Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 634

The U.S. is harder on pedophiles than Russia is on gays, even with the new stupid laws.

Plus, Russia isn't doing anything to persecute gays in every other country in the world.

So, I'm still favoring Russia as being better on human rights.

Comment Secret Evidence (Score 2) 537

Even in the "non-secret" courts, many people are being convicted on secret evidence.

Specifically, a huge number of people are being convicted of possession of child pornography, yet no one except the police and prosecutors are allowed to see the evidence.

I have heard from numerous sources that many convictions have the number of images exaggerated - for instance, 40 images became over 600 images - and even the defense attorneys won't question this lest they be seen as being "soft" on possession of pictures. The quality of the images also appear to be exaggerated - in rare cases where some of the evidence has come to light, it has turned out that some images deemed worthy of conviction included pictures of fully dressed teenaged cheerleaders giving a public performance, cartoons of a girl whose loose swimsuit revealed a nipple, and so forth.

More commonly, the images that secure a conviction are ostensibly legal images of child models or simple nudes. In a current series of cases men in the U.S. are being convicted of possession of nudist videos which a U.S. Federal Court has previously found to be perfectly legal. (The AZOV cases.)

There apparently is now also a large sub-category of actual child pornography (I am told it is about two fifths) that consists of children, on webcams or otherwise, producing pictures of themselves - mostly nude or masturbating. Despite the fact that we know that these are the sorts of images often earning convictions, prosecutors and law enforcement routinely describe all of these images as "child abuse imagery" and "images of sadistic rape". Of course, no one who is not a prosecutor or in law enforcement is allowed to see this evidence to judge for themselves, so of course we must simply take the word of these proven liars on faith. Yes, they lied about all those other cases involving so-called "child pornography" - but honest, they aren't lying this time.

I recently came across a comment from a prisoner (who committed real crimes) concerned about the safety of his children when they visit him in prison, because forty percent of his fellow inmates are "pedophiles" - which most likely means they were convicted for possession of pictures, regardless of their actual sexual orientation or deeds. The percentage of prisoners being held for possession of pictures, based on secret evidence, is apparently a large and growing portion of the prison population. It seems that this sort of conviction is intended to replace the convictions for drug crimes that are beginning to dwindle as the public is becoming aware of damage done by the War on Drugs. Naturally the law enforcement community prefers this type of prisoner as they are less dangerous to warehouse than other populations, being generally peaceful and non-violent - and when the public becomes wise to this they will begin warehousing undocumented immigrants. Whatever is required to allow private prisons and public prison guard unions to profit.

All this can be done because the evidence is kept secret from the public - with anyone who sees the evidence in danger of being sent to prison themselves, and then be put on a public registry for life and prevented from getting most jobs and even from living in many areas.

All of this in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that consensual sex between adults and children is harmful to children. (See Rind et al (1998) - the only scientific study ever condemned by Congress.) Of course, societal reaction to adult-child sex, which often includes forcing children to testify against the people they love most in the world, often has dire consequences. Some children have even committed suicide after being forced to testify against their lover.

Clearly secret evidence is something that can not be tolerated any more than secret courts.

Comment These young ladies don't think it hurt them (Score 1) 481




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?

Comment tail end of that witchhunt remains very harmful (Score 4, Interesting) 481

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.


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:




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.

Comment what *is* child porn? (Score 1) 158

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:


Comment Re:Someone's math is wrong (Score 1) 487

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.

Comment Re:Someone's math is wrong (Score 1) 487

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

Comment Re:Someone's math is wrong (Score 1) 487

"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.

Comment Re:FBI Too Focused On Child Porn (Score 2) 487

"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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Where are the calculations that go with a calculated risk?