This article is from http://www.misanthropic-bitch.com/fuckthechildren.html -- a very unique site with lots of opinion pieces. You should visit the site.
Fuck the Children
Plain. Simple. Blunt.
The possession of child pornography should be legal.
Those who possess the photos rarely participated in creating them, and if they did not
thrust and thrust and thrust themselves upon the children featured, how can they
legitimately be prosecuted for a crime?
It is akin to a thought crime, a classification of "crime" that is becoming
pervasive in the judicial system.
Current hate crime legislation allows for additional prison time and fines if a crime is
committed based on the victim's superficial characteristics: race, ethnicity, sexual
preference, etc.
If I throw a cup of steaming coffee in Lakeisha Jackson's face because I think all niggers
should go back to Africa, a hate crime charge will inevitably deign my rap sheet. If I
throw a cup of steaming coffee in Lakeisha Jackson's face, well, just because, I would get
off with a lighter sentence.
Lakeisha Jackson suffers the same injuries in both instances, but being a crazy fuck will
not rack up as much jail time as being a racist. The thought process makes all the
difference.
In Laguna Beach, CA, police have begun documenting nasty verbal attacks on the theory that
spewers of hateful language may become perpetrators of a hate crime.
According to Police Chief James Spreine, "It is not too far-fetched to believe that
people who are entertained by yelling profanity and hate-style comments at gay or minority
group members may also have a tendency toward more physical attacks."
Spreine posits that screaming, "Die, fag!" leads to actual brutality, and
supporters of the criminalization of child porn possession assume that anyone who jerks
off to eight year olds fucking intends to fuck an eight-year-old.
But if Pete Pedophile diddles his dangly part in private to child porn, prosecuting him
amounts to punishing him for his unpopular thoughts.
Child pornography has been illegal in the US since 1978, and the federal government has
been tracking it down and stamping it out with a vengeance. In 1982, in New York v.
Ferber, the Supreme Court ruled that non-obscene child pornography has no First Amendment
protection.
In 1990, in Osborne v. Ohio, the Court ruled that laws criminalizing mere possession of
child pornography were constitutional. These court rulings were noted in state
legislatures, which added penalties of their own on top of the federal penalties.
Going a step further, Congress passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996.
Extending to the online medium, creating doctored child porn photos faced the same fate as
possessing "Young And Tender XII." ("No actual children were harmed in
these photos.")
According to the law,
`child pornography' means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video,
picture, drawing, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or
produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where--
`(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in
sexually explicit conduct;
`(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit
conduct; or
`(C) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed
in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual
depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.'.
Pushed to its limits, the CPPA could outlaw all works depicting youths engaged in sexual
activity, even if the "youths" are adults portraying youths. Sticking a flute up
your pussy in band camp is fine, as long as you went to band camp after turning the
magical age of 18.
The Supreme Court, showing more wisdom than usual, declared the CPPA unconstitutional, but
any legislation related to children that is struck down eventually returns with even more
Draconian implications.
In Canada, a British Columbia judge ruled in January 1999 that possession of child porn
was not a crime.
"There is no evidence that demonstrates a significant increase in the danger to
children caused by pornography," wrote Justice Duncan Shaw of the B.C. Supreme Court
in his ruling.
What people keep in their homes is "an expression of that person's essential
self," Justice Shaw declared in his decision. "His or her books, diaries,
pictures, clothes, and other personal things are intertwined with the person's beliefs,
opinions, thoughts, and conscience."
Possession of words and pictures relating to the sexuality of minors could be used for
legitimate purposes, Judge Shaw said, such as slaking desires illegal to act upon.
John Robin Sharpe, a 65-year-old divorced father of two faced four charges of possession
of child porn. He represented himself in the case, arguing the prohibition against
possession was an infringement of his to freedom of conscience under the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
In April 1995, police found computer disks in Sharpe's home containing a text titled
"Sam Paloc's Flogging, Fun and Fortitude -- A Collection of Kiddiekink Classics,
among other pornographic and alliterative writings. Another search a year later turned up
additional pornographic books, manuscripts and stories involving children.
The material was described as "graphic" and "explicit."
Sharpe has said he truly believes that intergenerational sex - sex between men and boys,
for example - can be a positive experience for both, but the courts have no evidence that
he has had sex with boys.
If Sharpe's only known crime revolved around writing perverse stories about balling the
young ones, and no actual children were sexually abused in the process, what was Sharpe's
crime other than having an imaginatively twisted mind?
In July 1998, Veteran radio reporter Larry Matthews pleaded guilty to two counts of
receiving and trafficking child pornography on the Net.
Matthews is well-known for his undercover work. For example, he lived on the streets
during a news investigation about the homeless, and he spent time with draft dodgers for a
12-part series about young men who fled to Canada during the Vietnam war.
In 1995, Matthews, who has worked as an editor for National Public Radio, produced a
three-part series on the explosion of child porn on the Net for WTOP radio in Washington.
In 1996, he continued his investigation, and even tipped the FBI off to one woman he said
was peddling her kids on the Net, according to court briefs.
In 1997, he obtained child pornography during a news investigation about the online trade
of the illegal material. His ultimate goal was to sell a magazine article about children
being prostituted on the Net and law enforcement's track record for dealing with the
problem, his attorneys say.
