The local government in Indianapolis knew they could not arrest Kevin - after all, he did not commit any crime.
However, the agencies that supposedly protect children are largely unaccountable and get away with almost anything - and what better way to silence others who may be parents, than to take away a child? These agencies are not held as strictly to Constitutional tests.
If you think government agents in the U.S. would not stoop to this, you are truly naive.
Waco. Ruby Ridge. Wounded Knee. Internment Camps. Jim Crow. And the U.S. has violated virtually every treaty it made with Native Americans.
Do you really think people are so much more virtuous today?
That is correct. Thank you for providing the details of this clear violation of the Right to Free Speech and Freedom of Association.
As you note, Kevin had his son taken away from him because he dared to speak out.
The authorities knew of his prior conviction but had correctly determined that he was no danger to his son, and only took action after a popular talk show host raised a stink - effectively chilling free speech, and demonstrating to all of us the importance of anonymous speech.
What happens when the law enforcement agencies are corrupt, as they are in the United States?
What happens when a whole nation has gone insane?
Governments murdered millions in the 20th century.
Stalinist Russia. Maoist China. Nazi Germany.
The United States, with its insane War on Drugs, spawned a proxy war that has been going on for 30 years in Colombia, and has corrupted the police forces of the United States and Mexico (among others).
And right now the U.S. government has pressured governments around the world to persecute millions on the basis of an unpopular sexual orientation (and of course does so at home as well), with the full collaboration of a corrupted media that is out for advertising dollars - not least of all from government advertising.
We need fully anonymous speech, thank you very much.
Most Americans will think of other countries where anonymous speech is required to prevent retaliation by the government - countries like Iran, for instance, where anonymous speech IS thriving.
However, there are plenty of countries in the West - including America - where unpopular minorities require anonymous speech to avoid government retribution.
A friend of mine in Indiana called a conservative radio host (Rick Roberts) in California in April 2005, in order to give a contradicting opinion - and the next day state agents showed up at his house and took away his 2 year old son, causing his son a great deal of anxiety and eventually destroying my friend's marriage. He's still going through the system, trying to recover his son, over a year later.
There are also the death threats, of which I've received a few myself - from so-called Christians, Hippies, and everything in between. Damn straight it's nice to have some anonymity!
And we will continue to need that anonymity as long as a corrupt media continues to perpetuate the lie that anyone who is attracted to children must be a predator, despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary.
In any case, in our community proxies and/or TOR are the norm. We know for a fact that our government IS spying on us and seeking to do us harm.
(1) Under the old US law, content had to be marked "Copyright" to be copyrighted. Under the present US law, all work is automatically copyrighted the moment it is created, UNLESS the author specifies otherwise. I think this holds true for works since, was it 1987? I forget exactly - but it's been a little while now.
(2) A person who transcribes a book that is in the public domain can CLAIM a copyright on it, but this is not enforceable unless they have changed the text significantly enough for it to be a new work - in which case you probably don't want it anyhow, except possibly as a work of satire or fiction.
The fact that Project Gutenberg has not consumed huge amounts of money to produce a great amount of value is PRECISELY WHY it does not get more recognition.
The business of charity does not want competition from groups that create better products for less money, as that would put pressure on them to create a reasonable amount of value themselves, without the benefits of cushy offices and hefty salaries.
The business of education also does not want competition from organizations that produce greater value at lower cost, without the benefits of cushy offices and hefty salaries (for the administrators - not the profs).
Plus, Project Gutenberg has focused more on PRODUCING VALUE than on getting publicity and recognition for doing so. And the folks in the media tend to be too lazy and stupid to recognize what is REALLY worth reporting.
There have been experiments that suggest time can flow backwards, and they claim to have other evidence besides the black box - the bit about studies where people reacted to pictures several seconds before they flashed on the screen, and -
Starting about 2 weeks before 9/11, I started thinking about assymetric warfare, and that because of the lopsided power of the US, that any group opposed would have little choice but to resort to terrorism if they didn't want to merely commit suicide.
