What the article is saying is there may be some people out there who are "predisposed" to such thoughts but who haven't been "catalyzed" into thinking about kids that way until they get exposed to the idea later in life. 50 years ago "later in life" might have been "never." The 35 year old father in this example might look at his son, get turned on, and think "this is just wrong." These days with all the stories in the press and access to child porn and pedophile-affirming web sites supposedly available to anyone who cares to search the Internet Underbrush[TM], this catalyzation may happen in the middle- or later-adult years. The father may say "Look at Michael Jackson. I'm not the only one who feels this way."
I understand your argument, but there is no evidence to suggest that someone's sexuality can be determined by whether or not they feel that their urges are moral or immoral.
"fight information with information by making it clear to would-be perps that such behavior is unacceptable and providing a safe way for them to see a shrink without jeapordizing their family life, their livelihood, and their freedom, or other negative consequences"
Paedophilia is not a behaviour; it is a sexuality (technically a sexual disorder). Are you suggesting that all paedophiles are "would-be perps" and should be sent to therapy, or are you suggesting that offending paedophiles should be sent to therapy?
"providing safe environments for our children that limit the opportunity for would-be offenders to offend."
How do you define "would-be offenders"? You can't tell a whole group of people who are attracted to children - yet are fully able to control themselves around children - that they are prohibited from being around a child simply because of their feelings. I'm a non-offending paedophile, I do volunteer work with children, and I'm fully able to control myself. Although I am sexually attracted to children, I will never make my fantasies a reality.
"Paedophilia isn't going to suddenly disappear. We need to accept that it does occur amongst us and find a way to cope with it in a constructive manner. Whether that means mandatory (but discreet!) counselling, giving lolicon hentai to paedophiliacs to divert their attention from real children, psychological treatement or a combination of any of the above, we need to work on this."
One can't be "cured" of paedophilia, however therapy can help offending paedophiles to control their behaviour. There is no reason to force non-offending paedophiles into therapy, however sex offender therapy should be part of every sentence for every adult convicted of sexual activity with a minor. The problem is that there aren't enough therapists available to treat all offenders.
"What's the definition of pedophilia, then? If it involves viewing media of children being sexually abused, then pedophilia is clearly a crime. Anything that creates a market for the sexual abuse of children must be considered a crime-- even if the market's currency is "internet karma.""
The definition of paedophilia has already been explained, however I feel that it's important to address the issue of child pornography too.
Firstly, in countries such as the UK, it is illegal to view any photograph (or "pseudo-photograph") which "offends the recognised standards of propriety". This means that an image may be judged as illegal even if it does not involve sexual abuse; it simply must offend the "standards" of a jury.
Secondly, the people who create a market for child pornography are those who purchase images, not those who simply view it. On the other hand, I agree that trading, purchasing, producing, requesting, or distributing abusive child pornography is unacceptable.
The child pornography issue is extremely complex. I discussed it in detail here, although the article is based around an analysis of UK law.
Firstly, can you define paedophilia? I use the medical definition (a person over the age of 16 who is primarily attracted to pre-pubescent children), not the News of the World definition.
"You're deliberately conflating naturist images of children and pictures of people having sex with them to try to muddy the issue."
What?
"Look it's simple. People want to protect their kids from people like Tom & you. They absolutely loath and detest you. Judges have a certain amount of discretion, and they will use that to criminalize your behaviour. Juries will probably convict you"
1. I don't look at indecent images, because such is illegal.
2. I don't support adults having sex with children. My views are distinct from those of PIE.
3. I can control my behaviour (in terms of sex-related and child-related issues); it's not exactly difficult. What I can't control is what I fantasise about.
If judges discriminate against someone based on mental disability (which paedophilia technically is), they are in breach of the Human Rights Act. This was, in effect, upheld in a recent decision to quash the IPP which was placed upon a colleague of O'Carroll's.
