Tag: child pornography

“Watching child porn victimizes the child”. The Voodoo science of child pornography laws

  

“However, what he didn’t turn his mind to at the time is that merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image. He appreciates that now.” Senior gets jail time, probation for having single image of child pornography 

We at Human-Stupidity.com fail to appreciate that. Maybe we are too humanly-stupid to understand. Or maybe we do not fall prey to mystical superstitious thinking that is the driving force of the child porn witch hunt. 

“merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image.” This is some mystical religious thinking. Like in Voodoo. And note, this was said by a respectable lawyer to appease a judge. And this logic is used over and over, for example by Australian Government web sites. 

Vodoo logic

Child porn Voodoo logic
voodoo-doll-pinYou stick a needle into a Vodoo doll’s arm. The person you curse will be hurt on the arm.
The vodoo doll symbolizes a person, and that person’s will get injured in the same place where you stuck the needle.		 Someone possesses a photo of a child, in the form of 0’s and 1’s in a computer file. When s/he looks at the photo, the individual depicted in the photo gets victimized and hurt.
 

Voodoo logic applied to murder and terrorism
exhusband-vodoo-doll While I can appreciate that creating or distributing child porn victimizes children, I cannot agree that looking for, viewing, or collecting child porn actually victimizes anyone. If you were to apply the same reasoning to any other crime, then looking at a photo of any crime would be re-victimizing someone. Using the same reasoning, anyone who looks for, views images or video footage of 9/11 or nazi war crimes, or autopsy photos, etc, would be guilty of having re-victimized people. If the simple act of viewing an image of someone is harmful, then perhaps an approprate punishment would be to simply take a photo of the perpetrator in jail, then set them free, but have some look at the photo that was taken while they were in jail. ”
Dude” commenting at  Examining the Effects of Child Pornography

VoodooDoll Dude, you are hilarious. Having people look at photos of themselves in jail to re-victimize them with their jail term. Priceless! 

Studying child sex offenders isn’t easy. […] It’s hard because sexual offenses against children are without a doubt the most culturally, emotionally, and politically charged of all offenses, particularly in North America, and researchers (and journalists) who are willing to take a more objective, critical, and/or scientific view of these offenses and offenders, are often attacked for their trouble. Take one of the questions the Swiss study considered: 

Are people who consume child pornography different from those who sexually offend against a child?

So far so good. Open minded article, wants to seriously analyze child porn issues. But wait: now he falls under the voodo spell, too:

Many may feel like this distinction isn’t worth making. Watching child pornography is, in several ways, offending against a child even if the viewer never comes in physical contact with a child. Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film.    Examining the Effects of Child Pornography 

We were seriously doubting our sanity. Maybe we at Human-Stupidity, like Mr Smith who had one single CP photo, really need our misguided brain repaired. Even if we don’t consume child porn, maybe for purely educational purposes, to remedy our human-stupitiy, we should join Smith’s “probationary term that will require Smith to take part in the province’s sexual offender assessment and treatment program” (Senior gets jail time for single image of CP) 

Maybe we, at Human-Stupidity.com are the only dumb insane people in this world who don’t understand this infallible logic: “Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.  

But the spell was broken, and our trust into our sanity was re-instated, when we ran across this irreverant and refreshing comment 

“Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film.” 

Are you mad? 

Looking at ‘indecent’ images of children is no more a ‘Sex Crime’ than looking at an image of a dead person is ‘Homicide’. (“Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield “commenting on Examining the Effects of Child Pornography) 

Hence 

one could just legalise ownership [of child porn] and solve the problem in one fell swoop 

Certainly our mind gets victimized by repeated exposure to insane voodo logic 

“Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.  

This repeated exposure almost destroyed our trust into our own intelligence. Somehow constant repetition of voodoo logic brainwashes the average person into believing such NONSENSE: “Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.  

Unfortunately, the belief in this nonesense guides entire nations’ and the United Nation’s policy towards the world wide child porn witch hunt. 

Australian Law Makers’ logic

Analogy #1

Analogy #2
Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of child pornography or child abuse images on the Internet raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual child abuse off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing child pornography makes the offender a party to child sexual abuse. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of child pornography is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. [2.5]  Child Pornography Law (New South Wales, Australia) Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of child abuse images on the internet 
 

  • infant shaking, infant beating, infant throwing caught on nanny-cams
  • children suffering serious injuries in accidents
  • children being knocked out in fighting sports like boxing and Thai boxing

raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual child abuse off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing child abuse videos above makes the offender a party to child sexual abuse. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of child abuse videos as above is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. 

 Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of  depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder on the Internet raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual terrorism, mayhem and murder off-line by the offender concerned.  It is agreed that the very act of accessing depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder makes the offender a party to terrorism, mayhem and murder. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. [2.5]   

  

Human-Stupidity.com Analysis

We understand your rage

We understand that some readers will be fuming with anger, reading our “defense of pedophiles, child abuse, and child abusers”. We almost fell prey to the world wide child porn hysteria voodoo logic brainwashing. It is based on 2 fallacies 

  1. confusing the crime with depiction of a crime:
    You watch a movie of a plane flying into the World Trade Center. Therefore you are a terrrorist and revictimizing 3000 people who died
  2. Confusing child pornography and “child pornography”. Confusing “child porn” as defined in the old days (involving a “real child under 12” and “real porn with real penetrative sex” and “modern child porn” which might be as harmless as a 22 year old (that looks “apparently underage” like she might be only 17 years old) non-nude in leotards dancing while gyrating her hips provocatively). Can you understand now we insist that lots of modern so called “child porn” has no victim at all and is not offensive to sex positive people.

  

Can watching a photo or video cause harm to a far away “victim” that is unaware of the watcher?

  

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading ““Watching child porn victimizes the child”. The Voodoo science of child pornography laws” »
“Watching child porn victimizes the child”. The Voodoo…
» continues here »

Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)

Legalizing child pornography

is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse

Archives of Sexual Behavior (Peer Reviewed Scientific Research Publication by Springer)
"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.

Diamond M et al (2010). Pornography and sex crimes in the Czech Republic. Archives of Sexual Behavior. DOI 10.1007/s10508-010-9696-y  eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/s-lcp113010.php

Video (must see)
Hawaii Researcher Studies Effects Of Child Pornography.:Says Porn Lowers Sex Abuse Of Children. (must see Video)

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.

Original Paper: Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic (HTML)
Original Paper: Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic (PDF)

The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children.
Source: Legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse

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
while at the same time being tolerant of real mayhem, violence, vigilanteism, and the child obesity pandemic

It is perfectly legal to own, produce and distribute clearly more dangerous depictions of

  • terrorist acts,
  • fatwa orders to kill,
  • video games of shooting people
  • video games of running people over with cars,
  • 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.

Charity’s anger at proposal to make child porn legal ‘to protect children from abusers’ (Daily Mail)

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.

‘To make it legal, would suggest that inappropriate behaviour and violence towards children is acceptable. It never is and it would be quite wrong to make it legal.’
Charity’s anger at proposal to make child porn legal ‘to protect children from abusers’ (Daily Mail)

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):

Update: The University of Hawaii denounced this recommendation after receiving letters from 250 Change.org members. University of Hawaii Professor Recommends Legalizing Child Porn (Change.org)

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.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)” »
Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scien…
» continues here »

Cruel child porn laws kill, "destroying lives unnecessarily” (Judge Jack B. Weinstein)

Airline safety is compromised because “nude airport scanner” violates child porn laws. 32 men committed suicide in one CP case alone. Toddlers die because men are afraid to help them. Jack B. Weinstein: A reasonable judge opposing cruel mandatory child porn jail terms for mere possession, that destoy lives unnecessarily (!must read!). The recommended sentences for looking at pictures of children being sexually abused sometimes eclipse those for actually sexually abusing a child! Convicting a guy for watching 10-17 year old girls dancing provocatively, wearing leotards (in Knox vs US), or for inadvertently downloading photos of 17 year old nudes is even more disproportionally cruel.Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading »
Cruel child porn laws kill, "destroying lives unnecessarily” (Judge Jack B. Weinstein)
» continues here »

Child porn laws and underage sex laws have caused inumerous deaths and suffering.

