''whether that's 5-year-old girls or "jailbait."''

5 year old girls aren't jailbait?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2xfzmcOPg0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3ogJhlOw9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqKEybfBPAs

Of course, the "child pornography" they were involved in featured them fully clothed, but the photographer is still in jail for it.

But it brings up several questions: What is child pornography? What are the dangers of not allowing the public to see the evidence? How do the models in real child pornography feel about it?

These ladies can stand up to social pressure because what they were modeling for was obviously not pornography, despite the convictions - but we rarely hear from other models unless they are found as children and their answers can be scripted for them. When they don't agree with the narrative of abuse, they are routinely silenced.

Why won't anyone listen to the children?

It remains virtually impossible for adult males to befriend children. (Friendships between adults and children used to be pretty common, even in the USA.)

As one example:

Neil Wilkes was a teacher in Manchester, England who had a close relationship with an eight year old girl he taught. He got on well with her and with her family.

But someone decided it was "inappropriate" for a man to befriend a girl, and launched a formal investigation into the relationship.

There was no evidence that Neil Wilkes had done anything wrong.

All the same, Neil lost his job and the girl's family was frightened into breaking off all contact.

On October 20th 2010, Neil Wilkes went to a quiet tourist spot, sent a text message to the girl telling her "I love you and I always will", doused himself with fuel, and set himself on fire.

http://www.thejournal.ie/teacher-sets-himself-alight-after-texting-i-love-you-to-girl-8-2011-03/

It is clear to me that the obsession with child pornography and child abuse is intended to break down the trust between generations, provide an excuse for controlling and monitoring all expression, and firmly cement the power of the ruling class. This panic also provides employment opportunities for a predatory class of therapists and an entire child abuse industry.

Thanks to the manipulation of the public consciousness and abusing the public's natural concern for the well-being of children, the prohibition of child pornography has provided a means for the ruling class to do whatever it wants. Want to eliminate a rival? Just claim they had child pornography on their computer. No one will investigate it, because investigating it would constitute a crime - so everyone must take their public servant overlords' word at face value - and the public accepts this without question.

We don't even have proof of what typical child pornography looks like. The claim is that it is all horrific images of rape and abuse, but ordinary citizens - even reporters - are not allowed to see for themselves. It seems more likely that it is mostly pictures of happy children wearing little or no clothing, because most guys don't get turned on by pictures of real abuse - but how could we find out? The public goes along with the farce, because they have been conditioned to hate pedophiles so much that they don't care whether their victims are even pedophiles, much less whether pedophiles or child pornographers are actually doing harm.

However, we do occasionally get a window into child pornography convictions. Here are a few young ladies speaking out against the conviction of the man who took their photographs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2xfzmcOPg0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3ogJhlOw9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqKEybfBPAs

This case is illustrative of two points: First, that many of the models do not feel harmed, and secondly that much "child pornography" consists of pictures of clothed children. It certainly gives the lie to the traditional narrative.

Everyone assumes that child pornography, especially the "worst of the worst", consists of pictures of children being forced into sex. We are seldom allowed to see the evidence for ourselves, because of course it is strictly illegal for a member of the public to see it.

However, occasionally failed prosecutions for possession of Jock Sturgis or David Hamilton photos, or best-selling sex education books, gives us an insight into what prosecutors think child pornography is, and when one realizes that even photos of fully clothed children have been successfully prosecuted as child pornography, one has to consider that maybe there are ulterior motives to the campaign against child pornography, and maybe the authorities are lying to us.

Recently, some of the Webe Web child models - now adults - have begun a campaign to tell the truth about their participation in what has been successfully prosecuted as "child pornography". As they tell it, the only time they felt like victims was when the FBI came calling.

Here is one of their videos at YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2xfzmcOPg0

"but if someone uses my stolen credit card number to buy some kiddie porn, then they might get caught?"

No, if someone uses your stolen credit card number to buy some kiddie porn, YOU'LL get caught!