The whole paedophile issue is not a "child protection" issue, it's modern bigotry; we're the contemporary lowest class which people such as yourself use for social comparison. Paedophiles are not a danger to children; I do much volunteer work with children and I have no issues with self-control (as far as sex-related and child-related issues are concerned). The assumption that paedophiles will try to have sex with children is as ridiculous as a claim that most men will try to rape women; indeed, the idea that paedophiles are less able to control themselves is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Furthermore, part of the reason that I do volunteer work with children is to think "fuck you" towards the bigots who try to segregate paedophiles from jobs involving children. I'm going to publish a guide to help other non-offenders to get jobs working with kids, just to prove a point.
"You are not welcome in civilized society given your sexual preferences."
And you think that's acceptable? Please distinguish that from a support of thought crime.
Finally, stating that the UK is a civilised society is hardly accurate, regardless of whether or not one is a paedophile.
Although your post is relatively insightful, I'd like to ask you about your claims that "child porn is clearly a very bad thing" and that "children must have been abused to create it".
As I discussed in the article which I have linked above, a jury will usually decide that naturist images are "indecent" and therefore pornographic in a statutory sense. Do you not feel that it is somewhat absurd to claim that naturist images of children are a "very bad thing" and that "children have been abused" to create such images? Convictions involving naturist images are not rare; they constitute a significant proportion of convictions under the Protection of Children Act.
"Wake me up when you or one of your screeching hippie buddies gets executed or imprisoned for 20 years for saying something bad about Bush or the US government okay?"
I am not a hippie, nor am I living in the US. I am living in the UK, which is a clone of the US. I am attracted to children; many people in the UK (which has been heavily influenced by US law) who are attracted to children are imprisoned for viewing non-pornographic yet illegal images of children. So, I can't view even non-pornographic images of children if "normal" people would find them offensive.
American and British societies treat all people who are attracted to children as child molesters, frequently slander people who are attracted to children, and create offences to target people who are attracted to children (such as laws against cartoon child pornography).
The US and the UK are the worst countries to live in, as someone who is attracted to children.
"The US is not even close to China, Cuba, or these other repressive governments. It's got its issues, but the moral equivalence is just not there."
China and Cuba openly repress people. Everyone can see what they're doing.
The US chooses to either repress minorities who nobody else cares about (such as hated sexual minorities), or repress people more covertly, therefore hiding their actions from the majority of the population.
I'm not a sex offender (nor am I a terrorist), and I'm blatantly opposed to child molestation, so I don't see how the URL you posted is relevant to me.
Paedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to children; only a small number actually act on their fantasies.
This list was used to ban me for identifying as a paedophile on my user page, as follows -
Hi. I'm an 18 year old minor-attracted individual. I believe that nobody should be persecuted because of who they're attracted to; people should be judged based on their actions alone. I refuse to be silent while minor-attracted people are being attacked because of the actions of child molesters, many of whom are actually heterosexual and not really attracted to children.
Unlike the stereotypical paedophile activist, I am not here to support adult-child sex, I am here to explain the difference between people who are attracted to children and people who have sex with children.
Minor-attraction does not equal sex with children. Any attempts to curtail the rights or liberties of minor-attracted people, including restricting time with children, are infringements upon our human rights and are cowardly acts of discrimination.
They have done the same with many other people who have identified as paedophiles, and Jimbo Wales is responsible for many of the blocks.
They use the list to ban people who don't violate Wikipedia rules yet damage the "reputation" of the Wiki.
There is indeed a secret mailing list, Jimbo knows about it, and Jimbo is involved.
"Many of you might remember the previous story about LiveJournal erroneously deleting hundreds of users as suspected paedophiles, spurred on by pressure from the group, Warriors for innocence. Since then, they've been taking action against users hosting material on their servers that they believe to be illegal."
They also "took action" against my journal, which was a legal pro-paedophile journal containing only political text, with links only to legal political sites and news articles. It was similar to my current blog. LJ told me that my journal was removed because it "sexualised children," which was bullshit, but was apparently the best excuse they could find for caving in to pressure from vigilantes.
"Frankly, in the privacy of your own home, as long as it's not child porn or photos of someone literally being murdered or tortured, I can see NO sound objection to restricting what people can legally observe."
Child pornography in the UK can refer to mere naturist nudity.... and there are many people who are arrested for such offences. I wrote an article about it here.
