A young man got arrested for possession of child porn, depicting a 12 year boy old masturbating. It is his own video: he recorded himself when he was 12 years old. Mandatory minimum jail sentence: 2 years.
Think hard: maybe you took some indecent photos of yourself. Or your family album contains nunde photos mom took when you were a toddler. Burn your childhood pictures while you still are out of jail!
"Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic" Archives of Sexual Behavior. The official publication of the International Institute of Sex Research
Study carried out in Czech Republic confirms similar results in Japan and Denmark
Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.
The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.
As part of his research Diamond also looked at countries that have recently made child pornography illegal and said the rate of child sex abuse there is rising.
Amazingly a politically incorrect study made it past the radar and actually got published. We are against dogmatic Human-Stupidity. We favor unbiased free research to find the truth. Human-Stupidity.com is in no way devoted to the goal of defending child pornography for its own sake. BUT
We are apalled that our sex-obsessed judicial system destroys the lives of harmless men
depictions of rioting, killing, lynching, beating adolescents or children to death
depictions of sports accident videos of children
All these are perfectly legal, no matter if this might incite people to imitate and do likewise. And no matter if minors got maimed and killed in production of the video.
Of course, only human-stupidity.com would dare to publish such a scientific result without backpedalling. The mainstream press, scared of the child porn witch hunt climate, has the compulsion to add caveats.
The proposal, by Professor Milton Diamond from the University of Hawaii [to legalise child pornography in a bid to cut the number of child sex abuse cases], follows a study which shows that child sex crimes fell when child pornography was legalised in the Czech Republic. […] The research found that child sex crimes fell when child pornography was more easily accessible. The discovery tallies with similar studies in Denmark and Japan, where child pornography is not illegal, that found incidences of child sex abuse were lower in those countries.
The conclusion of the new study is that ‘artificially-produced’ child pornography should be made available to prevent real children being abused.
The normal press has to instantly counter academic research with the emotionally driven, manipulative unscientific drivel by charities and NGO’s.
But child protection charity NSPCC today said the idea was ‘wrong’.
Chris Cloke, the charity’s NSPCC head of child protection awareness, said: ‘This obscene type of material has no part to play in our society.
‘Many children suffer atrocious abuse in the making of indecent images.
Change.org sucks & censors had to instantly campaign emotions against science and actually won censorship (as was to be expected in the actual political child porn witch hunt climate):
Due to loud protest by change.org “human trafficing” campaigns, academic scientific research was censored with no need for scientific rebuttal by academic peer reviewed research.
In these modern times, a child needs legal counsel before playing doctor, before taking photos, or before just hugging a fellow kid. Sex laws seriously traumatize and scar little children. 10y olds become registered sex offenders, 6 year olds accused of sexual harassment, and 13 year olds risk 10 years in jail for having a 12 year old boyfriend. Innocence of childhood is being taken away by pedo-hysteric perverts that invent and enforce absurd laws that grow out of the sex-obsessed religious mind.
A few decades ago, sexually curious children would get a little slap on the wrist or an admonition. Nowadays they get police arrest or at least a school suspension.
Obviously children need to be taught. and warned about these dangers. Not so much the dangers of sexuality. Children need to understand the dangers of man-made crazy laws.
But, how do you teach a 5 year old, or even a 12 year old that adults made insane laws that will cruelly punish him for taking nude photos of herself, playing doctor or “harassing” a kindergarden mate through hugging? Sexuality for children is even more complex then for adults
By this logic, if a child looks into the bath room mirror and sees her naked body, she is looking at child pornography!?
Every 5 year-old is stepping in a legal mine field if s/he wants to play doctor.
Criminalizing Child’s Play
by Marshall Burns, Ph.D. […]
What used to be called “playing doctor” for young children or thought of as normal sexual experimentation for older teens is now enough to get a kid arrested, taken away in handcuffs, put in juvenile jail, subjected to draconian psychological “treatment,” and put on a sex offender registry, often for the rest of his or her life! This is not just for aggressive or violent behavior, but for innocent, consensual play among giggling kids.
This report presents statistics on juvenile sex offenders, as well as details and references on 66 cases of the formal admonishment of children as young as four for behavior interpreted as sexual and criminal prosecution of children and teenagers for consensual sexual activity. This is a small sample of tens of thousands more cases like them across the United States and in some other countries.
Now every 7 year old, as soon as she is able to take a photo with a cell phone, needs to be accompanied by a lawyer, in order to know these important facts of life. Of course, these regulations need to be part of every school curriculum, from kindergarden to high school.
