Category Archives: Child Porn Memoirs

[2009 Research] The consumption of Internet child pornography and violent and sex offending…


Child_Porn_Memoirs
….

Date: December 17, 2018

01) The consumption of Internet child pornography and violent and sex offending

“Background

There is an ongoing debate on whether consumers of child pornography pose a risk for hands-on sex offenses. Up until now, there have been very few studies which have analyzed the association between the consumption of child pornography and the subsequent perpetration of hands-on sex offenses. The aim of this study was to examine the recidivism rates for hands-on and hands-off sex offenses in a sample of child pornography users using a 6 year follow-up design.

Methods

The current study population consisted of 231 men, who were subsequently charged with consumption of illegal pornographic material after being detected by a special operation against Internet child pornography, conducted by the Swiss police in 2002. Criminal history, as well as recidivism, was assessed using the criminal records from 2008.

Results

4.8% (n = 11) of the study sample had a prior conviction for a sexual and/or violent offense, 1% (n = 2) for a hands-on sex offense, involving child sexual abuse, 3.3% (n = 8) for a hands-off sex offense and one for a nonsexual violent offense. When applying a broad definition of recidivism, which included ongoing investigations, charges and convictions, 3% (n = 7) of the study sample recidivated with a violent and/or sex offense, 3.9% (n = 9) with a hands-off sex offense and 0.8% (n = 2) with a hands-on sex offense.

Conclusion

Consuming child pornography alone is not a risk factor for committing hands-on sex offenses – at least not for those subjects who had never committed a hands-on sex offense. The majority of the investigated consumers had no previous convictions for hands-on sex offenses. For those offenders, the prognosis for hands-on sex offenses, as well as for recidivism with child pornography, is favorable.”

Many people don’t like to hear this…but the superstition of “child pornography causing pedophiles to move on to child molestation”, has never faired all that well when held up to scrutiny.

….
Child_Porn_Memoirs_SB_Archive

Pat Califia: The aftermath of the great kiddy-porn panic of ’77…


Child_Porn_Memoirs
….

Date: December 06, 2018

01) The aftermath of the great kiddy-porn panic of ’77

“How would you feel if you could be sentenced to spend twenty years in prison for owning a nude photograph of your lover and another twenty years for actually having sex with her or him? If your partner is a minor, you could easily receive such a sentence under new kiddy-porn laws and old age-of-consent legislation. It is a federal offense to produce, own, or distribute sexually explicit material if the subject is sixteen or younger. Thirty-five states enacted similar legislation in 1977 and 1978. The penalties for “statutory rape” (sex between a legal adult and a minor) are grim. Convicted pedophiles may do more time for having sex with minors than they would for manslaughter. Once incarcerated, they have a difficult time securing probation or parole, and other prisoners harass, beat, and even kill inmates who are known to be “child molesters.”

The kiddy-porn laws were passed during a flurry of public outrage over violent child abuse and the sexual exploitation of children, but they have done nothing to diminish the brutal treatment of young people. Children and teenagers are still being sexually abused, beaten, and sometimes put to death by their adult custodians. Young people are still the property of their parents (or, if the parents are not appropriately conservative, the state). They are the poorest group in our society. A minor who attempts to become self-supporting faces discrimination in jobs, housing, and every other area of her or his life. Minors have no control over their educations, their places of residence, or their religious beliefs. They are routinely denied the full protection of the Bill of Rights and thus are subject to searches, curfews, and other indignities that would be illegal if applied to any other group. The laws that make it illegal for minors to work in the sex industry or have adult lovers also make it unlikely that a young woman or man will be able to escape from an abusive family. So, under the guise of protecting children, the great kiddy-porn panic has intensified their oppression.

These laws are being used against segments of our society which are far more vulnerable than the porn business. For instance, artists often do not have the resources or the experience to successfully defend themselves against vice charges, and they may have suspect politics or unconventional lifestyles, making them ideal targets for censorship and harassment. Photographer Jacqueline Livingston’s 1980 Village Voice interview was illustrated with erotic photographs she had taken of her son, Sam. These illustrations prompted the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to insist on a meeting with staff members of the Voice to discuss “kiddy porn” in their newspaper. Livingston was accused of child abuse, investigated by the Tompkins County Department of Social Services, and only narrowly missed losing custody of her son.”

Go read this…

I would repost the entire article here…but, I’m uncertain if it’s been published under the Creative Commons license, or not.