In fact, about a week before 9/11, a friend said he had been to New York City, and I told him I wasn't sure I wanted to go there, because it seemed overdue for an attack.
And about 10 years prior to 9/11, I happened into a conversation about what we would do if we found ourselves on a plane that was hijacked by terrorists. We both agreed that the best course would be to fight back - if not to save ourselves, then to save others. The man I was talking to was one of the leading passengers who revolted on Flight 97.
All this is true.
And for a long time I've had a strange feeling about November 2006. I guess I'll just have to wait and see.
Elected officials are not known for being too bright - after all, they DO represent the people.
Elected officials have always made bad laws, and it has been very noticeable in recent years since technological changes have occurred so quickly, and most elected officials are too old to have caught on with what is happening. Even most of those who have adapted to technology have only done so in a superficial way.
But beyond this, elected officials generally reflect the views of society at large, including hysterias and short-sighted selfishness and everything else. It is the chief pitfall of democracy, and it the reason why the writers of the U.S. Constitution did not institute direct democracy. Unfortunately, the direct election of Senators and other changes have gradually worn down that protection. In any case, I presume things are similar in Norway.
I'm afraid that any investigative journalism will have little effect, as journalism also tends to reflect the idiocies of the public.
:sigh: it would be nice to live in a free country.
"by definition" - exactly. Adult-child sex MUST be abuse because the herd says it MUST be abuse. Never mind millenia of Western culture that says otherwise, never mind the many non-western cultures that say otherwise. Never mind the scientific evidence that says otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al.
All this must be suppressed, because the people need a Scapegoat - they need to feel better by blaming the innocent for all their problems - and for the present, pedophiles are It.
So we say that adult-child sex is sexual assault "by definition". We say that statutory rape is rape "by definition", and make it equivalent to forcible rape, although in fact it is very different. Yes, we can do a lot of things "by definition".
Other than the mixup in formatting, there was nothing wrong with it. If it is flamebait (as moderated) it is only because there are so many sheep unwilling to confront the facts.
Right - no one in prison cares that the other guy is a murderer who might kill their family, they're worried about the guy who might touch their daughter. Yeah, right.
How about this: people who are in prison for theft and murder know that they're scum, but they don't want to feel like scum. If they can find a scapegoat, however, they can feel like they are a part of society, and feel better about themselves. That's the REAL reason why society has chosen, in the past 30 years, to scapegoat child molesters, where for millenia beforehand they didn't much care. And it's why they don't care about confusing pedophiles with child molesters - because their real object is to feel better about themselves without having to deal with their own defects.
Many have alleged that child pornography is a huge, multi-billion dollar international business. None have proven it.
Fortunately for the police, they don't have to. By making even possession of CP illegal, and in the minds of the sheep worthy of death, they not only do not have to show any evidence, but the more evidence they don't show, the more the public believes them!
The same goes for the international child sex slave rings - very little evidence, almost none in the United States, and when a little evidence IS found, most of those child slaves are 17 years old.
Yes, the enemy is so sneaky one can't even find them! Very dangerous, indeed. Better give the police some more money to work on the problem.
Child molesters are generally NOT pedophiles - they are teleiophiles with little self control, who, given the right situation, do whatever they feel like doing - which sometimes involves hurting children. Most crimes are committed by this type of person - those with little self-control.
On the contrary, most pedophiles are not child molesters. They have normal or heightened levels of self-control (heightened from having to control what they say all their lives).
In both cases, recidivism rates are much lower than normal. One also has to ask about the nature of the crimes - there are plenty of cases where the child gave consent in their own mind, if not in the mind of the law, and in these cases the evidence suggests that they are worse off if they are found out. If they did not feel raped in the first case, they often feel raped by the investigators who barge into their life.
Even in the question of Child Pornography itself, we have to ask what we mean by Child Pornography. When mere possession is outlawed, it is impossible even to determine what the police are talking about - "sexual assault" sounds violent and unwanted to us, but this is not necessarily so.
