Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!news-out.sonic-news.com!iad.highwinds-media.com!feeder.news-service.com!news.alt.net!fictitious-path
From: Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.prettyboy
Subject: Re: Virtual child porn's very real consequences
Date: 24 Dec 2008 17:15:02 -0600
Organization: Dreamland
Lines: 137
Approved: abc
Message-ID: <0001HW.C57801E900CAF24CB07809AF@news.newscene.com>
References: <2f44l4pekr69n0mnl1nsuakdp4g55noddt@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Hogwasher/4.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-No-Archive: yes
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.prettyboy:4324
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 02:44:59 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright wrote
(in article <2f44l4pekr69n0mnl1nsuakdp4g55noddt@4ax.com>):
>
> Virtual child porn's very real consequences
>
>
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_19_18/ai_87024964/print?tag=art
> Body;col1
>
> Paul M. Rodriguez
>
> Researching our story about the recent Supreme Court decision
> approving "virtual" child pornography, we wanted to present a visual
> image that would bring home the horror of this outrage. After
> extensive calls to the top photo sources failed to produce anything
> that approximated actual photography of the kind still banned by law,
> we turned to the Internet. Brother, what a shock it was to see what's
> out there on the World Wide Web. And we don't mean just every
> imaginable (or unimaginable) version of hard-core porn, but even the
> innocent listings that often are attached to pornographic materials.
>
> Equally disturbing (and we'll explain this further on) were porn links
> that led through images and virtual graphics that seemed not to be
> pornography at all. In fact, a number of such "binary" sites we found
> with the help of savvy Webmasters were shocking because they began
> with the kind of harmless photographs and images of children that
> might be found in school yearbooks, family albums or Sunday-school
> bulletins.
>
> The importance of the apparently innocent pictures is, in fact, at the
> core of our laws against child porn, and it eviscerates the Supreme
> Court's extraordinarily stupid decision that says virtual images of
> children used as sexual props is okay because no crime against real
> children is involved and so publication is protected by the First
> Amendment.
>
> Pornography involving consenting adults invokes far different issues
> than child porn. Our society long ago distinguished the dramatic
> differences between the two and decided that the latter is aberrant,
> deviant, depraved and immoral. It endangers the safety of innocent
> children, which is why it is illegal. It harms children who are
> exploited foully to make it and it provides a potential catalyst for
> pederasts and other sexual perverts who may go from images to the real
> thing -- a crime in which victims often are psychologically crippled
> or even murdered to ensure their silence. Society simply decided that
> the risk of child rape being excited by this stuff is too great to be
> tolerated.
>
> Indeed, laws against child pornography are designed to accomplish two
> things: 1) protect children from exploitation for its production and
> 2) create fire walls to prevent such material from being obtained by
> wanna-be, in-waiting or impulse-driven child-sex predators who the
> courts, law enforcement, victims and even the criminals themselves
> claim are excited to act out their loathsome fantasies by pornographic
> images of children. The medical profession long has believed that
> those convicted of child-sex abuse are unlikely ever to be cured of
> their "illness." Some penologists claim there literally is a 100
> percent recidivism rate for pederasts.
>
> Which brings us back to those seemingly innocent photographs and
> images of children on the Internet. It puzzled us, so we followed an
> escalating trail of pornographic links with headers such as "virtual
> porn," "child porn" and similar variations. Not only were the
> pornographers baiting a virtual path to their hard-core sites with
> images of innocence, but whoever did this understood that their
> pederast clientele wants to pursue child sex by sorting through
> pictures of normal children. The search for the victim is part of the
> perversion that drives some to harm children.
>
> Unless the government case was completely incompetent, the Supreme
> Court should have known all of this, yet it ignored the prevention
> aspects of the law against virtual child porn that it struck down. In
> doing this the court brazenly and irresponsibly dismissed an essential
> ingredient of that law: recognition of the effects even virtual child
> porn has on encouraging potential child molesters.
>
> In conversations with some of the leading entrepreneurs of virtual
> technology we learned something else that the apparently ignorant
> Supreme Court majority overlooked. The industry already can create
> human images indistinguishable from images of real people and can
> animate them to do anything at all. Virtual reality is just that --
> images of computer-generated humans made to act in any way their
> creators wish them to behave. Check out the image from Final Fantasy:
> The Spirit Within that illustrates Kelly Patricia O'Meara's story on
> page 18. The virtual girl appears real in every way. The same thing is
> being done pornographically, we're told, with virtual children
> engaging in sexual acts -- children indistinguishable from real
> children to the pederasts, whetting their appetites for molestation.
>
> Indeed, we're told by medical and law-enforcement experts, molesters
> excited by child porn who attack children don't give a damn whether it
> is real or virtual when the one is indistinguishable from the other.
> Unfortunately, in its rush to judgment, the liberal majority that now
> dominates the Supreme Court failed to see the bigger picture. For that
> matter, it failed even to see the images of real and virtual child
> porn that are indistinguishable.
>
> Congress and the Bush administration are working to overcome the high
> court's blunder. Perhaps part of that effort ought to include a
> cyber-warfare agency that employs the military or intelligence
> technology now used to hunt down terrorists via the Internet. It
> should be a relatively simple matter to apply existing child-porn
> standards against the international child-porn terrorists and their
> client-agents who are waging a real war against our very real
> children. Our kids are the ones who are "virtual" targets of
> child-porn predators.
>
> Thank God we have the First Amendment. It allows us to say directly
> that the damned-fool Supreme Court justices responsible for this
> abomination should be horsewhipped.
>
> PAUL M. RODRIGUEZ IS THE MANAGING EDITOR OF Insight MAGAZINE.
> --
> " whenever the authorities uncover someone in possession
> of child pornography,they are also identifying someone
> who is potentially a real and active danger to children."
>
> http://www.csecworldcongress.org/en/index.htm
Paul M Rodriguez. It's important to know those to which we are referred.
Insight magazine is an extreme conservative publication owned by Sun Moon. I
think that effectively demolishes any credibility they may have.
Paul Rordriguez wrote and article for Washinton Time falsley accusing Omaha
lawmakers of sexual abuse and exploitation. He was forced to recant. He too
has no credibility on this issue.
So the above drivel can be safely discounted.
Can you find a credible source that will carry your water? More importantly
can you cite even a scintillla of scientific evidence to justify your claims?
I doubt it.
|
|