  1. Men are too afraid to help lost infants, who in some instances have died (Did Pedophilia Hysteria Cause Child’s Death?)
  2. Lots of men have committed suicide after chatting  up minors on the internet or after being accused of child porn possession (Child porn suspect suicide tally hits 32;  Five committed suicide over a short time span.)
  3. Many men get gang raped in prison, become life long sex slaves, are severely beaten, and contract deadly AIDS for simple possession of photos. Criminal prison rapist gangs are especially ruthless with “Child rapists” (who mostly are in jail for consensual sex or mere consensual fondling)
  4. and now this insanity: airline safety will be compromised

Airline safety sacrificed due to insane child porn laws

Planes may get blown up & passengers may get killed, due to child porn law compliance

Airplanes might get highjacked, might get blown up, or flown into towers. That is less important then silly child porn laws. One the one side the danger of many people’s violent death. On the other hand the danger of what? Some security official getting turned on when seeing x-ray photos? Who will get protected?

nude-airport-scanner Kids May Be Barred From ‘Nude’ Airport Scanner

Manchester Airport has admitted it might be illegal for children to use its new “nude” security scanner when it comes into operation at the end of the month.

The full body scanner, which was launched in a blaze of publicity, reveals everything under clothing and shows a clear outline of the passenger’s genitals.

The airport has now said that no under-18s will be allowed to use the device unless it can clarify the law on indecent images of children.

Manchester Airport’s head of external communications, Russell Craig, said they would be taking advice before starting the trial at the end of the month. Source: see title link

See also: Body Scanners Might Violate U.K. Child-Protection Laws
But not only children (under 18) should be exempt, but nobody should be scanned.  Airline security be damned:

What’s more, the group claims the machines, among other things, violate the federal Video Voyeurism Prevent Act, which protects against capturing improper images that violate one’s privacy.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a recent statement that the deployment is “enhancing our capability to detect and disrupt threats of terrorism across the nation.”

Group Demands Immediate Halt of Full-Body Airport Scanners

a

Child Porn prosecution causes suffering, watching child porn is harmless

Almost all so called “child porn” in reality is “adolescent nudity” or consensual “sexual activities” of sexually active teenagers. We are not not aware of any deaths due to child porn production. Most child porn is totally harmless, like adolescents taking their own photos, or formerly legal 16 year old sex films made legally in Holland 30 years ago.

On the other hand there was a death in the production of the following documentary:  Beating Death Of Derrion Albert,16,Caught On Video as described in Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV.

Jack B. Weinstein: A reasonable judge
opposing cruel child porn jail terms (!must read!)

Finally, a few sensible judges. The first glimpse of reason in the witch hunt. Jack B. Weinstein against the cruel child porn witch hunt!

Defiant Judge Takes On Child Pornography Law

In his 43-year career as a federal judge, Jack B. Weinstein has come to be identified by his efforts to combat what he calls “the unnecessary cruelty of the law.”[…]

Judge Weinstein, who sits in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, has twice thrown out convictions that would have ensured that the man spend at least five years behind bars. He has pledged to break protocol and inform the next jury about the mandatory prison sentence that the charges carry. And he recently declared that the man, who is awaiting a new trial, did not need an electronic ankle bracelet because he posed “no risk to society.”

There is little public sympathy for collectors of child pornography. Yet across the country, an increasing number of federal judges have come to their defense, criticizing changes to sentencing laws that have effectively quadrupled their average prison term over the last decade.

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a 20-year child pornography sentence by ruling that the sentencing guidelines for such cases, “unless applied with great care, can lead to unreasonable sentences.” The decision noted that the recommended sentences for looking at pictures of children being sexually abused sometimes eclipse those for actually sexually abusing a child.

Judge Weinstein has gone to extraordinary lengths to challenge the strict punishments, issuing a series of rulings that directly attack the mandatory five-year prison sentence faced by defendants charged with receiving child pornography.

“I don’t approve of child pornography, obviously,” he said in an interview this week. But, he also said, he does not believe that those who view the images, as opposed to producing or selling them, present a threat to children.

“We’re destroying lives unnecessarily,” he said. “At the most, they should be receiving treatment and supervision.” […}

“I don’t see Judge Weinstein as a judge,” Mr. Polizzi said during an interview as tears rolled down his face. “I see him as my father. He helps people. He doesn’t destroy lives the way the prosecutor has. He’s the one who is going to set me free from the court.”
nytimes.com/2010/05/22/nyregion/22judge.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

And Judge Weinstein seems to talk about REAL child porn, 5 year olds engaging in sex. Convicting a guy for watching 10-17 year old girls dancing provocatively, wearing leotards (in Knox vs US), or for inadvertently downloading photos of 17 year old nudes is even more disproportionally cruel.

It is amazing that judge Weinstein has not been arrested, deposed, assassinated yet. He really goes against the grain of the entire child porn witch hunt.