I know a lot of stuff that ends up on wikis is published under Creative Commons [kind of like Public Domain, but not exactly]…yet I see no attached designation.

….
Child_Porn_Memoirs_SB_Archive

Child Pornography May Make A Comeback After Court Ruling Guts Regulations Protecting Minors…


Child_Porn_Memoirs
….

Date: August 29, 2018

01) Child Pornography May Make A Comeback After Court Ruling Guts Regulations Protecting Minors

Thanks to feinmann0!

Community Submitted

“Child Pornography May Make A Comeback After Court Ruling Guts Regulations Protecting Minors

The case revolves around U.S. Code Title 18 Section 2257, which requires porn producers to keep stringent records on the ages of performers and allows federal agents to inspect them at any time.

Judge Michael Baylson of the U.S. 3rd Circuit of Appeals ruled that most of 2257’s record keeping requirements were unconstitutional on First and Fourth Amendment grounds. The ruling allows primary producers to fulfill age verification obligations by using a form developed by the Free Speech Coalition, the industry association that brought the lawsuit against 2257.

… the decision completely exempts major distributors (termed secondary producers), from any record-keeping requirements.”

“Have your papers ready at all times”…eh?…

…Sounds so, so familiar…

It’s always shocking, wherever a court actually upholds the U.S. Constitution…let alone, human rights…wherever the boogieman of “child pornography” is involved.

The courts, public intellect and other “social safeguards” have almost unanimously failed…habitually…for the last four decades…

Do note, their focus on “the young looking”…and how this has been about obstructing depictions of “the young looking”…by adding a totally absurd burden and consequence, to the practice of hosting it.

If they cannot legally ban it outright…they strangle it to death, through other methods.

In a weird way…I suppose this may have been vetting legally questionable content, and acting as a buffer for those times when you unintentionally stumble across “twink porn” [or the like], where the age of the participants is absolutely vague…

…and it’s strange to have to acknowledge that…

…It’s like thanking your captors, for withholding a beating for the day…

Of course…given a court system with integrity…this sort of thing unquestionably must be brought down…It’s inevitable…It has no legal leg to stand on…just public sentiment…

The maddening, enraging tragedy in this type of nonsense…is the amount of time, funds and energy it takes…to kill these statutory monstrosities, which clearly never should have been enacted in the first place…

…”Our” government passes this type of thing…and it takes two decades to get anything accomplished, in correcting the mess they’ve made…

All they need to do…is just keep passing these stupid laws, every so many years…and these special interests still get their way, for a decade or longer…and the social devastation ensues at their hands, even when the laws are ultimately struck down…

This is one of the reasons, why we need a fundamental change in culture…With it, will come a fundamental change in government…and we can jettison these malcontents from all public offices.

These terroristic aggressors have no business being there.

….
Child_Porn_Memoirs_SB_Archive

The Pedophilia of Everyday Life…


Date: June 18, 2018

“The following article originally appeared in a couple of magazines: Art Issue in 1996 and The Guide, subsequently. There is no trace now of the guidemag.com website, however, nor can I locate Mohr’s article anywhere else either. I did capture the text at the time it was discussed though. Daniel Tsang interviewed the author on KUCI radio about the Rind contoversy here: youtube.com/watch?v=q9_ufIaTEhI

Richard Mohr puts forward some interesting ideas … not least helping to explain perhaps why paedophiles are so vilified, and why society seems to need paedophilic images as much as the paedophile, to allow it to view sexy children innocently.

Incidentally, the piece is about 3000 words long. – feinmann0”

Personal Note: The audio interview has been shared on this blog in two parts, here and here…a phenomenal interview. – Steve

….

The Pedophilia of Everyday Life

By Richard D. Mohr … Professor of Philosophy at the University of Illinois-Urbana and author of “Knights, Young Men, Boys” from Gay Ideas: Outing and Other Controversies (Beacon Press, 1992).

Nearly every week, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America places a full-page display ad in the business section of the New York Times. The often gorgeous designs of the ads are as subtle as their overt messages are blunt: Drugs Scramble Your Brain. Fire Employees Suspected of Drug Use – It’s For Their Own Good. Drug Use Cuts Corporate Profits. That sort of thing. In their iconography, however, the ads roam over a much wider social field and frequently convey insidious messages – ones no less powerful for their indirection.

