Slashdot Mirror

I suspected that something like this would happen. Recent events suggest that several countries are cooperating to censor controversial content which opposes their use of fear-based government.

Last week, an international operation against a pro-paedophile website/forum led to arrests of people in several countries, including the USA, The Netherlands, Chile, New Zealand and Brazil. One of the men was arrested for merely possessing an illegal weapon and drugs. Some people were raided but not arrested, as they hadn't violated any laws. The FBI claimed that the website was a "child pornography ring", however I know a number of people who posted at the forum, who provide information which debunks the claims of the FBI. According to one person, the website had been online for 8 years, with a membership of over 50,000 people. It had apparently not masked its location (a major web host in The Netherlands), so if it was a child pornography ring, it would presumably have been taken offline years ago. Furthermore, an operation against a real child pornography ring with over 50,000 members would have made international headlines.

In a post on another pro-paedophile forum, I suggested that the closure of the pro-paedophile website was an attempt to test the feasibility of international cooperation in online censorship, in cases where evidence of criminality is limited or fabricated. Very few people believe that paedophiles can ever be innocent, so a pro-paedophile website was an easy preliminary target. I suspected then, and even more so now, that Wikileaks is the ultimate target of international online censorship. No government likes criticism or dissent on the internet, and one shouldn't assume that China is the only country who will crush internet-based dissent.

Here is a copy of a reply to my orginal post.
"Two of the websites in question that Im aware of being hosted by Epifora are http://www.boywiki.org/ [boywiki.org] and http://www.boychat.org/ [boychat.org]. There are more site links listed on the BoyChat website, I'll leave it up to you to follow them.

None of the sites have obscene graphic material, it's mostly text.

The sites is more along the lines of a place for "Pedophiles" to focus there sexuality into something that is at least somewhat positive.

They speak of things such as fishing with kids and getting a high from making the kid happy. Or seeing their 'boy' succeed.

The boychat website is a very /positive/ site for so called pedophiles that would otherwise have no where to output their feelings. If boychat didn't exist, the members would be bottling up their feelings until they did molest a child."

This is how I found out that there was any "gay" connection to the site. The original story was posted on a site that caters to Gay men.
I don't know about you but I really find this very creepy and dangerous. It seems to be a great path to temptation and justification to me.
I know that vast majority of Homosexuals are not pedophiles just the vast majority of heterosexuals are not pedophiles. By stepbrother is gay and loves children in a none sexual way and would love to be an elementary school teacher but it isn't safe for him. It isn't worth the risk that he might loose the right to see his daughter if someone decided to accuse him. Stupid sites like the site that posted the original story make good gay men's life hell. At it's best it reinforces the idea that gay men are all promiscuous but thanks the this article it reinforces the idea that gay men are pedophiles.

So with that being said am I off your hook for being homophobic since I didn't know the original site was a site for Gay men?

~sigh~ ...and I was SO hoping to live my life without posting on slashdot, too.

Let's see... first factual corrections first. The term "minor attracted individual" (here miswritten as 'minor attracted adult') does NOT mean "pedophiles" - which is exactly why it was adopted. While Orwell may be turning over in his grave over this "philanthrope" prevention in the horiffic misuse of greek, DISequivocation is sort of the opposite of deception.

The common term "pedophile," and the accurate term "paederotic," were noted to exclude and ignore large amounts of the community - both the babylovers, and people attracted to anything with breasts (or on the BL side, anything with a few whiskers).

The "political correctness of not wanting to offend queers" had NOTHING to do with "omg this will sound sweet and fluffy." The current theory is that anyone with human decency in their soul would have already exercised it, and thus it leans more towards the "bigger albatross" theory - an astounding number of people WILL fight under a flag of "infantfucker pride" even though themselves won't swing that way - just to offend a bigot. ...instead, it arose from internal affairs... the ages-old question of "what about me" when discussing politics INSIDE the MAI/AAM community. Using the terms "pedophile" or the more literate "paederotic" tended to offend and alienate those who, frankly, weren't paederotic... the large crowd of people who can confess to themselves that, yes, that 16yo has a rather nice chest. ...so, by all means, if you think "MAI/AAM" sounds too "sickly-sweet," feel free to use such terms as "infantfucker" or "diaper faery." We're quite proud of the label, frankly, and "diaper dipper" ONLY draws offence because of it's implications of primary heterosexuality... and we ain't breeder. Hell, some of us even make "Womb Raider" spoofs.

Secondly, there's been some FASCINATING mythologization about, oh, "meeting to exchange kiddie pr0n" and "exchanging tips on how to molest kids" and the like.

This is a fucking joke. ...the thing was hosted in Canada, of all places, with the lowest free-speech protections of any first-world nation whatsoever, and the administration reflected this.