Matthews infiltrated and engaged the digital underworld where sexually explicit images of
minors are traded or sold to get his story.
The FBI's Innocent Images program in Baltimore, Maryland, uses a similar strategy, with
agents lurking anonymously in chat rooms to catch adults who solicit minors or offer up
child porn. Matthews apparently stepped in the middle of one such sting and was indicted
last summer on 15 counts of possessing and transmitting child pornography.
Regardless of Matthews' true interest, the government's stance is that the mere glance at
child porn makes one susceptible to prosecution.
The government argues that merely viewing child porn, even if it's not for prurient
interests, is worthy of 18 months in prison -- the sentence handed down to Matthews after
his guilty plea. Had Matthews been found guilty at trial, he had faced up to 15 years in
prison and more than $250,000 in fines for each count against him.
The ruse the government used to ensare Matthews is entrapment, similar to "Operation
Looking-Glass" of the early 1980s.
But even those trafficking in child porn rarely face a sentence as harsh as Mike Diana.
Mike Diana, the creator of the comic book "Boiled Angel," found himself tangled
in a long legal battle because of his artwork.
His comic book "Boiled Angel" graphically depicted such subjects as child abuse,
date rape and violence stemming from religious intolerance.
Several months after authorities contacted him in regard to the Gainesville murders, Diana
got a subscription order to "Boiled Angel" that had a Largo, Florida area return
address.
He had never gotten orders from community people before. His comic book had a small
circulation among friends, and nobody else knew about his zine, as far as he knew.
He didn't figure out at the time that it was the local authorities subscribing to his
comic book. Before they moved in on Diana, they got "Boiled Angel #7" and
"#ATE."
The latter issue was Diana's cannibalism issue, which featured an interview with
"Cannibal Killer" Otis O'Toole. He talked about making bar-b-que sauce from
little boys and rambled on about other absurdities. The state attorney's office took it
seriously and issued its summons for publishing, advertising and distributing lewd and
obscene material .
The prosecutor told reporters that "Boiled Angel" contributed "to the
breakdown of the moral fiber of the country." He said Diana should seek help and stay
away from children.
Convicted of "distribution of obscenity" in 1994, Diana's sentence included: a
$3,000 fine, mandatory psychological testing, enrollment in a journalism ethics course,
and three years of probation, during which time his residence could be inspected without
warning to determine if he was in possession of, or was creating, "obscene
material."
And while his comic book wasn't labeled as child porn, another part of his sentence
ordered that he have no contact with children under 18 years of age.
"You can't be arrested for the stuff in your head. He's not hurting anyone,"
Mike Diana's father said.
Said Pultizer-Prize winning cartoonist Art Spiegelman: "I think the Florida decision
is barbaric. It seems like backwoods, Faulknerian thinking." He added that the court
was confused "between the dreams and hallucinations put on paper -- which requires
discipline and self-control -- and acting out those inner demons."
If those who possess child porn don't act on their inner demons, who are they hurting?
Granted, if these people did not crave nudie photos of kids, there wouldn't be a market
for them, but treating these people as criminals certainly isn't going to help them
overcome whatever problems they have.
Prosecute those who exploit the precious, little kiddie-widdies -- sweatshop workers get
better wages, after all -- but provide assistance to those who seek out the fruits of the
exploitation.
If society continues to send pedophiles back into the general population, how can they
ignore the issues that cause them to seek photos of children in compromising positions?
But where does one draw the line?
I'm reminded of the case of a 24-year-old man convicted of a kiddie porn-related charge
for taking sexually explicit photos of his 17-year-old girlfriend. She was old enough to
consent to sex, but not old enough to consent to having those sexual acts photographed.
Is a 17-year-old a child? If so, why does the law allow her to consent to sex? If not, why
was this man prosecuted?
Any mention of children sends people into a tizzy. Rational thinking flies out of the
window. Mob mentality rules. "Crucify! Crucify! Crucify!" becomes the rallying
cry. It's the same mentality behind placebo legislation such as Megan's Law.
While constantly looking under the bed for pedophiles -- because, if one believes the
media, molested children are always the victims of strangers, usually ones they met on the
AOL chat room DaddyAndDaughterLove -- they overlook the real threats. Around 80% of
children are molested by family members or friends of the family. So, while parents are
crusading to prosecute wackos salivating over photos of 8-year-old Mary J. Youngsnatch,
they're not keeping an eye on Gramps or "Uncle" Mikey.
And if Mommy does find out that Daddy has been shtuping Brianna (and God knows who else in
the family), more than likely, Daddy won't go to jail. He'll receive extensive counseling
or Mommy will sweep it under the carpet.
Unless he tapes it, in which case, he'll receive counseling, and whoever buys it will
receive hard time.
That's the real problem. Parents and crusaders don't want to look in their own backyards.
It's easier to lynch the pock-faced sicko spending hours on IRC downloading naughty photos
on his T1 line.
Before tackling as minor a problem as child pornography, the government and parents should
look at who is really defiling children.
If they don't, we'll continue to see legislation impeding our freedoms in order to protect
the children. Well, fuck the children.
Or if you're a pedophile: fuck the children, but don't record it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------