how many people it will take being placed on “the registry” before the “powers that be” end up “scrapping” the constitution, altogether!?!

  5. HotLittleStagg says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    This is the ugly face of the New World Order, folks! They are using the false gospel of “CHILD-SAFETY” to achieve their brutal worldwide police state! No joke. Time for everybody to WAKE THE FUCK UP! It never WAS about so-called “child safety! It’s about absolute power and airtight control! The bastards in power want to get as many people on the sex offender registries as they can get! And they are breaking the law at every turn to “accompish” that! Again, people, It’s TIME TO WAKE THE FUCK UP! Because guess what: YOU’RE “NEXT!”

  6. Larner says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    Shouldn’t they be trying to destroy these images rather than distribute them…

    According to their own theory, sharing and viewing the images is abusing the victim in the image. And they arrest viewers due to that fact. But in this case, the cops are the ones SENDING the images to the offenders, aren’t they promoting it rather than trying to stop it?

  7. admin says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    the cops, with special permits, have to look at the child porn before they send them. So they victimize the childrens once more, unnecessarily

  8. Larner says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    and how does that not victimize the child? since looking at it victimizes them, a guy or a cop doing it makes no sense.

    It’s like beating up Rodney King all over again just to investigate Rodney King’s beating

  9. Alan Vaughn says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    @Larner,
    Yes of course they are! (SENDING the images to the offenders). That’s what the whole thing’s all about: ENTRAPMENT. For the same reason, they only prosecute the consumers of ‘child-abuse images’, NOT the creators or the websites that produce and distribute them, or make them available to such consumers.

    You’ve got to understand the motivation behind it all. It is FEMINIST hatred and their push to destroy as many men as possible.
    (And sadly, their quest has been disturbingly successful in recent years).
    What easier way is there to do that, than to target their sexuality? (Our sex-obsessed society just loves a sleazy sex story, especially when it involves the lowest form of life today: the ‘paedophile’.
    Convince society with some impressive propaganda (all lies and junk science – no actual FACTS) that normal male sexuality is ‘perverted’ or ‘sick’ or even ‘RAPE’ and that normal men are ‘filthy perverts’ and paedophiles and society believes it and loves to HATE such normal men. (MEN, that they’ve been brainwashed into believing are ‘sick pedos’, who should all be lynched and hanged in public, or burned at the stake). Including the MEN themselves that their dreadful propaganda defines as such!

    Sexually normal, Heterosexual males: The new-age Heretics.

    Welcome to the 21 st Century Inquisition…
    The century of misandry (Man-HATE).
    Where our ‘informed and advanced’ civilization is in fact 100 times more superstitious, ignorant and hateful, than were our 16th century, witch-hunting, Inquisitional inbred ancestors…

  10. Joska says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    I think planting CP on politicians’s computers would actually work. It’s not true they are exempt from these laws! The only people who are legally allowed to watch CP are the investigators looking for CP sites to shut down and those forensick (pun intended) experts who determine if the given picture/movie is CP.
    Now just think about it: someone as powerful as IMF president Dominic Strauß Khan got his career broken by a false rape accusation, even though it was proven fake (and even though he was accused by a mere commoner, a cleaning woman)! (Had they proven him being a corrupt prick he would have just laughed and carried on!)
    If that could happen I’m pretty sure politicians wouldn’t get away with CP found on their HD-s either. They would probably not go to jail but who cares: they would have to resign from being any kind of public figure, and that’s bad enough for them!
    One could also frame feminist leaders and “child-protection” agency leaders to discredit their propaganda. That would be a huge blow and with their own weapon non the less!

    I encourige anyone with the skills and determination (wich I lack both) to do this, Anonymous-style! It probably would be a million times more effective than DDOS, defaceing, black faxes and pizzas and every such shit combined!
    (But one should do it one enemy at a time, becouse if everybody got framed at once they could shake it off easily!)

  11. Lee Park says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    There was a primitive savage island in the South Pacific. This island had a dreadful reputation for having an image that was so “taboo” (local term noted by Captain Cook) that for anyone so unfortunate as to peek at it..they would be an outcast,shunned and held in hateful contempt for the remainder of their short lives.
    Fortunately, there was a voracious volcano nearby. True story. Imagine that, how f…ing stupid is that? Boy what a nasty pack of stupid dopes,who would wanna live there?

Leave a Reply