A quick view of the bottom of any post screen on http://www.boychat.org/ or a review of the FAQ at http://www.annabelleigh.net/, will in fact include such tidbits as "Do not advocate or counsel sex with minors" (rule #6)... which would be a 1st-amendment violation in the US, I believe, if done outside any specific case, as well as "Do not post erotica or overly-detailed sexual discussions" (rule #1) in light of Canada having the world's most stringent "written erotica" laws in the world... and, yes, rule #7, "Do not request meetings with posters who are under age 18"

Usually, rule #7 was invoked on underage youth showing up with a "I'm looking for gay guys in the ____ area," as well it should have been... but I suppose that's off the topic.

For half a flippin' decade, the RMCP read the board every single day, without any action being taken. Before plagarizing whatever tabloid you read that morning, perhaps it would be prudent to investigate the actual topic at hand? It is, in fact, rather impossible to discuss "ways to seduce minors" under one's real name (as many posters are) on a public forum read by the police department (who has been VERY helpful in consulting on topics of legal compliance), and still be in operation.

Finally, a technical note : Verizon's holdings (Sprint/MCI) did not provide any form of hosting whatsoever; all hosting was done by the hosting company Epifora, which has no responsibility for the sites it hosts.

Sprint/MCI, a subsidiary of verizon, was simply the *backbone provider*, and in fact holds regional monopoly as the internet backbone for the area.

"Common carrier" status - often discussed in the germ

Since the bulk of the sites hosted by Epifora are still offline, it would be pointless to post links to them, no?

However, the largest of the sites hosted there is still up, so go to http://www.boychat.org/ and see if you can find any illegal content. Be sure to read very thoroughly!

Bill Evans

There is no simulated child pornography on the hosted sites, neither is there any solicitation of minors or counselling of illegal acts. They are even very strict in enforcing copyrights, just to be squeaky clean in every manner. The major sites are BoyChat and GirlChat. Check for yourself.

Yes, this is the essence of freedom of expression; namely the freedom to express what others vehemently disagree with. If we can't have controversial speech, we can have no freedom of expression.

Two of the websites in question that Im aware of being hosted by Epifora are http://www.boywiki.org/ and http://www.boychat.org/. There are more site links listed on the BoyChat website, I'll leave it up to you to follow them.

None of the sites have obscene graphic material, it's mostly text.

The sites is more along the lines of a place for "Pedophiles" to focus there sexuality into something that is at least somewhat positive.

They speak of things such as fishing with kids and getting a high from making the kid happy. Or seeing their 'boy' succeed.

The boychat website is a very /positive/ site for so called pedophiles that would otherwise have no where to output their feelings. If boychat didn't exist, the members would be bottling up their feelings until they did molest a child.

Believe me, I find the thought of an abused child with a warped world view infinitely sad too, as does most other pedophiles (and most other people with their sanity intact). The point is that pedophilia is not illegal, because pedophilia is not an action. When you use it to depict an action, you advocate the criminalization of millions of perfectly law-abiding morally aware human beings. You are part of the process which indoctrinates these people into thinking "I am a pedophile, and all my life society has told me that pedophiles act such and such, so I guess I'm worthless and I'll act that way." No, you're not a bad person and you don't have to act that way. We have support groups telling these people that, but we don't reach everybody. You couldn't imagine the suicide rate among young pedophiles. That is another thing I find infinitely sad.

Most child sexual abusers are not pedophiles (as in they're not attracted to children, but the child is just a convenient outlet of sexual frustration), and most producers of child pornography are not pedophiles (they are the Russian mafia, stone cold cynical when it comes to making money). Most pedophiles are not child sexual abusers. Please call a spade a spade; if you mean child sexual abusers, don't say "pedophile".

While "real KP" may be a myth and is certainly rarer than one could get the impression of, there is indeed much "pedophile acticity" on the internet. Their highly organized and long-standing community includes message boards, blogs, link directories, podcasts, radio stations, and more.

This opinion piece applies the term "object oriented parenting" to denounce many of the points in the study. Everything may not be as agreeable, but it was a fun and enticing read.

Especially since I'm a boylover who posts at http://boychat.org/ People want to kill me and they don't even want to try and understand who I am. It is a depressing life.

I don't like how the US is invading our privacy more and more. Especially being a boylover who posts at http://boychat.org/ I just want to live my life in peace. I don't hurt kids, but everyone thinks I do. It is sad.

Excellent article, but it left me thinking how much the internet has and will lessen the impact of taboos (in the technologically advanced parts of the world). As a pedophile, my whole frickin' emotional life is a taboo, but thanks to the internet, there's places to go for some sense of community and discussion with peers and exchange of opinion, whereas this was completely, absurdly unthinkable before.

I'm also following various projects for anonymous publishing and communication on-line, which will enable anyone to speak their minds with no fear of being pointed at and suffer stoning. I have to wonder what would be different if Darwin or Galileo had these opportunities.