An easy case: a disproportionately high percentage of these ads picture a professional woman as the drug user in need of social disciplining. Frequently these women are the only women to be seen anywhere in the Times’ business section. The ads freight these pages with the message that women do not belong in business – they belong somewhere else. The ad campaign uses America’s demonization of drugs as both an energy source and vehicle for advancing an agenda of “traditional family values.”

It should not then come as much of a surprise that the ad campaign also includes iconography which links, indeed virtually identifies, demon drug-use with being gay. Several times over the last three years, Drug-Free America has run an ad which features a nearly life-size portrait of a sylph-like boy. You have to look twice to tell that it is a boy, for he is coded all over with signs of femininity. His lips are slightly glossed, slightly pursed. His posture coy. His head tilts forward over a unisex sweater causing luscious and illuminated blond tresses to cascade over one eye. The other looks seductively at the camera – square at you. The arc formed by his neck and hair continues on to a plastic tube which he holds towards cocaine lined on a mirror, which in turn reflects his image. Indulgent and languorous, Narcissus invites you to drown with – in – him.

The caption’s huge sans serif headline reads: “It used to be, at 13, little boys became interested in little girls.” What is the unstated antistrophe? One obvious possibility is “But now little boys are becoming interested in drugs.” The copy, dripping with nostalgia and, like the caption, cast in the Norman Rockwell tense – the imperfect – continues: “Boys and girls used to use straws to sip sodas at the drug store.” Our world is out of kilter, things are somewhat queer. At a minimum, drug-use is billed as arresting heterosexual development. It deflects youth from the culturally proper object of erotic choice (coke replaces ‘woman’). And it disrupts the social rituals by which culture prods youth along nature’s path (snorting replaces courting). But this verbal flag of deviance is not entirely queer, for it fails to establish for the youth a positively- limned perverted identity. The ad’s iconography takes up this chore. It layers over the boy both of the tropes by which our civilization marks out perverted male sexuality: sexual inversion (being a woman trapped in a man’s body) and bad object choice (desiring a man rather than a woman).

The codes of femininity which engulf the boy iconographically suggest that a feminine essence is seeping through the shell, the pores, of his marginally male body. The boy – really, deep down – is a girl. The caption’s cadences invite us to another possible antistrophic horror: “It used to be that little boys became interested in little girls, but now – with drugs – little boys become little girls.” The ad would have us believe that more than corrupting the body, drugs corrupt, pervert, the soul.

A man’s boy

But what of the lad’s enticing glance? This provides him with a bad object choice – you, the viewer. It is practically an axiom of contemporary art theory that the gaze of the viewer is presumptively a male gaze. But even without theory, we know that overwhelmingly the readership of the Times’ business pages is going to be male. The boy’s come-hither glance is for a man. He invites the man to become absorbed in his gaze. As a consequence, the boy’s association with drugs makes him doubly homosexual – as having both inverted gender and improper object choice. The ad uses homosexuality and drugs to mutually demonize each other. But the ad achieves this identification only at a high and surprising price: The ad is so thickly laden with codes and subterfuges that, top-heavy, it inadvertently trips over its intentions and unwittingly reveals new ranges of meaning. Through the very glamour and lure which the ad uses to homosexualize its subject, it turns its viewer into a pedophile. The sumptuous layout gives the boy a sensuous, enticing star quality. Paradoxically the very medium of its anti-gay message makes the boy sexy to men.

Perhaps we have here an example of what Foucault hints at when in the History of Sexuality he repeatedly but vaguely refers to “perverse implantations”, those means by which culture instills or invokes sexual desires, rather than represses or punishes them. The ad gives its viewer ideas, ones that he might very well not have had otherwise. If not exactly nudging him toward action, the ideas at least open the mind to new possibilities for actions; and they do so, even though they are put forth in a context of condemnation and suppression. Thus for Foucault, psychiatrists create perversions even as they are ostensibly trying to suppress them; insane asylums make their inhabitants crazy; and prisons produce, rather than rehabilitate, the criminal type. Similarly, the ad, even as it demonizes sexual perversion, implants in the mind of the beholder the idea of the most condemned perversion of all.