See scaredmonkeys.com/2010/05/22/unreal-federal-judge-jack-b-weinstein-defending-chils-sex-predators

See another judge here: Judge Not Comfortable With Child Porn Sentence

“Just because I like pictures of 14 year old girls
doesn’t mean I prowl shopping malls to rape and kill”

Compare:
1) Just because I like the “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” movie
doesn’t mean I will chop up children with a chain saw
2) Just because I like the “Terminator”
doesn’t mean I will machine-gun children or adults

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Cruel child porn laws kill, "destroying lives unnecessarily” (Judge Jack B. Weinstein)” »
Cruel child porn laws kill, "destroying lives unnecessarily&r…
» continues here »

Hollywood movies glorify criminal heroes: how romantic!

Romantic Hollywood movies are full of illegal (criminal) actions, perpetrated by movie heroes, our role models!  Interestingly, most of these illegalities are considered highly romantic (when perpetrated by a heartthrob movie star)

“When done in real life, many of the tricks used by onscreen singletons to successfully woo potential lovers can get you put away for a long time.”

  1. Pranking a Rival by Doctoring His Drink
  2. Defending Her Honor – With Your FISTS
  3. Watching Your True Love From the Bushes (stalking)
  4. Just Tie The Guy Up (rape committed by females is romantic)
  5. “Oh, It Was You I Was Having Sex With!” (sex by deception)
  6. Dashing Through Airport Security to Declare Your Love
    Source: Romantic Movie Gestures That Can Get You Prison Time

It is fun to read all the details and examples:
Romantic Movie Gestures That Can Get You Prison Time

If a man tied up a woman, with no explicit consent: 10 years jail time
Man tied up to be raped by a woman (in mainstream movie)

Do these movies send us wrong messages? Do they mis-educate us and our kids? Should they be prohibited for minors? Or are our laws wrong and the movies are right? Tough questions!

Hollywood glorifies ILLEGAL violent actions perpetrated by handsome role models …. but photos and movies of LEGAL acts are child pornography

Hollywood glorifies ILLEGAL violent actions perpetrated by handsome role models …

Our inborn insticts are not acceptable in laws of the modern world. This has good reasons. Genocide and ethnical cleansing can be found not only in the holy Bible, but even in chimpanzee colonies in the wild. Overreacting in self defense is a deterrent to thugs, but nowadays gets victims of bullying and robbery into jail. Of course, occasionally, the old illegal method would work as well or better. Vigilanteism and lynching, in the past, helped to maintain order.

In Hollywood movie clearly illegal and dangerous actions are perpetrated by the hero! Not just by the villains, but by the beloved and adored hero that serves as model for adults and children alike. I always wondered why the hero never makes a police report, but rather solves his problems with his fists and guns. What a role model for our gullible children!

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Hollywood movies glorify criminal heroes: how romantic!” »
Hollywood movies glorify criminal heroes: how romantic!
» continues here »

Brooke Shields nude: exploited pedophile magnet?

Brooke Shields, now 44, posed for a nude photo when she was 10 years old. Now Richard Prince’s photograph of the picture, called “Spiritual America,” has been yanked from a major exhibition at the Tate Modern. If pedophiles didn’t already know about “Spiritual America,” the Richard Prince photo taken of a nude, heavily-made-up 10-year-old named Brooke Shields, they do know. London police made headlines by yanking the photo from an exhibition at the Tate Modern after child exploitation groups protested, saying it could be a “magnet for pedophiles.” nj.com So what if it becomes a magnet for pedophiles? What if 300 pedophiles crowd into the art museum’s room to see the picture? What damage would be caused?We have so many real problems in this world. Why invent non-existent problems about a 32 year old photo of a now 42 year old woman?I see more damage in this violent, but legal, movie:

“If you are using a picture of a naked child to bring people to your exhibition, then you are exploiting that child,” Michele Elliott of the child advocacy group Kidscape tells the Daily Telegraph.

How does that child get exploited? If she were not famous, she would not even know about the art gallery. In this case, she probably even got paid. And why that be exploitation? And what is the problem of being thus exploited? Will she lose money, health, time?