Consider this quote by former FBI child abuse expert Kenneth Lanning, "It confuses us to see the victims in child pornography giggling and laughing."
http://www.sexcriminals.com/library/doc-1076-1.p df p. 16.
While this use of technology seems laudable, it does bring up one question - why do we automatically assume that just because the police say there was a sexual assault, that there actually was?
By making even the possession of child pornography illegal, the State has made sure that there can be no legitimate discussion of the issue, because no one can look and see for themselves whether the pictures are pornographic, or actually show children, and if so, if they actually show an assault. Given the propensity of the police to describe EVERY sexual encounter between a child and an adult as assault, there is already sufficient evidence to be skeptical - and by doing this the government cheapens the experience both of those children who consented to sexual relations, and those who WERE actually the victims of assault.
Consider this quote by a former FBI expert on child abuse, Kenneth Lanning: "It confuses us to see the victims in child pornography giggling or laughing."
Hmmn. Yes, that would be confusing.
Lanning, "Child Sex Rings": http://www.sexcriminals.com/library/info-1076.html
points to a pdf - quote on p. 16 at bottom.
Baldur of Asgard
Under U.S. Law, the purpose of Copyright is to promote the arts and sciences by giving a means by which creators of intellectual property can be paid for their work.
Therefore, while fansubbing might be technically illegal, if we wish to determine the ethics of it we need to look at the question of whether it promotes the art or stifles it, and whether it enhances revenue or diminishes it.
From the article, it would appear that fansubbing has both promoted the art and enhanced revenue for the creators - but the market may now be reaching a point where in some cases fansubbing may (possibly) diminish revenue. It still seems to be contributing to the promotion of the arts, however.
Therefore, when considering the ethics of the situtation (as opposed to mere legality), there is only one thing to consider: does fansubbing diminish the revenues of the creators or their assignees? The fact that most fansubbers remove their material when a commercial conflict comes up shows good faith on their part, but that may be insufficient. In any case, the development of the U.S. market for anime may have changed the equation, so that what was formerly ethical (though not technically legal) may no longer be ethical.
Even that, of course, is in doubt. There is a good deal of reason to believe that the free sharing of material has helped commercial distributors far more than it has hurt them.
The business of proclaiming a new copyright to an old work is mostly FUD, though one does have to be careful because the look-and-feel of the new version may carry some protection of its own -- the typesetting, changes in punctuation and spelling, etc. -- though even these carry less protection than is usually claimed.
More to the point, the organizations that copyright their new transcription are simply used to wanting to claim ownership of anything that might possibly make them money in the future, with little regard to what is in the best interest of society, or even their own self-interest. It is just the knee-jerk bureaucratic instinct to cover one's ass. The new copyrights on old works mean almost nothing.
Excellent idea. I've heard it before, but can't recall where. It is definitely a problem with older books that are virtually impossible to find, but can't be reprinted (or in this modern age, scanned and put online).
The last copyright extension allowed an exception allowing libraries to copy books in the last 20 years of their copyright if new editions are unavailable, but practically speaking this will have little effect. Something much better is required.
The U.S. is obligated by international treaty to a minimum copyright period - I'm thinking it is 28 years? but beyond that, registration of copyrighted material with a fee of $1 per year would be sufficient to make most orphaned materials available. A maximum period of 100 years would also be preferable to the current Life of the Author plus 70 years, which considering the past performance of Congress is liable to become Life of the Author plus forever.
Michael Hart has frequently noted that over 90% of profits come in the first 6 years of a book's publication. Considering that (under U.S. law) the purpose of Copyright is to encourage the arts and sciences, the current law is clearly a joke.
Slashdot Mirror
The local government in Indianapolis knew they could not arrest Kevin - after all, he did not commit any crime.
However, the agencies that supposedly protect children are largely unaccountable and get away with almost anything - and what better way to silence others who may be parents, than to take away a child? These agencies are not held as strictly to Constitutional tests.
