Child porn hysteria news

1. Cartoon characters need protection from sexual abuse, Australia’s supreme court recognized. According to the voodoo theory of child porn, each time someone looks at the cartoon, the cartoon figure will be victimized again. Or maybe the paper, or the computer hard disk will be victimized. 
2. Police see rise in child porn cases committed by children: Of course, children are live walking child pornography themselves. When they look in the bathroom mirror, what do they see? Child pornography, of course.  And children need to be protected from themselves. Putting them in a court of law to save them from victimizing themselves. Sorry, we have difficulty understanding this nonsense witch hunt beliefs.
3. Rethinking Sex Offender Laws for Youth Texting |NYT. Excesses of Child pornography hysteria victimize innocent children of law abiding middle class parents. So there is a tendency to fix the worst excesses of child pornography laws. This is a small step to reduce victims of child pornography laws. Fewer people care about adult men who spend 20 years in prison for possession of pictures. Child porn laws victimize children directly, as  "child pornographers", Milton Diamond has proven that child porn prohibition laws also victimize children indirectly, by increasing real child sexual abuse, 
4. Pornography sentence unconstitutionally cruel, judge rules. Forensic Psychology web site quoting Judge Weinstein. Worth reading.
5. Sex Gulag, a great web site:

Consider that child pornography was actually LEGAL at one time. Later, it became illegal to PRODUCE. And then it became illegal to DISTRIBUTE. And then it became illegal to SHOW to someone else. And then it became illegal to POSSESS if produced AFTER a certain date. And then all possession became illegal. And then the penalties became stiffer. Then stiffer, still. And stiffer again and again.

How true

Consider also that child pornography now includes DRAWINGS and CARTOONS which at no time involved the use of actual children, something that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

How true. Even voodoo theory can not justify this. Robert Kurzban can explain how even then victims can be found.

And these laws can DESTROY the rest of your LIFE, even if there are no victims.

This is the essence of incremental social engineering (Quoted from Sex Gulag)

---

1) Fake Simpsons cartoon is ‘child porn’

A fake cartoon depicting Bart and Lisa from The Simpsons engaging in sexual acts has been deemed as child pornography.

Supreme Court judge Justice Michael Adams ruled in Australia that child cartoon characters could depict a real person.

The Simpsons were doctored to depict child pornography

He upheld a magistrate judge’s decision to convict Alan John McEwan of possessing child pornography after the internet cartoons were found on his computer.

The animation depicted characters modelled on Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson engaging in sex acts. […]

McEwan appealed against the ruling, arguing that fictional cartoon characters could not be considered people.

Justice Adams said: "If the persons were real, such depictions could never be permitted. Their creation would constitute crimes at the very highest end of the criminal calendar."

He also ruled that, while the characters from The Simpsons had hands with four fingers and their faces were "markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being", the fact they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.

He said the law was in place to deter the production of cartoons that could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children".

Of course, prohibition of child porn fuels the demand for real children, as Dr. Milton Diamond‘s papers prove. Those who can act out their urges masturbating with pictures of children have less urge to abuse real children.  Additionally,  much of child porn is neither porn nor has (prepubescent) children, rather is adolescent erotica (Knox vs. USA, Copine scale).

---

2) Police see rise in child porn cases committed by children

Of course, children are live child pornography themselves. And they need to be protected from themselves. Putting them in a court of law to save them from victimizing themselves. Sorry, we have difficulty understanding this nonsense witch hunt beliefs.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Police are issuing a warning for Mid-State youth disturbing pornographic images of themselves and their friends via the Internet.

Although sent by minors, the cases are considered child porn and violators will be prosecutors.

Currently in Metro, Sex Crimes Detective Mike Adkins says he has five cases of child-initiated child porn on his desk and the number of cases continues to climb.

According to Adkins, either the juveniles don’t understand the risks involved or they don’t care.

Well, it difficult. Children see naked women everywhere. On Playboy magazine covers. Now if they photograph themselves in the mirror, in the same pose, they commit a heinous crime. They are unaware of voodoo theory that posits that they are victimizing themselves while photographing, and that they get victimized again when their friend looks at their photo.