It's somewhat hypocritical to say that people should be allowed to view whatever they wish to view in their own home, but then give examples of things they shouldn't be able to view based on your lack of approval.
"But my main point was in fact correct. People that view BDSM are less likely to commit crimes, not more."
While I haven't seen any studies regarding that, I certainly agree that giving someone a legitimate release is safer than prohibiting the possession of material which gives them a legitimate release.
I think the issue here is not really about protecting anyone, it's about protecting "British decency."
But yes, I agree with your main point and I don't think that possession of pixels should be a criminal offence
Okay, it is frighteningly absurd that the government are proposing a ban on such material, but honestly, the UK doesn't really care about whether or not people are being abused, it merely supports protecting "proper thoughts" from "deviants" who aren't protected via government schemes to enforce "positive liberty."
Anyway, I recently wrote an article, copied and pasted below, about the criminalisation of the possession of child pornography. I know that most people will automatically disagree with the decriminalisation of the possession of child pornography, but the government and its supporters make similar assertions about the possession of child pornography and the possession of violent pornography, so much of it is relevant to this particular act of censorship.
Note: This article does not condone illegal activity; it suggests a change in child pornography legislation.
Should the Possession of Child Pornography be Illegal?
I have discussed this issue with many friends, including those who have been convicted of offences involving child pornography, as well as those who are old enough to remember a time when child pornography was legal and was as available as adult pornography. They have discussed the issue in great detail in order to aid me in writing this article, explaining the motivations for producing, distributing, trading and possessing such material. I feel this gives me a reasonale level of insight into the issue, without taking the risk of engaging in criminal activity.
This article will focus on UK laws against child pornography, however I feel it is relevant to other jurisdcitions which prohibit the possession of certain images depicting children.
UK laws against child pornography are governed primarily by the Protection of Children Act (1978), which was amended by the Criminal Justice Act (1988), the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) and the Sexual Offences Act (2003). There are other acts which amend sentencing and search protocols, however these will not be discussed here.
The amended Protection of Children Act states that:
1(1) It is an offence for a person -
To take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs; or to possess such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so.'
Section 160 of The Criminal Justice Act of 1988 made the simple possession of indecent photographs of children an offence."
I should state that, when I refer to "possession" in this article, I am also referring to "making" when it applies to simply downloading images from the internet.
At this point, it's important to explain how "indecent" is defined.
The definition of indecent under UK law is rather vague, however case law and sentencing guidelines allow one to interpret the term more accurately.
According to case law such as that of R v Stamford and R v Graham-Kerr, indecent can be defined as anything which does not comply with the "recognised standards of propriety."
It is a mistake to assume that indecent is absolutely synonymous with "pornographic," as this is not the case. People have been imprisoned for naturist images (see O'Carroll, Stamford, Graham-Kerr), suggesting that any full frontal nudity is illegal. According to sentencing guidelines, clothed images which depict c
"One of the main problems that prudes have is that any fair study of this disgusting filth shows that people that view it are LESS likely to commit crimes, whether violent or not.
This is in dinstinct difference from peopel that view kiddie porn, who are in fact more likely to commit crimes."
That's untrue and I'd appreciate it if you could cite a source which states this.
Many people do claim that possessing child pornography leads to the abuse of children. This claim is based on statistics which claim that x% of people who sexually assault children also possess child pornography. This is often interpreted to suggest that x% of people who possess child pornography also sexually assault children, which is a gross manipulation of the statistics. Clearly, people who possess child pornography and sexually assault children are much more likely to be caught than people who only view child pornography, a fact which flaws the statistics commonly used to back up such assertions.
Indeed, I'm sure the boys were horrified when they had to tolerate pop-up porn after being able to view the stuff they'd bought with their mom's credit card....
"Hence the outcry when LJ decided to listen to them while a few months ago Perverted Justice, a respected site who really brings pedophiles to justice, was ignored by LJ. Perverted justice makes a difference between real pedophiles sites and Fandom communities were fictional characters have underage sex. The "warriors" just wanna ban everything they disagree with.
Perverted Justice aren't much better, to be honest. I'm attracted to children, making me a paedophile, but I'm strongly opposed to adult-child sex. That didn't stop PJ referring to my websites as "pro-child rape."