Oh, dignity? Well check the dignity of the kid that is being clubbed to death, on prime time TV:

Feminists repeat the same stupid drivel (“picture of naked child is exploitation of the child“) over and over, until people actually believe their nonsense. This never ceases to impress me. Feminist stupid talk has magical qualities. No matter how stupid, no matter how unfounded and baseless, it becomes public policy and profoundly convinces press, police, law makers, the United Nations assembly, and supreme court judges.

The same exploitative photo was in Playboy in the 1970ies or 1980ies. We can see the horrendous damage that has been caused to Brook Shields and to millions of readers of that Playboy edition. She must still be a wreck today at 42 years of age.

I guess all people over 40 who have seen these and similar photos, are probably totally screwed up. They did not see only this one photo, but photos of nude 12-16 year olds were routinely in newspapers (page 3) and in youth magazines like Bravo or on the cover of prestigious German news magazine “Der Spiegel”. (23. May 1977)

Be careful, if you collect such magazines, you might get a 15 year jail sentence for possession if child pornography! Be afraid, be very afraid.

 brooke-shields-nude-10years
Brooke Shields 10 years old nude photo. Censored.
The above photo was removed from the art gallery in London.

Wet Gold, USA 1985, Director: Dick Lowry. Brooke Shields, Burgess MeredithYou pedophiles want to see the uncensored photos?

If you like this photo to the right, you are a “hebephile”, you like adolescent girls. Nowadays this is, on purpose, confused with pedophiles (pedophiles like pre-pubescent girls)

  • Below: Cover of most prestigious new magazine of Germany. May 1977. Nude.  Today this constitutes child porn.

Der Spiegel May 1977 Lolita Issue. Censore to avoid Child Pornography charges and to avoid corrupting my blog readers. Of course, there were hundreds such photos on other magazine covers. The entire Germany, a nation of pedophiles!? Or today, a time of witch hunts?!
An entire nation of pedophiles: Millions - adults, children, babies - saw these photos (uncensored in complete nudity) in public news stands all over Germany in 1977. Imagine the terrible damage to the entire German population and to the girl. Any scientific literature available that discusses the damage from this heinous crime of exposing the poor victim? Of course not!!!
Child porn showing a baby's genitals and urination
Clearly visible genitals, urination of an infant child. A heinous crime: the statue needs to be destroyed. Everyone responsible for this monstrosity needs 25 years of jail. Until recently, the world was unaware of the damage caused by such despicable criminal art.

A very nice discussion with examples of child pornographic art from major art museums, worth millions of dollars follows

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Brooke Shields nude: exploited pedophile magnet?” »
Brooke Shields nude: exploited pedophile magnet?
» continues here »

Sexting: Courts victimize Teens with child porn charges for exchanging their own nude photos

More child porn insanity! Children nowadays need legal counsel to know if and how they can photograph themselves or have relations with other teenagers, or else they can spend years in jail and remain the rest of their lives on sex offender lists.

US court on ‘sexting’: Child porn or child’s play?
01/15/2010 PHILADELPHIA (AP) — The first criminal case involving “sexting” reached a U.S. appeals court on Friday — a case that asks whether racy cell-phone photos of three girls amount to child pornography or child’s play.

A county prosecutor in northeastern Pennsylvania threatened to pursue felony charges if the girls skipped his “re-education” course on such topics as sexual predators and “what it means to be a girl in today’s society.”

The photos show two 12-year-olds in training bras at a sleepover and a topless 16-year-old stepping out of the shower.[. . . ]

“You’re going to see more provocative photos in a Victoria’s Secret catalog,” [ . . . ]
newsok.com/us-court-on-sexting-child-porn-or-childs-play/article/3432301

Feminist “Logic”

Analogies
“Naked pictures of children on the Internet draws predators the same way a swamp draws mosquitoes,” argued lawyer Michael Donohue of Scranton, who represents the prosecutor’s office. Authorities must sometimes protect children from themselves, he argued. newsok.com/3-face-charges-in-texhoma-sexting/article/3480534 “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” movies really attract chainsaw murderers like a swamp draws moskitoes.

Cop Killer rap music really incites violence against police and school authorities.Soccer stadiums attract violent hooligans like a swamp draws mosquitoes. Let us close down all soccer stadiums.

Photos of knives, swords, and guns attract murderers.

Actually, the analogies are much more convincing then the lawyer’s statement in column 1, which is devoid of any logic or scientifc support. Pure manipulative nonsense. It is intriguing how utter nonsense is socially acceptable whenever it is  backed by feminism and women’s studies. No clue about logic and scientific method. But absolute masters in manipulating public opinion.

