On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:42:05 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright wrote
(in article <ogval49eq0jtppmrgtt3jr2h9hdqinj5sc@4ax.com>):
> On 24 Dec 2008 17:15:02 -0600, Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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=a
>> rt
>>
>>> 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.
>
> It must be comforting for you to think the facts of a matter depends
> on your own assessment of source credibility..
>
>
>>
>> Paul Rordriguez wrote and article for Washinton Time falsley accusing Omaha
>> lawmakers of sexual abuse and exploitation.
>
>> He was forced to recant.
>
> He did?
>
> When was that?
>
> IIRC it was the abused children who said they were forced to recant..
> not him..
>
>> He too has no credibility on this issue.
>
>
> in your biased opinion perhaps..
>
> the fact that the chief suspect was made to pay a million dollars
> damages for civil charges of child abuse gives pause for thought..
> as does the mysterious death of the investigator ..
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_of_Silence_(documentary)#Cover_Up_Alle
> gations
>
> King has since been convicted of embezzlement charges and he failed to
> appear in court to respond to a civil charges of child abuse and other
> charges, leading to a $1M default judgment against him
>
> Cover Up Allegations
>
> The 1990 grand jury report came less than two weeks after private
> detective Gary Caradori, who was hired by a special Nebraska state
> legislative committee to investigate the allegations, was killed when
> the small plane he was piloting crashed in Illinois.
>
> Senator Loran Schmit, chairman of the legislative committee, told the
> Omaha World-Herald that "[Caradori] believed that something was going
> to come out of this investigation. He believed that the evidence was
> there to be developed and that things couldn't stay under cover
> forever."[8]
>
> Former Nebraska state senator John DeCamp, who was close to the
> original Franklin investigation and provided legal counsel to several
> of the alleged victims in the case, has written extensively about a
> connection to the Washington, D.C. prostitution ring and what he
> believes amounted to a coverup. Webster Tarpley also wrote about the
> Franklin Credit Union scandal and its connection to the Washington
> prostitution ring in an unauthorized biography of George H. W. Bush
> published in 1992.
>
> A new book about the Franklin allegations by investigative journalist
> Nick Bryant is set for release in January 2009.
>
>>
>> So the above drivel can be safely discounted.
>
> An interesting red herring you throw up..
>
>
>> 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.
>
> what claims?
>
> That virtual pornography produced to inflame and child molesters is
> harmful?
>
> That child pornography is a visual record of adults sexually
> assaulting children?
>
> You don't actually need scientific evidence to know adults
> shouldn't be forcing their dicks into small children? do you?
> --
>
>
http://www.ncmec.org/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry=en_U
> S&PageId=3084
>
> There are those who maintain that there is a distinction between viewing
> child pornography and molesting a child.
>
> This is another fallacy. Viewing these images is often the first step in
> the timeline that eventually leads to the sexual victimization of a child.
> Dr. Andres Hernandez, Director of the Sex Offender Treatment Program at the
> Federal Correctional Institution at Butner, North Carolina, has treated
> several hundred inmates who were convicted of child pornography crimes.
>
> He conducted a study which found that 85% of child pornography offenders
> had, in fact, committed contact sexual crimes which were unknown to law
> enforcement. Dr. Hernandez asserts, that, while there needs to be further
>
> This is supported by another study, published in the Journal of Abnormal
> Psychology, which suggests that child pornography offending is a stronger
> diagnostic indicator of pedophilia than is sexually offending against child
> victims.[2]
>
> It is also known that images of child pornography are used in the
> victimization of children to desensitize them to sexual exploitation. They
> natural inhibitions and defense mechanisms.
>
> Let me close by reminding you what the Supreme Court held in the Ferber case:
>
> children engaged in lewd sexual conduct is exceedingly modest, if not de
>
> The value of our children is not de minimus. They deserve the best protection
> our laws can provide.
>
> Thank you.
>
> 1 Statement of Dr. Andres E. Hernandez before the Subcommittee on Oversight
> and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, United States House of
> Representatives, September 26, 2006.
>
> Psychology, Vol. 115, No. 3, 2006.
>
>
> TESTIMONY OF CAROLYN ATWELL-DAVIS
>
> Director of Legislative Affairs
>
> THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN
>
> for the MARYLAND SENATE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS COMMITTEE
>
> March 7, 2007
>
>
>
>
Quoting from NCMEC is a waste of everyone's time. They are clearly biased
and depend on the continutation of the hysteria around so-called 'child
abuse' for their livelihoods . You would be the first to concemn a
congressman who was receiving money from a cause that elicited his vote.
Same/Same.
I agree that the welfare of our children is not De Minimus and the
exploitation of children in arranging, coercing, etc., them into engaging in
the production of pornography may be harmful (note the use of the word may).
Clearly if they are forced that is already against the law and perpetrators
should be treated accordingly.
Despite your repeated conflating of viewing pornography with murdering
children, the majority of people participating in these groups (including
yourself) hurt no one.
It has yet to be shown that children engaging in non-coercive sex with an
adult harms them. In fact there are studies that show that children, for the
most part, are not harmed by these experiences. It is quite possible that
the later feelings of guilt and shame they are said to experience are
suggested to them by so-called therapist (witch doctors) and LEA trying to
inflate charges (for their own purposes).
What the extreme positions you advocate do accomplish is to add to the
hysteria around this issue. Teachers are afraid to touch children, men are
afraid to go into the priesthood, childish sexual practices have been
criminalized.
This is nonsense. People who really harm children (hit them, burn them,
manacle them and even kill them) do less time in prison that people who
possess pictures of nude children. This is absurd.
Three people have been charged with continually abusing and torturing a
teen-aged boy in California. It will be interesting to compare their
sentences with some of the pornography possessors sentences.
|
|