If you think government agents in the U.S. would not stoop to this, you are truly naive.
Waco. Ruby Ridge. Wounded Knee. Internment Camps. Jim Crow. And the U.S. has violated virtually every treaty it made with Native Americans.
Do you really think people are so much more virtuous today?
That is correct. Thank you for providing the details of this clear violation of the Right to Free Speech and Freedom of Association.
As you note, Kevin had his son taken away from him because he dared to speak out.
The authorities knew of his prior conviction but had correctly determined that he was no danger to his son, and only took action after a popular talk show host raised a stink - effectively chilling free speech, and demonstrating to all of us the importance of anonymous speech.
What happens when the law enforcement agencies are corrupt, as they are in the United States?
What happens when a whole nation has gone insane?
Governments murdered millions in the 20th century.
Stalinist Russia. Maoist China. Nazi Germany.
The United States, with its insane War on Drugs, spawned a proxy war that has been going on for 30 years in Colombia, and has corrupted the police forces of the United States and Mexico (among others).
And right now the U.S. government has pressured governments around the world to persecute millions on the basis of an unpopular sexual orientation (and of course does so at home as well), with the full collaboration of a corrupted media that is out for advertising dollars - not least of all from government advertising.
We need fully anonymous speech, thank you very much.
Most Americans will think of other countries where anonymous speech is required to prevent retaliation by the government - countries like Iran, for instance, where anonymous speech IS thriving.
However, there are plenty of countries in the West - including America - where unpopular minorities require anonymous speech to avoid government retribution.
A friend of mine in Indiana called a conservative radio host (Rick Roberts) in California in April 2005, in order to give a contradicting opinion - and the next day state agents showed up at his house and took away his 2 year old son, causing his son a great deal of anxiety and eventually destroying my friend's marriage. He's still going through the system, trying to recover his son, over a year later.
There are also the death threats, of which I've received a few myself - from so-called Christians, Hippies, and everything in between. Damn straight it's nice to have some anonymity!
And we will continue to need that anonymity as long as a corrupt media continues to perpetuate the lie that anyone who is attracted to children must be a predator, despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary.
In any case, in our community proxies and/or TOR are the norm. We know for a fact that our government IS spying on us and seeking to do us harm.
(1) Under the old US law, content had to be marked "Copyright" to be copyrighted. Under the present US law, all work is automatically copyrighted the moment it is created, UNLESS the author specifies otherwise. I think this holds true for works since, was it 1987? I forget exactly - but it's been a little while now.
(2) A person who transcribes a book that is in the public domain can CLAIM a copyright on it, but this is not enforceable unless they have changed the text significantly enough for it to be a new work - in which case you probably don't want it anyhow, except possibly as a work of satire or fiction.
Baldur of Asgard
Let's just say that I have seen so many examples that I can only conclude that:
(1) People in many "charitable" organizations and "educational" establishments are quite corrupt; or
(2) People in many "charitable" organizations "educational" establishments are amazingly, astoundingly stupid.
Neither bodes well, but only corruption seems to explain all the facts, especially in the case of the "education" establishment.
Baldur of Asgard
The fact that Project Gutenberg has not consumed huge amounts of money to produce a great amount of value is PRECISELY WHY it does not get more recognition.
The business of charity does not want competition from groups that create better products for less money, as that would put pressure on them to create a reasonable amount of value themselves, without the benefits of cushy offices and hefty salaries.
The business of education also does not want competition from organizations that produce greater value at lower cost, without the benefits of cushy offices and hefty salaries (for the administrators - not the profs).
Plus, Project Gutenberg has focused more on PRODUCING VALUE than on getting publicity and recognition for doing so. And the folks in the media tend to be too lazy and stupid to recognize what is REALLY worth reporting.
Baldur_of_Asgard
Starting about 2 weeks before 9/11, I started thinking about assymetric warfare, and that because of the lopsided power of the US, that any group opposed would have little choice but to resort to terrorism if they didn't want to merely commit suicide.