"I would be much happier if this was a regular pedophile hunt. Of course, malware is going to be downloading horrific stuff to unknowing people, leading to innocent people being dragged off to jail by techno-impaired judges and juries."
I'm sorry, but you have not considered that paedophiles are equally innocent unless they actually engage in sexual activity with children?
First of all, in case anyone is wondering, the "TexasFred" who was mentioned is Fred Witzell. I had a full address and phone # at one point and I'll consider posting it if I can actually find where I saved it. He hasn't always used DomainsByProxy.
"Gunny John" is actually Mark Spence of Tampa Pirate, a blog you can visit if you want to read about those evil homosexuals, how all Islamic people are terrorists, and how paedophiles are sure to be hiding in a bush outside your house.
The fact that UK "child porn" laws don't even require pictures of children to be pornographic - just "indecent" - is evidence of the fact that the laws aren't there to protect children, they exist because people don't like minor-attraction. Since homophobia is no longer acceptable, they must be able to express distaste about another perceived sexual minority.
Consider the case of Tom O'Carroll, who was imprisoned because they decided the images he had were 'inappropiate for a paedophile to have.' His thoughts were the deciding factor in the case, effectively rendering his conviction a case of thought crime.
UK child porn laws are disgraceful and they need to be changed.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand your argument, but there is no evidence to suggest that someone's sexuality can be determined by whether or not they feel that their urges are moral or immoral.
Paedophilia is not a behaviour; it is a sexuality (technically a sexual disorder). Are you suggesting that all paedophiles are "would-be perps" and should be sent to therapy, or are you suggesting that offending paedophiles should be sent to therapy?
How do you define "would-be offenders"? You can't tell a whole group of people who are attracted to children - yet are fully able to control themselves around children - that they are prohibited from being around a child simply because of their feelings. I'm a non-offending paedophile, I do volunteer work with children, and I'm fully able to control myself. Although I am sexually attracted to children, I will never make my fantasies a reality.
One can't be "cured" of paedophilia, however therapy can help offending paedophiles to control their behaviour. There is no reason to force non-offending paedophiles into therapy, however sex offender therapy should be part of every sentence for every adult convicted of sexual activity with a minor. The problem is that there aren't enough therapists available to treat all offenders.
"What's the definition of pedophilia, then? If it involves viewing media of children being sexually abused, then pedophilia is clearly a crime. Anything that creates a market for the sexual abuse of children must be considered a crime-- even if the market's currency is "internet karma.""
The definition of paedophilia has already been explained, however I feel that it's important to address the issue of child pornography too.
Firstly, in countries such as the UK, it is illegal to view any photograph (or "pseudo-photograph") which "offends the recognised standards of propriety". This means that an image may be judged as illegal even if it does not involve sexual abuse; it simply must offend the "standards" of a jury.
Secondly, the people who create a market for child pornography are those who purchase images, not those who simply view it. On the other hand, I agree that trading, purchasing, producing, requesting, or distributing abusive child pornography is unacceptable.
The child pornography issue is extremely complex. I discussed it in detail here, although the article is based around an analysis of UK law.
What?
1. I don't look at indecent images, because such is illegal.
2. I don't support adults having sex with children. My views are distinct from those of PIE.
3. I can control my behaviour (in terms of sex-related and child-related issues); it's not exactly difficult. What I can't control is what I fantasise about.
If judges discriminate against someone based on mental disability (which paedophilia technically is), they are in breach of the Human Rights Act. This was, in effect, upheld in a recent decision to quash the IPP which was placed upon a colleague of O'Carroll's.
The whole paedophile issue is not a "child protection" issue, it's modern bigotry; we're the contemporary lowest class which people such as yourself use for social comparison. Paedophiles are not a danger to children; I do much volunteer work with children and I have no issues with self-control (as far as sex-related and child-related issues are concerned). The assumption that paedophiles will try to have sex with children is as ridiculous as a claim that most men will try to rape women; indeed, the idea that paedophiles are less able to control themselves is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Furthermore, part of the reason that I do volunteer work with children is to think "fuck you" towards the bigots who try to segregate paedophiles from jobs involving children. I'm going to publish a guide to help other non-offenders to get jobs working with kids, just to prove a point.