Pedophilic images are surprisingly common in society – surprising given that society careers from hysteria to hysteria over the possible sexiness of children. Society seems to need these images. And the images are allowed to the extent that they are buffered, not read in the first instance as sexual representations, and do not develop beyond mere suggestive idea into a pedophilic discourse, a context of meaning for the pedophile. Indeed the social requirement that the pedophile’s existence be shadowy helps realize the social requirement that sexy images of children will not be read as such. Society needs the pedophile: his existence allows everyone else to view sexy children innocently. But his conceptualization by society must not be allowed to be rich enough to be interesting, to constitute a life. Sexy images of children abound, but NAMBLA remains a universal whipping boy.
Society’s panicked worry then is not chiefly about the sexiness of kiddy pics – either as something inherently dirty or as having aesthetic, erotic, and moral effects on people in general. Rather, social conventions simultaneously insist upon and convulse over the existence of a certain type of mind, one which – quite independently of what it sees and does – can be branded as perverted. This becomes even clearer if one sorts through the tangle of statutes, regulations, administrative interpretations, and judicial decisions that makes up current kiddy porn law.

All in the mind’s eye

What makes a picture of a kid into kiddy porn? For starters, the child’s being naked, even partially naked, is not a necessary condition for kiddy porn. Under the current administration, the child pictured may be completely clothed and the picture may still be considered indictable kiddy porn. Further, the child need not be performing any act that would be socially counted as sexual in order for the picture to still be legally treated as kiddy porn. Nor need the child even be posed provocatively, lewdly, or seductively. But then what’s left? What distinguishes kiddy porn from Christmas snapshots? The mind of the beholder. The image is kiddy porn if it is possessed by someone who, quite independently of the image’s content, can be considered perverted. And whether or not parents find themselves indicted for bear-rug and bathtub shots of their kids turns on what prosecutors (and juries) think was in the parent’s mind in taking the photos – rather than on anything distinctive about the pictures themselves. It is the mind, not the image, that is dispositive.

Insulate that mind from the rest of the culture, label it perverted, and sexy children are alright. We see them – virginal and alluring – in mainstream clothing ads. Havana Joe Boots invites the straight male yuppie readers of Details to “Save Your Sole,” even as you lose it (your soul, that is) in the bare butt of a naked, ambiguously sexed child, tush thrust camera-ward.

On the back page of the New York Times Magazine’s special issue on children (October 9, 1995) and on billboards up and down the Metro-North commuter lines, Tommy Hilfiger ads display a naked-tummied, adultly-dressed boy of about six dangling insouciantly from a branch. His tongue slurps the air. His boxer shorts scooch up above his belt loops just as underwear does in adult jeans ads which everyone acknowledges as sexy in the main because of this joint peek-a-boo revelation of torso and boxers. A cliché of cultural studies holds that wearing briefs says “I have a penis”, while wearing boxers says “I am the penis.” Nevertheless, stamp the ad, with its child phallus, “not kiddy porn,” for it incidentally serves as a promotion for the Times’ favorite child-oriented charity, the Fresh Air Fund.

Using social concern as a pedophilic medium is also the lucky gambit of photographer Larry Clark’s movie, Kids. The hugely successful media blitz attending the movie’s release carefully avoided any reference to, let alone an examination of, Clark’s history of obviously pedophilic photographs – Teenage Lust (1983, 1987), 1992 , and Die perfecte Kindheit (1993). The publisher of the last collection of photos, fearing customs seizures, has not released the book in the United States. The collections include photos of Clark himself cavorting naked with naked boys in fountains. Indeed Clark himself – an ex-con – was no where in evidence during the media blitzes. Instead the morning TV shows offered a parade of latter-day Officer Krupkes – Krupkes with PhD’s – to discuss what the hell’s the matter with kids today, to bemoan their “social diseases,” and to praise the pseudo-documentary’s realism and grit in facing or at least showing these problems. Drug taking, cat kicking, petty thievery, unsafe sex, public urination, assault – you name it – Clark has carefully larded his film with kids’ naughty doings in order to distract the critics’ view from the cinemagraphic point of the movie which is to linger on naked boys – naked boys spritzing each other, naked boys relaxing in hustler poses, naked boys shooting the macho breeze, naked boys showing off their cocks. Moralizing becomes, like the Fresh Air Fund, both a vehicle and buffer for prurient interest.

The film’s pseudo-documentary style compliments the effects of its moralizing content. The documentary style makes the pretense of simply “presenting the facts” – a would-be charitable and disinterested act. But this posturing simply serves to insulate both director and viewer from taking responsibility for the movie’s voyeurism, its visual lusting for kids.