It is hard to explain illogical things to children. It is difficult enough to explain them logical things, to get them to eat broccoli and abstain from burgers and fries. But making them understand that taking their own pictures is the worst of crimes? Much worse then theft or robbery?

One might explain to a child not to post nude photos on Facebook. But how to explain that what they see when they look in the bathroom mirror is live child porn which can not be photographed even to keep on one’s own camera? Should they close their eyes when changing clothes in front of a mirror?

"The children are committing several crimes manufacturing of child porn, distribution of child porn and if it is still on their phones or computers, the possession of child porn," he explained, adding, "To the kids, understand this is a crime and the Internet is a real place with real rules that you have to follow and if you don’t follow them you could wind up in jail."

 

"I can’t think of any reason for a kid to have a Web cam in their own room," Adkins said.  "If they do, I can guarantee they are doing things that you might not want them to do."

A good way to acquaint children with the concept of a police state. Senseless silly laws that carry extreme penalties, even for children

While district attorneys have been reluctant to prosecute child-initiated child porn cases, Adkins predicts that will soon change.

Things are getting worse before they get better. Maybe this is the straw that breaks the camel’s back and decent middle class parents will rebel against these laws.

---

3) Rethinking Sex Offender Laws for Youth Texting |NYT

In Iowa, Jorge Canal is on the sex offenders registry because, at age 18, he was convicted of distributing obscene materials to a minor after he sent a picture of his penis by cellphone to a 14-year-old female friend who had requested it.

In Florida, Phillip Alpert, then 18, was charged with distributing child pornography and put on the sex offenders registry because after a fight, he sent a photograph of his nude 16-year-old girlfriend by e-mail to dozens of people, including her parents.

In most states, teenagers who send or receive sexually explicit photographs by cellphone or computer — known as “sexting” — have risked felony child pornography charges and being listed on a sex offender registry for decades to come.

But there is growing consensus among lawyers and legislators that the child pornography laws are too blunt an instrument to deal with an adolescent cyberculture in which all kinds of sexual pictures circulate on sites like MySpace and Facebook.

Criminalizing children for photographing themselves is a cruel consequence of child pornography laws. Of course, Human-Stupidity thinks that this is only the most extreme example and that child porn laws are cruel in general, damaging adults and children, while doing almost no good at all and actually helping to increase sexual child abuse (Milton Diamond). Child abuse laws should suffice. Why don’t we have laws against possession of murder, mutilation, lynching, adolescent jackass wannabe, and child shaking nanny movies.

The district attorney told parents of the students involved — both those in the images and those whose phones contained the images — that their children could be prosecuted for child pornography unless they took part in an after-school program.

The program, divided by gender, involved random drug tests, probation and classes in which the girls would “gain an understanding of what it means to be a girl in today’s society,” by, among other things, writing essays on why their actions were wrong.

Only three of more than a dozen families refused to join the program — those of two girls, ages 12 and 13, who were pictured wearing bras at a slumber party, and of a third girl who was shown emerging from the shower with a towel wrapped under her breasts. The parents say the photographs were not pornographic, a question no court has yet considered.

Pictures do not have to be pornographic to be child pornography. (Copine scale, Knox vs. USA).

And there has been no evidence that any of the three girls played a part in circulating the photographs.

The parents went to court, claiming that prosecution would amount to retaliation for refusal to join the program.

It must be traumatizing to participate in such classes. Children get traumatized by cruel repressive sex and child pornography laws. Rarely children get traumatized by child pornography in spite of voodoo theories.

---

4) Pornography sentence unconstitutionally cruel, judge rules

Between the ages of 15 and 19, he downloaded pornography, much of it involving boys ages 10-12, and shared files with other users.
When he was 19 years old, the FBI ensnared him in a sting and the world came crashing down. Under federal law, “C.R.” faced a statutory minimum of five years in prison.
Until Judge Jack B. Weinstein intervened, ruling that the 5-year minimum is unconstitutional in C.R.’s case, due to the youth’s age and immaturity.
The ruling is part of a crusade by Weinstein, one of the United States’ most accomplished and respected jurists, against what he calls “the unnecessary cruelty of the law.” Previously, the 89-year-old federal judge in the Eastern District of New York led a similar campaign against rigid drug sentencing. 

---

Read Human-Stupiditý.com’s 50 posts on child porn.