And you think that's acceptable? Please distinguish that from a support of thought crime.
Finally, stating that the UK is a civilised society is hardly accurate, regardless of whether or not one is a paedophile.
I discussed UK laws against indecent images here.
Although your post is relatively insightful, I'd like to ask you about your claims that "child porn is clearly a very bad thing" and that "children must have been abused to create it".
As I discussed in the article which I have linked above, a jury will usually decide that naturist images are "indecent" and therefore pornographic in a statutory sense. Do you not feel that it is somewhat absurd to claim that naturist images of children are a "very bad thing" and that "children have been abused" to create such images? Convictions involving naturist images are not rare; they constitute a significant proportion of convictions under the Protection of Children Act.
In future, look at the name of the poster before you reply.
If the name of the poster isn't "Brian Ribbon", it isn't me, okay?
That's why I don't have sex with kids. Clearly you have some kind of basic comprehension problem.
I am not a hippie, nor am I living in the US. I am living in the UK, which is a clone of the US. I am attracted to children; many people in the UK (which has been heavily influenced by US law) who are attracted to children are imprisoned for viewing non-pornographic yet illegal images of children. So, I can't view even non-pornographic images of children if "normal" people would find them offensive.
American and British societies treat all people who are attracted to children as child molesters, frequently slander people who are attracted to children, and create offences to target people who are attracted to children (such as laws against cartoon child pornography).
The US and the UK are the worst countries to live in, as someone who is attracted to children.
http://anu.nfshost.com/users/blueribbon
China and Cuba openly repress people. Everyone can see what they're doing.
The US chooses to either repress minorities who nobody else cares about (such as hated sexual minorities), or repress people more covertly, therefore hiding their actions from the majority of the population.
The US ISPs also frequently co-operate with the US authorities, whose attitude towards people's online rights is hardly respectable.
Did you actually read anything that I posted? I am not defending child molesters. I am defending paedophiles.
I'm not a sex offender (nor am I a terrorist), and I'm blatantly opposed to child molestation, so I don't see how the URL you posted is relevant to me.
Paedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to children; only a small number actually act on their fantasies.
I briefly discussed my views here.
They have done the same with many other people who have identified as paedophiles, and Jimbo Wales is responsible for many of the blocks.
They use the list to ban people who don't violate Wikipedia rules yet damage the "reputation" of the Wiki.
There is indeed a secret mailing list, Jimbo knows about it, and Jimbo is involved.
They also "took action" against my journal, which was a legal pro-paedophile journal containing only political text, with links only to legal political sites and news articles. It was similar to my current blog. LJ told me that my journal was removed because it "sexualised children," which was bullshit, but was apparently the best excuse they could find for caving in to pressure from vigilantes.
If you wish to host a legal but controversial blog, try InsaneJournal, GreatestJournal, or if you're prepared to pay for hosting and install the blog software, try NearlyFreeSpeech.Net
"A rep from OLPC said, understandably, that the laptops would now be fitted with filters."
I think they should also send out therapists. Those children will clearly be traumatised by viewing evil images of naked women.
"Frankly, in the privacy of your own home, as long as it's not child porn or photos of someone literally being murdered or tortured, I can see NO sound objection to restricting what people can legally observe."
First of all, see this post.
Child pornography in the UK can refer to mere naturist nudity.... and there are many people who are arrested for such offences. I wrote an article about it here.
It's somewhat hypocritical to say that people should be allowed to view whatever they wish to view in their own home, but then give examples of things they shouldn't be able to view based on your lack of approval.
"But my main point was in fact correct. People that view BDSM are less likely to commit crimes, not more."
While I haven't seen any studies regarding that, I certainly agree that giving someone a legitimate release is safer than prohibiting the possession of material which gives them a legitimate release.
I think the issue here is not really about protecting anyone, it's about protecting "British decency."