The movie’s final scene – the sleepy aftermath to a teenage orgy of sex and drugs – is a take -off on Michelangelo’s 1492 sculpture “Battle of the Lapiths and Centaurs” with its swarm of naked male flesh deployed for a good moral cause – saving women, who, however, are conveniently absent from the sculpture. With Clark, the swarm of naked male flesh hugged and caressed by the roving camera is kiddy flesh, all deployed for a good cause. The gorgeous support-actor awakens shocked to the glistening carnage and, as the movie’s last line, queries for the Krupkes, “Jesus Christ. What happened?” This ending is laughable, but the critics ate it up like talk-show fodder.

A live virus vaccine

Everyday pedophilic iconography can even be used as a force for innocence. Such is Michael Jackson’s 1995 videographic appropriation of Maxfield Parrish’s 1922 pedophilic painting “Day break” as part of Jackson’s return and rehabilitation from charges of child molestation. Despite its central image of a pubis-exposed ten-year old in the pose of a succuba, the Parrish painting has stood as a cultural icon on a par with Duerer’s “Praying Hands.” Today, in the afterglow of Norman Rockwell, it seems hard to imagine, but by the end of the 1920s, one in every four American house holds had purchased a print of the Parrish painting with its fulsome depiction of a wholly naked sylph, hands to knees, leaning over a supine wakening woman clad in flowing robes, framed by Grecian columns, all set against flowering trees, a peaceful lake, and purple misty mountains.

Jackson remakes this image to accompany the first love-song released as a single, “You Are Not Alone,” from his double-album HIStory: Book I. A convincing love-song from Michael is going to be a tough sell given the cultural backdrop of the molestation charges. In August 1993, a twelve-year old boy accused Jackson in a civil lawsuit of sexually molesting him over a four-month period the previous year. Jackson denied the accusations, but settled out-of-court for an undisclosed sum that some estimates said amounted to millions of dollars. What to do? Well, the thirty-seven year old black man re-casts himself in the role of Parrish’s ten-year old white all-but-genderless sylph. Iconographically he regains for himself his earlier status as child star and sends the recuperative messages: How can I be a child molester when I am a child myself? How can I even be sexual since I do not have a sex? I’m not a sexual threat: I’m white.

He reconfigures and neutralizes the picture’s succuba overtones by substituting for the reclining Arcadian, the woman whom he married after the molestation charges broke into the general press, Lisa Marie Presley. By contrast to Jackson, she looks in the video like a beached whale. Here artistic effect is sacrificed in order to heterosexualize the video’s hero. Jackson deploys Parrish’s pedophilic image to make himself over to appear as innocent as a child-bride, while also pressing the view that if there are any pedophiles around – and there may well be – they are in the audience, not in the frame.

Who needs an All Party Congress to restore one to grace when one can use images homeopathically. Jackson is cured by a dose of the very poison that ailed him. He has brilliantly recycled and teased America with a pedophilic image, which he has stunned and altered so that it can serve as a live-virus vaccine against the very charges of pedophilia laid against him. And it worked. He’s back.

By contrast, during the week that I drafted this article, a journalism professor at Toronto’s prestigious Ryerson Polytechnic University was suspended for having suggested in class that not all acts of intergenerational sex should be counted as child abuse. Looking is okay, thinking about these issues is not.

Why does the American national psyche need the pedophilia of everyday life? What drive does it stoke, even as the nation condemns any mention or thought of it? Following the lead of some other social critics like Kenneth Plummer and James Kincaid, Walter Kendrick argues in a brave piece for the New York Times Magazine’s all-kids issue that our contemporary understanding of childhood as a period of innocence and purity began only in the Victorian era, and that before then, going back to the Middle Ages, children were viewed simply as little adults.

Apparently having gone about as far as he felt he dared in the Times, Kendrick concludes by pointedly reducing the anxiety that these revelations no doubt stir in the average reader: “Today’s hysteria over child pornography springs mainly from adults’ fear of themselves, the guilty knowledge that you don’t have to be a pedophile to get an occasional frisson from looking at children.” But guilty self-knowledge does not hysterical witch- hunts make; one simply lies low. True: today’s hysteria springs mainly from adults’ fear of themselves, but this fear issues from their half- recognition that to admit explicitly, as pornography does, that children are sexy would mean that virtually everyone is a pedophile. In light of the current cultural view that sexual interest in children flows only from, is contingent solely on, the mind of the pedophile, for anyone to admit that he or she has any frisson at all from looking at children is necessarily to be branded as deviant. Were society to allow itself to articulate that it does have sexual interests in children – little adults are not sexy, but innocence and purity are – society would have met the enemy and seen that he is us.