12, 14, 16 year olds, when engaging in sex, or just sex foreplay, are subject to varying laws, depending on country and state they are in. One of the most absurd cases is here
What used to be called “playing doctor” for young children or thought of as normal sexual experimentation for older teens is now enough to get a kid arrested, taken away in handcuffs, put in juvenile jail (or sometimes even adult prison), subjected to draconian psychological “treatment,” and put on a sex offender registry, often for the rest of his or her life! This is not just for aggressive or violent behavior, but also for innocent, consensual play among giggling kids. See the SOLR report, Criminalizing Child’s Play, for data on the formal admonishment of children as young as four, and criminal prosecution of first graders, for innocent sexual behavior.
10 year old girl registered as sex offender for 25 years. Her crime:
1) Fully clothed pretend-sex & 2) nude flashing
Another example of the disruption due to registration was described in Moore’s USA Today article (2006). Leah DuBuc, age twenty-two, and a resident of Michigan, was adjudicated
at the age of ten for sexual experimentation. DuBuc and her two stepbrothers age eight and five were caught flashing each other and pretending to have sex with their clothes on. Two years later DuBuc plead guilty to first and second degree sexual conduct and was sentenced to eighteen months in a residential treatment program and was required to register as sex offender for twenty-five years. DuBuc’s youthful mistake has made it difficult for her to find or keep a reasonable job; she suffers from community harassment, and has been refused financial aid, thus limiting her education level. DuBuc petitioned to be added to the non-public registry instead of the public registry but was denied because she was more than five years older than one victim at the time of the offense. DuBuc claimed the court had poor mathematical skills because her stepbrother was five and she was ten at the time of the offense cjcj.org/files/attitudes_towards.pdf
66 Cases of Persecuted Juvenile Sexual Activity Brief descriptions of 66 cases of children and teenagers, from four to 19 years of age, who were either formally admonished by their schools or criminally prosecuted as a result of innocent or consensual sexual acts. Each case is documented by at least one reference to reputable news reports and/or court documents.
Today’s legally acceptable behavior can become a crime on kid’s birthday
Sex with 12 year old boy became a crime on her 17th birth day
1) A judge has sent a 17-year-old girl to a restorative justice conference before deciding if she should be punished for having sex with a 12-year-old boy.
In Napier District Court, Judge Tony Adeane observed the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, instigated by the boy, happened on the girl’s 17th birthday, and had it been a day earlier she would not have been in the court. nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10684597
In Brazil sex with 16 year old girlfriend became crime on his 18h birthday
2) In Brazil, where adolescents are so protected, that they (almost) get away with murder, a man was arrested on his 18th birthday. He was doing the same thing with his 16 year old girlfriend that he had done, legally, for years, while he was 17y or less. But now, on his 18th birthday, he became criminally liable for seducing a minor.
Avid readers of child sex abuse books clamor for punitive laws
We were blissfully unaware of the fact that there are many many books dedicated to child sexual abuse. Emotional women devour such child abuse literature and get in a frenzy, demanding stricter laws. Just looking at the titles and descriptions made us sick (child abuse true stories). People who are enamored with such child abuse literature demand action
Perverted law enforcement persecutes normal average children
It took me a while to believe that Angry Harry was right: people who make and enforce these “child protection” laws have morbid obsessive phantasies about child sex.
Laws and law enforcement activities born out of these morbid phantasies do serious harm to little children and adolescents. These kids commit normal acts, sometimes somewhat “naughty” acts that then get blown out of proportion and criminalized instead of causing a simple admonition.
thousands of women ‘therapists’, who fantasised about child sex for years on end, who badgered children as young as three with sexual thoughts and imagery, and who harmed tremendously thousands of children and families, are barely criticised, let alone imprisoned.How do they get away with this?
Well, one technique of theirs is to continue to make a huge fuss over child sexual abuse and to claim that they are thoroughly appalled by it.
The truth, however, is likely to be very different.
My guess is that they love it.
Finally, I was shopping at ASDA (Wal-Mart) last week. They have a very small selection of books on sale. And I presume that they only sell those books that are in particularly high demand by the public. About 20% of the titles of the entire range were to do with ‘abuse’, and another 20% were to do with serial killers, murderers, torturers and, in general, ‘evil’ people. You know the type. angryharry.com/es_chris_langham.htm
We at Human-Stupidity were shocked to find this HUGE amount of child abuse literature on Amazon.co.uk
Why do people legally devour Child abuse books by Amazon and inadvertent possession of a picture is a heinous crime punishable by decades in jail? What about the children photographed on the cover of the child abuse books?