Fortunately, there's no actual market for kiddie porn, but unfortunately that doesn't matter.

Of course, we'll never be able to see it to judge for ourselves. We'll just have to take your word for it, and the word of everyone else who profits from the system.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

There was a wikileaks document that was released last year. One site in Eastern Europe got hits from something like 15 million unique IP addresses. Now, that included other places than the U.S. - mostly the U.S. and Europe, probably, but that was just ONE site.

Actual numbers are probably in the tens of millions.

Actual crimes against children have fallen dramatically in the same period that child pornography has flourished.

At 30 frames per second, 1 million images is about 10 hours of video.

Don't believe the hype.

Come to think of it, I don't believe your hype - especially after reading about cops eating donuts and joking about the child pornography they were viewing as part of their "job".

The Trojan Horse of Child Protection

Um, there's already been some talk of a few pedophiles joining forces with Al Qaeda.

And the current attempts at genocide may yet have some serious backlash.

Are you sure you want to escalate this war with an unseen enemy in your own backyard?

Just saying.

"If the CIA wants to run a cyber-war, let it. I'd rather my federal police do what it was created to do: Lock up criminals."

Actually, the CIA is only allowed to address foreign threats. The FBI has long been responsible for counterintelligence within the US, and has taken the lead on domestic operations.

In the case of cyberwar, it becomes difficult to determine which responsibility belongs to whom, but securing domestic infrastructure would appear to be the FBI's bailiwick.

In any case, it would seem that securing domestic infrastructure should be a higher priority than prosecuting a victimless crime.

"Possession of nude photos of kids or teens is not a crime"

You don't understand how it works in reality.

Possession of nude photos of kids or teens is not a crime for teleiophiles.

Possession of photos of kids - whether nude or clothed - is considered a crime if the possessor is considered by law enforcement to be attracted to children. I am familiar with too many cases to believe otherwise, including men who were convicted of possessing photos in which the children were wearing clothing, and men who were convicted for possession of photos of adults who looked young for their age. If you look into the facts, some of these cases will not be difficult to find.

Apparently it is the magic pedo eye which makes the difference, and causes the harm to children when the photographs are viewed.

In one case, a man in Florida got a sentence of over 100 years in prison for possessing a photo of a boy's 14 year old butt that he didn't even know he had, because his 14 year old friend had thought it would be funny to moon his camera and leave it to be discovered as a joke - not knowing that the police - upset by this man's publicly held beliefs - would raid his house. He is still in jail, and served over 6 years in solitary confinement. What were this man's publicly held beliefs? That being attracted to children was not a crime, of course. As a pedophile, the law is different for him. In fact, the law is whatever it has to be to assure that child lovers are punished severely.

But don't worry - simple nudes are legal for you possess, as long as the police never come to believe that you might be attracted to kids.

I can assure you that most pedophiles sympathize with you. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, not a crime - and like most people, most pedophiles sympathize with the victims of crime.

There have been a number of studies that have shown that the majority of child pornography that is traded is not imagery of children being abused by any reasonable definition. Most are simple nudes, with a minority that are sex acts among children, or sex acts with a child and an adult that the child does not appear to object to. There is an even smaller minority that might be unquestionably considered images of abuse, but just as the famous image of a Vietnamese girl burned by napalm was not a turn-on for most viewers, images of actual abuse is not a turn-on for most pedophiles. If there were any recordings made of your abuse, and if they were ever released on the net, you can be assured that most of the reactions they would garner would be thoughts of sympathy.

There are a number of problems with the present witch hunt. Children have been excluded from society and forced into roles they do not want, and pedophiles have been deliberately confused with child molesters; while the child abuse industry - therapists, politicians, and law enforcement - makes good money from feeding the frenzy. Children and the pedophiles who love them are both victims of this state of affairs, as is society as whole. We have established a sort of intergenerational apartheid in the English-speaking world, and ask the natives in South Africa how well apartheid protected them.