The hysteria over kiddy porn, then, is not simply the result of America’s epicyclical prudishness about matters sexual. Rather it is the result of our general worries about purity, innocence, and identity – who we are. Childhood – the social concept – cannot do the moral work society has created it to do. In a century whose distinguishing marks are depression and Depression, genocide and the prospect of omnicide, life can look pretty damn nasty, brutish, and short. And so to serve both as ethical prop and security blanket, we have created a moral museum of innocence and purity – our Eden – and we have labeled it childhood. But then the paradox of everyday pedophilia is this: once we have made over childhood into purity and innocence, we naturally enough want to have it, but to have it would make it what we no longer want.”

….

Excellent article…I’m cross posting this in Child Porn Memoirs.

Child porn law goes nuts: 14-year-old girl charged for nude selfie…


Child_Porn_Memoirs
….

Date: December 30, 2017

01) Child porn law goes nuts: 14-year-old girl charged for nude selfie

“The ACLU of Minnesota calls the charges absurd and unconstitutional.

A 14-year-old girl is facing charges in Minnesota juvenile courts that could lead to her being placed on a sex offender registry—all for taking a nude selfie and sending it to a boy at her school…

The ACLU says the First Amendment protects teen sexting

In a 2002 case, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the creation of virtual child pornography—in which no actual children were used in the creation of works that appeared to involve sex with children. The court held that laws against child pornography were justified because protecting children against exploitation was a compelling state interest. But that argument doesn’t apply to a ban on virtual child pornography.

The ACLU argued that a similar point applies here. It doesn’t make sense to say that a 14-year-old girl is coercing herself into creating child pornography. Hence, in the ACLU’s view, the state lacks a compelling interest to limit the expressive rights of 14-year-olds to create nude selfies and voluntarily share them with peers.

When a teenager sends a nude selfie to a peer “in an attempt to indicate romantic or sexual interest, the same compelling risk of physical and psychological injury does not exist,” the ACLU argues in its brief. “Thus, the statute infringes upon constitutionally-protected speech.”

No harm done, hence, an absence of self interest on the part of the state?…

Of course…logically, this is accurate…

…But there are so many people, who break down and weep violently, over the knowledge [or rumor] that anyone else saw a fourteen year old flash “their goodies”…

…I’m certain the laws must take into consideration, the mental and emotional stability of these mental wrecks…

…All those people having to carry the psychological burden, of knowing about [or suspecting] such things…Oh, the humanity!…

…Indeed…It’s probably the primary “real trauma”, most of these laws honestly exist to combat.

….
Child_Porn_Memoirs_SB_Archive

A Teen Sexting Case Revealed How Judges Let Police Invade Children’s Privacy…


Child_Porn_Memoirs
….

Date: December 27, 2017

01) A Teen Sexting Case Revealed How Judges Let Police Invade Children’s Privacy

“Whether the police have the right to force your teenage son to masturbate in front of them in order to incriminate himself is a legal question few parents would think they’d have to consider.

And yet Trey Sims’ legal guardians had to do exactly that. In an effort to prosecute the 17-year-old for sexting his 15-year-old girlfriend, Manassas police detective David Abbott obtained a search warrant authorizing him to take “photographs of [Sims’] genitals,” including “a photograph of the suspect’s erect penis.” According to court documents, in the process of executing the search warrant, Abbott took the teenager to a juvenile detention center, took him to a locker room and, with two uniformed, armed officers looking on, ordered Sims to pull down his pants.

After taking pictures with his cell phone of the teenager’s genitals, Abbot then ordered the minor to masturbate so that he could take a picture of his erection. Sims tried but failed to comply with the officer’s orders; Abbott later threatened Sims’ lawyer that, if police couldn’t get a picture of the teenager’s erection by forcing the kid to masturbate, he would obtain a photo of the teenager’s engorged genitals by subjecting him to “an erection-producing injection” at a hospital.

[…]

It wasn’t until this month — more than three years after Sims was taken to that locker room — that a federal appeals court issued a decision in his favor: By a divided 2-1 vote, the court held that a reasonable police officer should have known it was unlawful to order a teenage boy to masturbate in front of him and other officers.

Notably, though, that meant that one judge felt that police should, indeed, have the right to do force children to masturbate in front of them in order to incriminate themselves.