Meredith Maran’s recent book “My Lie” describes how Meredith accused her own father of child abuse and rape. She was fooled into this by then fashionable feminist witch hunt invention of “repressed memory”, that a third of all kids were sexually abused and just had forgotten. She is sorry for it, but does not quite see the monstrosity of how she almost destroyed her father’s life.
“I allow an innocent man to sit in prison if it meant keeping children safe”
(Meredith Maran)
In the middle of the book, while you are still deeply in the mind-set of being molested, there’s a notion you agree with that if one innocent man goes to prison, but it stops a hundred molesters, it’s worth it. Do you still agree with that notion?
I’m fairly close to a man still in prison, and really believe he is innocent. I know how he’s suffered. I know he’s 80 years old and in ill health. He’s spent 20 years in prison, for no reason. If every elementary school child is now taught how to protect themselves from sexual abuse — and even more to the point, some father or preschool teacher who feels the urge to molest a child will be inhibited from doing so because they think there are guys still in jail for doing that — but innocent people are in prison, do I have to make that choice? It is a Sophie’s choice kind of thing. Would I allow an innocent man to sit in prison if it meant keeping children safe?
Meredith Maran did not learn. She has a little pity for a guy whose life has been totally destroyed by 20 years of jail in spite of his innocence. No total outrage. No desire ti fight for justice (to make amends for her own injustice).
She still suffers from brainwashing by more recent feminist fables. Meredith Maran is sorry she destroyed her father’s life. But Meredith wants to totally destroy the life of a totally 100% innocent guys in order to save children from some indecent fondling? In this blog I make it a point that even the true culprit of indecent fondling of a (real) child deserves much lighter punishment then decades in jail. But Meredity wants that the totally innocent guy rots and gets raped in jail?
I use the word “real” child, denoting 3, 5 or 10 year old, because feminist laws
nowadays define 17 year olds as “children”
A child molestor is a guy who talks to children in creepy ways, who has indecent wandering hands. A guy who takes photos. An old grandpa who is getting a little too cozy. Or a 20 year old having sex with a 15 year old. Some reason for concern, yes. But feminist propaganda confounds senile grandpas with slight errors of judgment and violent penetrative toddler mutilators and (real) infant rapists.
Feminists either totally invent or vastly exaggerate the damage that is being done my low level child molestation. Where is the proof? Inconvenient science gets officially repressed and condemned:
Indefinite detention for possession of photos ok’d by Supreme Court. But violent Robbers must be freed after their term is over. Strange justice.
People who watch tasteless photos (youth erotica, or real child porn) in the privacy of their own home, first spend years in jail, then can be held indefinitely, the US Supreme Court confirmed. People who rob, threaten, pick fights, bully, hurt children while driving drunk, these offenders are set free after their prison term is over.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered “sexually dangerous” after their prison terms are complete.[…]
“The statute is a ‘necessary and proper’ means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned by who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others,” said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37192279
So far, so good. I wonder, though, why don’t you add dangerous violent people, who habitually commit violent robberies, habitually drive drunk and get involved in accidents, gang banger bullies who will return terrorizing others on the street. The idea is good, just why exactly worried about sex offenders only?
The act, named after the son of “America’s Most Wanted” television host John Walsh, was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said
there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.
Here is the serious problem: People who possessed computer files, a set of 0’s and 1’s that decode into the depiction of some nude teenagers, can be detained indefinitely? Even if it were the rare and unusual case that they possessed real violent rape photos of 5 year olds, what danger do these people pose to you, me, or our kids? Did they abuse? No! did they even take the photos? No! So why all the fuzz?
So the Supreme Court legalizes locking up, indefinitely, people who in the privacy of their home look at pictures? To protect whom? I worry about being run over by a habitual drunk driver, my kids being beaten up by a gang bully or robbed by a violent drug addict in urgent need to rob 5 times a day to support his drug addiction. But why should I care about a guy who stares at child porn in the privacy of his home? No matter how gross the pictures might be! And one can go to jail for nude photos of 17 year olds.
Years of Jail for “clicking on child porn link” & possessing 2 grainy tiny thumbnail pictures of nude adolescents. But lynching videos are legal.
Possession of videos depicting vigilantism, lynching mob killing people, child beating, gang killings, and Hollywood movies glorifying gore, torture, and violence, that is perfectly legal! Real physical toddler torture and abuse gets less punishment then possession of nude adolescent photos. Human Stupidity at its worst.!