Here is the root of the insanity.  Unproven hysterical statements, with no scientific backing, are the excuse for a witch hunt. Feminists use real predators, real rapists, kidnappers and child murderers as an excuse for their political goals.  So innocent girls photographing themselves naked get arrested!  Why should it be a crime to photograph yourself? Maybe it is also a crime for the girls to look into the mirror?

I dare to say something really taboo:  what is the problem if dirty old men like to look at nude adolescent pictures and do absolutely no harm whatsoever. Why should they get 10 years in jail?

So even if it were true that naked pictures of children on the internet draw predators. For what? To look at photos in the privacy of their home? What is the problem? Maybe this is positive, so they don’t go out trying to check out what real adolescents look like naked.

Compare:

  • Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. But violent robbers get freed.
  • Pedophile witch hunt & underage sex law excesses: why the witch hunt and how to change it?
  • Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV.
  • Years of Jail for “clicking on child porn link”. But lynching videos are legal.

    • There must be a special evolutionary skill how feminists manage to convince male law makers to support their warped feminist  “women studies” logic (Feminist arguments against prostitution debunked)

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading this article about sexting (courts victimizing adolescents) »
    Sexting: Courts victimize Teens with child porn charges for exchan…
    » continues here »

    EU Requests To Retain User Data From Search Engines to protect children from pedophiles

    The most recent tension came from Pakistan’s decision that it will monitor Google, Bing, Yahoo (and other sites) for blasphemous content. Now it is the EU’s turn to try to impose checks on search engines through its controversial "Written Declaration 29."

    Written Declaration 29
    Italy’s European Member of Parliament, Tiziano Motti, is the author of the proposal, commonly known as Written Declaration 29, adopted last week. His aim was to protect children from abusers and paedophiles lurking on the web by requesting that user data from search engines be stored and used by governments to track sexual offenders.

    Source: http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/100629-053942

    Don’t we have enough REAL problems?

    • A large percentage of children grow up in poverty stricken families, unintegrated into middle class society, condemned to low level of schooling and an unsuccessful life. 
    • Hundreds of millions of our children will live an unhealthy life and die early, due to obesity, wrong nutrition, lack of exercise.
    • Hundreds of millions of children also will be victims of bullying at school, threatened, intimidates, psychologically damaged.

    And now, search machines are supposed to become government spies? In violation of civil rights of hundreds of million law abiding internet users. With the intent to catch a few dozen dangerous "pedophiles" and entrap a couple of thousand harmless surfers who have bad taste and seek photos of young kids?

    Watchdog Privacy International immediately stepped up to the plate by issuing a joint statement with search engine Ixquick, entitled: Ixquick: Search Engines Should Become Government Spies, Says EU Parliament. Ixquick has built its reputation on not storing any user search data and therefore feels it has been singled out by the Declaration. For Robert Beens, CEO of Ixquick, Written Declaration 29 would jeopardize the privacy of over 500 million people across Europe when it should really uniquely concern known offenders. "Sex offenders exchange files through underground networks. They don’t find this stuff through search engines," Alex Hanff of Privacy International said in the statement. "I spent eight years helping law enforcement track down online sex offenders and never once did we see a case where search engine data was useful."

    Source: http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/100629-053942

    Human-Stupidity wrote more about these issues are in these topics: Child porn wich hunt and Teenage Sexuality witch hunt

     

    Related articles about European Union Data Retention Plans
    1. EU Politicians Tricked Into Supporting Data Retention On Search Terms… ‘For The Children’ (techdirt.com)
    2. European MPs back web-search data retention plan (newstatesman.com)
    3. MEPs back web search history plan (independent.co.uk)
    4. Ixquick: Search Engines Should Become Government Spies, Says EU Parliament (eon.businesswire.com)
    5. Italian MEP Wants To Eliminate Anonymity On the Internet (search.slashdot.org)
    6. EU Request To Retain User Data From Search Engines Sparks Widespread Anger (searchenginewatch.com)
    7. EU Parliament plans Google-powered paedo detector (go.theregister.com)
    8. MEPs call for search engines to store web search histories for two years (telegraph.co.uk)
    9. EU Ministers Want ISP and Google Logs To Fight Paedos (dvorak.org)

    Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. But violent robbers get freed.

    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.

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. But violent robbers get freed.” »
    Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. B…
    » continues here »