[…]

Sims’ case shows that we have a system in which the legislative branch is permitted to criminalize whatever it wants, with effectively no judicial oversight; police investigations are invasive, unchecked, and can cause far greater harm than the underlying criminal act; and it is nearly impossible to hold police liable for unlawful misconduct. Until we address those systemic problems, we should expect more tragic cases like this one.”

….
Child_Porn_Memoirs_SB_Archive

State Supreme Court Ruling Means Washington Teens Who Sext Could End Up Felons…


Child_Porn_Memoirs
….

Date: September 17, 2017

01) Washington Kids Face Prison Over Dick Pics

02) State Supreme Court Ruling Means Washington Teens Who Sext Could End Up Felons

“In a ruling issued today, the Washington State Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a 17-year-old who sent a dick pic. The court found that state law allows him to be convicted for distributing child porn, even when the photo he sent was of himself.

In an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, the ACLU of Washington, Columbia Legal Services, TeamChild, and the Juvenile Law Center argued that upholding the teen’s conviction is a “strained and erroneous interpretation” of child porn laws that “would jeopardize thousands of minors across the state by criminalizing increasingly common and normative adolescent behavior.”

The decision also “conflicts with what advances in adolescent behavioral and neuroscience research inform us: that such a punitive approach to behavior modification in juveniles is not effective in preventing future offenses.”

Thanks, Enochian.

A look at how the laws continue to spin out of control, and be used to inhumane ends in the war on sex.

It’s worth reading…as there is a bit of decent sense expressed…Not nearly enough as this world needs, but enough to acknowledge.

The individual case, itself, may have been prosecuted justly…provided his previous behavior [and conviction] is any indication, of a predatory nature in his motives.

I agree, that sexually harassing people is a justified way to get yourself into trouble…

…That type of behavior going on in society, is a large part of why so many sexual minorities are treated so badly…It’s part of why we are in the circumstances we find ourselves in.

Isn’t it “lovely”, that we MAPs bare the burden of blame, for things we don’t even do ourselves?

….
Child_Porn_Memoirs_SB_Archive

Sexting at Age 5…


Child_Porn_Memoirs
….

Date: September 04, 2017

01) Sexting at Age 5

“A recent report by the internet security company Bitdefender claims that one in ten visitors to porn sites are under the age of 10. Unless carefully supervised by their parents, “children start visiting porn websites from an early age.”

The anecdotal stories are shocking. One mother, a sex addiction therapist, did everything she knew to keep her 6-year-old son from being exposed only to discover that another 6-year-old kindergarten classmate (at their private Christian school, no less) showed him a porn video on his cell phone.

[…]

A boy, age 5, has become the youngest person in Britain to be investigated by police for sexting.

[…]

“The number of cases where children have taken explicit pictures of themselves and sent them to others has soared in the past two years,” wrote a team of Telegraph reporters covering the story. And the age of those drawn into the practice is getting increasingly lower.”

Even young children can see things, and realize they’re going to be fun…

A little bit of weenie wagging in front of the camera, to send to a friend?…Why on earth wouldn’t the child enjoy it?…especially if it was their idea, and they are in control?

The Christian school anecdote:

Having gone to two different private, Christian schools…I can share some interesting stories with you…from both…

You think “innocent Christian children” aren’t inclined to get naughty, and strut around naked?…Oh my, my…are you in for a shock…

I remember the time this one young boy at our school…a first or second grader, I think…After school hours, he was in an empty hall with a classmate…She dared him to pull his pants down…and he pulled it all down, around his ankles…standing there totally naked, from his bellybutton to his ankles…When the school principle came unexpectedly walking through a set of doors, happening upon the two of them…

…A bit of real life “sexting”, going on there.

That poor boy, who was cute as hell, got kicked out of the school…His older siblings were pulled out, and the whole family left the church over this incident…

…Another boy at the same school, got suspended for trying to pull down a classmates underwear, while girls were looking on…I had a massive crush, on the boy “losing his underwear”…

Once, at the other school…a relative of mine relayed an account to me, about he and this other insanely cute boy [who I also had a major crush on], as they were changing in the boys restroom…

…In that restroom, is the only inside access to the heater room…which doubled as a changing room for gym class, when we needed the “overflow” space…The heater room had another door, leading outside…

My relative told how the two of them stripped completely naked, and were sneaking around in the side yard of the school, stark naked.

At the same school…I vividly remember the day one kid brought porn pictures to school, and he was showing them to other boys in the restroom.