Roderick Vosburgh, a doctoral student at Temple University who also taught history at La Salle University, was raided at home in February 2007 after he allegedly clicked on the FBI’s hyperlink. Federal agents knocked on the door around 7 a.m., falsely claiming they wanted to talk to Vosburgh about his car. Once he opened the door, they threw him to the ground outside his house and handcuffed him.
Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html
Raiding the house of a suspect of nonviolent crime. Throwing him on the ground and handcuffing him instead of a dignified arrest notice. The government specifies the amount of jail he can get:
If convicted, the defendant faces a maximum possible sentence of 45 years imprisonment, a mandatory minimum of 5 years imprisonment, a $750,000 fine, 3 years of supervised release, and a special assessment of $300.
Source: http://www.justice.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2007/mar/vosburgh.html
This is totally insane witch hunt, I have no better words for this. Criminalizing ATTEMPTS to get DEPICTIONS of nude teenagers where nobody was harmed and where nobody committed an illegal or dangerous act.
Vosburgh was charged with violating federal law, which criminalizes “attempts” to download child pornography with up to 10 years in prison. Last November, a jury found Vosburgh guilty on that count, and a sentencing hearing is scheduled for April 22, at which point Vosburgh could face three to four years in prison.
The implications of the FBI’s hyperlink-enticement technique are sweeping. Using the same logic and legal arguments, federal agents could send unsolicited e-mail messages to millions of Americans advertising illegal narcotics or child pornography–and raid people who click on the links embedded in the spam messages. The bureau could register the “unlawfulimages.com” domain name and prosecute intentional visitors. And so on.
Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html
Vosburgh was convicted on these counts: “clicking on an illegal hyperlink” and “possessing a hard drive with two grainy thumbnail images of naked female minors (the youths weren’t having sex, but their genitalia were visible)” “From the FBI’s perspective, clicking on the illicit hyperlink and having a thumbs.db file with illicit images are both serious crimes.” (all quotes from above cnet article)
[:en]parents should be obliged not only to give enough food, cleanliness and schooling, but also HEALTHY quality food in corrrect amounts and exercise. Government food and exercise policy is dangerously deficient[:de]Eltern sollten nicht nur die Pflicht haben genug Essen, Hygiene, Schule zu geben, sondern auch GESUNDES Essen in richtiger Menge, und körperliche Bewegung und Sport[:pt]Pais deveriam ser obrigados não somente a dar comida suficiente, cuidados com higiene, e eschola, mas também comida SAUDÁVEL, de qualidade, em quantidade correta, exercicio saudávelWait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading » Should Parents of Obese Kids Lose Custody? » continues here »
But obesity appears to be the primary reason South Carolina mom Jerri Gray lost custody of her 14-year-old, 555-lb. son in May. She was arrested after missing a court date to examine whether she should retain custody after doctors had expressed concern about her son’s weight to social services. The boy is currently living with his aunt, and his mother is facing criminal child-neglect charges. […]”It’s happening more than the public is aware of, but because these cases are usually kept quiet [as a result of child-privacy laws], we have no record,” says Dr. Matt Capehorn, who sits on the board of the U.K.’s National Obesity Forum.
Parents have an obligation to care for their little children. Parents face legal sanctions or loss of paternal rights if they do not provide basic care for their children, for example if children are
undernourished
unkept and dirty
truant missing school education.
It actually makes a lot of sense, to add this list
morbid obesity, obviously.
Unless if proven it is not the parent’s fault andit persists after
medical
nutritional
and physical education interventions.
any minor kind of obesity and overweight
lack of healthy exercise.
unhealthy food at home
The epidemic of obesity that kills more people then all wars together, needs more serious attention. Actually, any lack of movement, any overweight should be considered abuse. The child has no recourse against it, and when it is a fat overweight diabetic adult it is too late.
Of course, this suggestion to require responsible parenting contradicts all the
Faulty government policy regarding obesity & other health hazards (alcohol, …)
Promote interest of big beef farmers.
Let Coca Cola and McDonalds reign and advertise to children without health warnings.
it is totally insane that the government does not have EMERGENCY plans against all these health epidemics.`Rather, government should be engaged in
promotion of healthy nutrition
natural,
low salt,
high in vitamins, l
low in sugar,
little additives
people should NEVER imbibe enough alcohol to get drunk or even tipsy. Alcohol should be taken like in mediterranean countries (Italy, France) who have a tradition of taking one glass of wine with meals. Society should shun people who drink excessively and get drunk.
promotion of healthy exercise
there should be government emergency programs to promote exercise for children and adults.