In fact, about a week before 9/11, a friend said he had been to New York City, and I told him I wasn't sure I wanted to go there, because it seemed overdue for an attack.
And about 10 years prior to 9/11, I happened into a conversation about what we would do if we found ourselves on a plane that was hijacked by terrorists. We both agreed that the best course would be to fight back - if not to save ourselves, then to save others. The man I was talking to was one of the leading passengers who revolted on Flight 97.
All this is true.
And for a long time I've had a strange feeling about November 2006. I guess I'll just have to wait and see.
Baldur of Asgard
The USA guided by witches and warlocks at least wouldn't be much worse.
Baldur
Elected officials have always made bad laws, and it has been very noticeable in recent years since technological changes have occurred so quickly, and most elected officials are too old to have caught on with what is happening. Even most of those who have adapted to technology have only done so in a superficial way.
But beyond this, elected officials generally reflect the views of society at large, including hysterias and short-sighted selfishness and everything else. It is the chief pitfall of democracy, and it the reason why the writers of the U.S. Constitution did not institute direct democracy. Unfortunately, the direct election of Senators and other changes have gradually worn down that protection. In any case, I presume things are similar in Norway.
I'm afraid that any investigative journalism will have little effect, as journalism also tends to reflect the idiocies of the public.
Baldur of Asgard
"by definition" - exactly. Adult-child sex MUST be abuse because the herd says it MUST be abuse. Never mind millenia of Western culture that says otherwise, never mind the many non-western cultures that say otherwise. Never mind the scientific evidence that says otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al.
All this must be suppressed, because the people need a Scapegoat - they need to feel better by blaming the innocent for all their problems - and for the present, pedophiles are It.
So we say that adult-child sex is sexual assault "by definition". We say that statutory rape is rape "by definition", and make it equivalent to forcible rape, although in fact it is very different. Yes, we can do a lot of things "by definition".
Black is White. War is Peace. Spam is Jell-o.
Baldur of Asgard
Other than the mixup in formatting, there was nothing wrong with it. If it is flamebait (as moderated) it is only because there are so many sheep unwilling to confront the facts.
Baldur of Asgard
Right - no one in prison cares that the other guy is a murderer who might kill their family, they're worried about the guy who might touch their daughter. Yeah, right.
How about this: people who are in prison for theft and murder know that they're scum, but they don't want to feel like scum. If they can find a scapegoat, however, they can feel like they are a part of society, and feel better about themselves. That's the REAL reason why society has chosen, in the past 30 years, to scapegoat child molesters, where for millenia beforehand they didn't much care. And it's why they don't care about confusing pedophiles with child molesters - because their real object is to feel better about themselves without having to deal with their own defects.
Baldur of Asgard
Many have alleged that child pornography is a huge, multi-billion dollar international business. None have proven it.
Fortunately for the police, they don't have to. By making even possession of CP illegal, and in the minds of the sheep worthy of death, they not only do not have to show any evidence, but the more evidence they don't show, the more the public believes them!
The same goes for the international child sex slave rings - very little evidence, almost none in the United States, and when a little evidence IS found, most of those child slaves are 17 years old.
Yes, the enemy is so sneaky one can't even find them! Very dangerous, indeed. Better give the police some more money to work on the problem.
Baldur of Asgard
Child molesters are generally NOT pedophiles - they are teleiophiles with little self control, who, given the right situation, do whatever they feel like doing - which sometimes involves hurting children. Most crimes are committed by this type of person - those with little self-control.
p df
On the contrary, most pedophiles are not child molesters. They have normal or heightened levels of self-control (heightened from having to control what they say all their lives).
In both cases, recidivism rates are much lower than normal. One also has to ask about the nature of the crimes - there are plenty of cases where the child gave consent in their own mind, if not in the mind of the law, and in these cases the evidence suggests that they are worse off if they are found out. If they did not feel raped in the first case, they often feel raped by the investigators who barge into their life.