Another time, there was at least one boy trying to talk a girl into letting him put his hand down her underwear…More less out in the front of the church, but behind tall shrubs.

…This is just the stuff that I readily recall, right off hand.

There were “naughty” things happening amongst us kids, even right in the middle of “god’s house”.

It’s true, what they say about catholic girls…which is honestly a metaphor, for extreme repression…

…Us “religious kids”…we spend a lifetime never seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting anything “sex”…Then we get a small sniff of it, and it’s totally on…We didn’t have a chance to develop balanced acclimation to it…And that extreme forbidden fruit is so, so, alluring…

…In such a case, who’s going to pass it up?…especially when you never thought you’d get the chance, at that age?

….
Child_Porn_Memoirs_SB_Archive

The McMartin Preschool…


Child_Porn_Memoirs
….

Date: August 14, 2017

01) The McMartin Preschool


This is a few years old [October 2015].

“Richard Beck is author of “WE BELIEVE THE CHILDREN: Moral Panic In The 1980s” published by Public Affairs. WE BELIEVE THE CHILDREN IS A brilliant, disturbing portrait of the dawn of the culture wars, when America started to tear itself apart with doubts, wild allegations, and an unfounded fear for the safety of children.”

Very late in [the last ten minutes], there is verbal confirmation of the open, legal availability of child pornography [or child erotica, if you prefer], even in Time Square.

Like most media of this type…what is presented here is a mixed bag…It centers around the McMartin Preschool case, but also touches on the Friedmans…of “Capturing the Friedmans”.

The host has some serious misconceptions…but, I think the guest does a pretty reasonable job, of steering him back around to something more truthful…Given the people, audience and setting…you really cannot expect much better.

For what it is…I’m giving this a thumbs up, for being important listening…Even though I was gritting my teeth, at a point or two.

….
Child_Porn_Memoirs_SB_Archive

Appeals Court Rejects ‘Shockingly High’ 19-Year Sentence for Child Porn Collection…


Child_Porn_Memoirs
….

Date: April 18, 2017

01) Appeals Court Rejects ‘Shockingly High’ 19-Year Sentence for Child Porn Collection

“When Joseph Jenkins went on vacation in May 2009, he brought his collection of child pornography with him. That decision led to a prison sentence so severe that a federal appeals court yesterday deemed it “substantively unreasonable” in a decision that shows how mindlessly punitive federal sentencing guidelines for child pornography offfenses have become.

[…] After Jenkins skipped bail in Canada, he was charged under U.S. law. In 2014 he was convicted of possessing and transporting child pornography, and a federal judge sentenced him to nearly 19 years in prison, followed by 25 years of supervised release. Given the nature of Jenkins’ crimes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled, the judge “went far overboard.”

The 2nd Circuit’s decision illustrates the impact of congressional edicts that call for stiff sentencing enhancements based on factors that are routine in child pornography cases. Jenkins’ criminal history was limited to a single misdemeanor, he did not produce or distribute child pornography, and his crimes did not involve contact with minors. Yet U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby calculated that the recommended sentence was 210 to 262 months, thanks mainly to enhancements for using a computer, for possessing more than 600 images (with each video counting as 75 images), for possessing images of prepubescent children, and for possessing images featuring masochistic, sadomasochistic, or other violent content. “These enhancements,” the 2nd Circuit notes, “have caused Jenkins to be treated like an offender who seduced and photographed a child and distributed the photographs and worse than one who raped a child.”

That’s right: If Jenkins had raped a child, his recommended sentence would have been shorter than the one he got for trying to carry pictures of such crimes into Canada for his own personal viewing.”

It’s telling, all the little tricks, smoke and mirrors they come up with, in order to enhance sentencing…when what someone is being railroaded over, wasn’t especially serious in the first place.

Now, fine…yes…a child being tormented is absolutely wrong…if that is, in fact, in any way related to this case…

…But what we are talking about, is an individual possessing images and recordings of whatever took place.

Even if you find the content in question deplorable…we are not talking about someone who objectively needs to be thrown into prison [let alone for almost two decades].

It is insane, how they keep jacking up these sentences…for no reason at all, except that they want to be all the more vicious in their sentencing…And they do this even in the face, of knowledge that this is counterproductive.

Well…at least a tiny bit of sanity finally showed up, in this case…however meager it may be.

….
Child_Porn_Memoirs_SB_Archive