But yes, I agree with your main point and I don't think that possession of pixels should be a criminal offence
Anyway, I recently wrote an article, copied and pasted below, about the criminalisation of the possession of child pornography. I know that most people will automatically disagree with the decriminalisation of the possession of child pornography, but the government and its supporters make similar assertions about the possession of child pornography and the possession of violent pornography, so much of it is relevant to this particular act of censorship.
Note: This article does not condone illegal activity; it suggests a change in child pornography legislation.
Should the Possession of Child Pornography be Illegal?
I have discussed this issue with many friends, including those who have been convicted of offences involving child pornography, as well as those who are old enough to remember a time when child pornography was legal and was as available as adult pornography. They have discussed the issue in great detail in order to aid me in writing this article, explaining the motivations for producing, distributing, trading and possessing such material. I feel this gives me a reasonale level of insight into the issue, without taking the risk of engaging in criminal activity.
This article will focus on UK laws against child pornography, however I feel it is relevant to other jurisdcitions which prohibit the possession of certain images depicting children.
UK laws against child pornography are governed primarily by the Protection of Children Act (1978), which was amended by the Criminal Justice Act (1988), the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) and the Sexual Offences Act (2003). There are other acts which amend sentencing and search protocols, however these will not be discussed here.
The amended Protection of Children Act states that:
I should state that, when I refer to "possession" in this article, I am also referring to "making" when it applies to simply downloading images from the internet.
At this point, it's important to explain how "indecent" is defined.
The definition of indecent under UK law is rather vague, however case law and sentencing guidelines allow one to interpret the term more accurately.
According to case law such as that of R v Stamford and R v Graham-Kerr, indecent can be defined as anything which does not comply with the "recognised standards of propriety."
It is a mistake to assume that indecent is absolutely synonymous with "pornographic," as this is not the case. People have been imprisoned for naturist images (see O'Carroll, Stamford, Graham-Kerr), suggesting that any full frontal nudity is illegal. According to sentencing guidelines, clothed images which depict c
"One of the main problems that prudes have is that any fair study of this disgusting filth shows that people that view it are LESS likely to commit crimes, whether violent or not.
This is in dinstinct difference from peopel that view kiddie porn, who are in fact more likely to commit crimes."
That's untrue and I'd appreciate it if you could cite a source which states this.
Many people do claim that possessing child pornography leads to the abuse of children. This claim is based on statistics which claim that x% of people who sexually assault children also possess child pornography. This is often interpreted to suggest that x% of people who possess child pornography also sexually assault children, which is a gross manipulation of the statistics. Clearly, people who possess child pornography and sexually assault children are much more likely to be caught than people who only view child pornography, a fact which flaws the statistics commonly used to back up such assertions.
Indeed, I'm sure the boys were horrified when they had to tolerate pop-up porn after being able to view the stuff they'd bought with their mom's credit card....
What happens when you think the business client you're e-mailing is an asshole?
I wasn't aware of that.
Perverted Justice aren't much better, to be honest. I'm attracted to children, making me a paedophile, but I'm strongly opposed to adult-child sex. That didn't stop PJ referring to my websites as "pro-child rape."
I'm sorry, but you have not considered that paedophiles are equally innocent unless they actually engage in sexual activity with children?
First of all, in case anyone is wondering, the "TexasFred" who was mentioned is Fred Witzell. I had a full address and phone # at one point and I'll consider posting it if I can actually find where I saved it. He hasn't always used DomainsByProxy.
"Gunny John" is actually Mark Spence of Tampa Pirate, a blog you can visit if you want to read about those evil homosexuals, how all Islamic people are terrorists, and how paedophiles are sure to be hiding in a bush outside your house.
WfI is just an excuse to make bigotry popular.
The fact that UK "child porn" laws don't even require pictures of children to be pornographic - just "indecent" - is evidence of the fact that the laws aren't there to protect children, they exist because people don't like minor-attraction. Since homophobia is no longer acceptable, they must be able to express distaste about another perceived sexual minority.
Consider the case of Tom O'Carroll, who was imprisoned because they decided the images he had were 'inappropiate for a paedophile to have.' His thoughts were the deciding factor in the case, effectively rendering his conviction a case of thought crime.
UK child porn laws are disgraceful and they need to be changed.