Even in the question of Child Pornography itself, we have to ask what we mean by Child Pornography. When mere possession is outlawed, it is impossible even to determine what the police are talking about - "sexual assault" sounds violent and unwanted to us, but this is not necessarily so.
Consider this quote by former FBI child abuse expert Kenneth Lanning, "It confuses us to see the victims in child pornography giggling and laughing."
http://www.sexcriminals.com/library/doc-1076-1.
p. 16.
Baldur of Asgard
While this use of technology seems laudable, it does bring up one question - why do we automatically assume that just because the police say there was a sexual assault, that there actually was? By making even the possession of child pornography illegal, the State has made sure that there can be no legitimate discussion of the issue, because no one can look and see for themselves whether the pictures are pornographic, or actually show children, and if so, if they actually show an assault. Given the propensity of the police to describe EVERY sexual encounter between a child and an adult as assault, there is already sufficient evidence to be skeptical - and by doing this the government cheapens the experience both of those children who consented to sexual relations, and those who WERE actually the victims of assault. Consider this quote by a former FBI expert on child abuse, Kenneth Lanning: "It confuses us to see the victims in child pornography giggling or laughing." Hmmn. Yes, that would be confusing. Lanning, "Child Sex Rings": http://www.sexcriminals.com/library/info-1076.html
points to a pdf - quote on p. 16 at bottom.
Baldur of Asgard
Under U.S. Law, the purpose of Copyright is to promote the arts and sciences by giving a means by which creators of intellectual property can be paid for their work.
Therefore, while fansubbing might be technically illegal, if we wish to determine the ethics of it we need to look at the question of whether it promotes the art or stifles it, and whether it enhances revenue or diminishes it.
From the article, it would appear that fansubbing has both promoted the art and enhanced revenue for the creators - but the market may now be reaching a point where in some cases fansubbing may (possibly) diminish revenue. It still seems to be contributing to the promotion of the arts, however.
Therefore, when considering the ethics of the situtation (as opposed to mere legality), there is only one thing to consider: does fansubbing diminish the revenues of the creators or their assignees? The fact that most fansubbers remove their material when a commercial conflict comes up shows good faith on their part, but that may be insufficient. In any case, the development of the U.S. market for anime may have changed the equation, so that what was formerly ethical (though not technically legal) may no longer be ethical.
Even that, of course, is in doubt. There is a good deal of reason to believe that the free sharing of material has helped commercial distributors far more than it has hurt them.
Baldur
The business of proclaiming a new copyright to an old work is mostly FUD, though one does have to be careful because the look-and-feel of the new version may carry some protection of its own -- the typesetting, changes in punctuation and spelling, etc. -- though even these carry less protection than is usually claimed.
More to the point, the organizations that copyright their new transcription are simply used to wanting to claim ownership of anything that might possibly make them money in the future, with little regard to what is in the best interest of society, or even their own self-interest. It is just the knee-jerk bureaucratic instinct to cover one's ass. The new copyrights on old works mean almost nothing.
Baldur
Excellent idea. I've heard it before, but can't recall where. It is definitely a problem with older books that are virtually impossible to find, but can't be reprinted (or in this modern age, scanned and put online).
The last copyright extension allowed an exception allowing libraries to copy books in the last 20 years of their copyright if new editions are unavailable, but practically speaking this will have little effect. Something much better is required.
The U.S. is obligated by international treaty to a minimum copyright period - I'm thinking it is 28 years? but beyond that, registration of copyrighted material with a fee of $1 per year would be sufficient to make most orphaned materials available. A maximum period of 100 years would also be preferable to the current Life of the Author plus 70 years, which considering the past performance of Congress is liable to become Life of the Author plus forever.
Michael Hart has frequently noted that over 90% of profits come in the first 6 years of a book's publication. Considering that (under U.S. law) the purpose of Copyright is to encourage the arts and sciences, the current law is clearly a joke.
Baldur