Ban abpep-t and you'll put kids at risk
The Dangerous Bros.
However, I think that the recent (and growing) calls for so called child
pornography to be banned
from usenet are a complete and utter folly. Doing so would without any
shadow of
doubt harm children.
The one very important fact that has been overlooked by those calling for
the ban
on groups like a.b.p.e.p-t is that of "market forces".
It's quite simple, quite logical and has been proved in other situations
time and time again.
1) The vast majority of posts to the aforementioned groups are either
a) At least 15 years old (the photos not the kids!)
b) Very tame - but it depends upon your definition of pornography.
2) There has been almost no new production of "real" child pornography for
several years
3) why? because there is no money to be made from it any more
4) why? because groups like abpept have satisfied a market demand - for
free... nobody buys
these images they simply download them.
Now, take the scenario where abpept and it's like are closed. OK, many users
will simply
drift away. But there will still be an underlying want (or need), just by
closing a few
newsgroups you don't take away the demand, you only take away the supply.
So how then will this demand be satisfied? It will be satisfied by people
starting to sell
child-porn again... but I would hazard a guess that no-one will be willing
to part with
money for the old images being currently posted in usenet... no they'll want
new fresh images.
So in one move you could quite easily rekindle a currently dead industry,
that of child-porn
production. You may have been appalled to see images of naked little girls
from the
seventies on usenet, but what about todays kids falling into the clutches of
a pornographer?
Or does that not matter as long as usenet is "clean"?
I fear that in todays blinkered society which time and time again fails to
thoroughly think
through its actions in the face of hysterical outcry, there will be a return
to underground
production of child pornography...
but you won't need to worry about it - you won't see it... so will it really
be there?
Thank you for taking the time to read this message, I sincerely hope for the
sake of our
children that we think very carefully.
p.s. I would be really grateful if some kind soul who has access to abpept
could cross
post this for me there.
Ca...@webtv.net
!!!! Nothing funnier than a pedo-pig when he's feeling all deprived
and starts whining. I DO hope they don't stop it....we really
ENJOY!!!!!! it !
vote
Ca...@webtv.net wrote in article
<18253-36...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>...
Witt
Actually, if anyone is showing any pathological tendency here, it's
you. Your choice of words and punctuation, and style of rhetoric
(or rather lack of it) show that you are not prepared to consider
the arguments ad rem, but merely resort to ad hominem attacks. This
does you, and whatever case you wish to make, no credit at all.
Unless, of course, you *do* have rational counter-arguments?
So let's hear them, please, not this hysterical flaming.
Witt
(Lawyer, Criminologist, & Computer Scientist by qualification
and experience)
*Twenty+ years experience researching the politics of pornography
*Two+ years experience researching child pornography on the Internet.
The Dangerous Bros.
anyway? If I'd have said, "Fire a nuclear weapon on Iraq and you'll put kids
at risk" - would you think I was threatening you?
As for lies, well you may disagree with some of my opinions in this matter
which are based on the notion of the well proven "laws" of supply and
demand, but opinion cannot be a lie. You might think that your opinion is
the right opinion but it doesn't make someone elses opinion a lie.
I must say that I am disappointed, I expected much more thought provoking
argument and discussion in this newsgroup. If you think my points are not
valid or are incorrect please say so, but don't just sling names at people.
See what I mean about a blinkered societys hysterical outcry? Perhaps my
thoughts on your obsession to clean up usenet do actually override your wish
to protect children.
By the way... I think you may have broken your ! key when you hit it that
hard ;-)
Ca...@webtv.net wrote in message
The Dangerous Bros.
production of goods or services in exchange for money.
The point I was making was that market forces of supply and demand will
dictate that if supply is curtailed from one channel (ie usenet) then the
demand will pull supply from another (and in my opinion more dangerous
channel).
What happened during prohibition? Demand will always be supplied.
There is currently a supply of free old child porn via usenet, if this
supply is stopped I firmly believe that the demand will continue to be
supplied, only this time by a the sale of new material - and that is a risk
to todays kids.
Thanks.
vote wrote in message <01be196b$d828cc20$628867cf@ccihost>...
>How does an illegal industry self-regulate itself?
>
>Ca...@webtv.net wrote in article
StanTheMan
training, etc.
>>Lawyer, Criminologist, & Computer Scientist by qualification
and experience.
A lack of response will be most revealing!
Witt
Sorry to disappoint you.
Practised law 1974 - 1982. Specialisms : Criminal Law, Child-Care and Family
Law.
Awarded Diploma in Law, 1978.
1985: Awarded degree of B.Sc., Computer Science.
1988: Awarded degree of Master of Arts, Social Policy. Specialisms :
Criminology, Research Methods.
1987 - 1988: Research Fellow: Principal project - "Distribution of Cases
between the Crown Courts and Magistrates' Courts", commissioned by the Lord
Chancellor's Department. Member of the British Society for Criminology.
Presented paper at Annual BSC Conference.
1988: Various other research projects for a major UK University.
1989 - 90: Apart from a short time visiting the USA, Research on Bayesian
Statistics Project, again at a major British University. Solved the
Fieller-Creasey problem. Suggested computational improvements to Iterative
Bayesian Analysis based on the Aitken-Steffinson algorithm, now an industry
standard.
Since then: Day job - writing cutting-edge software for various Blue-Chip
companies, doing software
research and development, whilst in my limited spare time, writing research
papers on various topics, for various journals, including analyses of the
incidence of child porn on the Internet and its politics.
And you?
Witt
Michael Bannerman
J.D. University of Maryland, USA 1990
B.Sc. 1980
Admitted to Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1990
Admitted E.D. PA 1998
Worked at S. G. Archibald and SmithKlein Offshore in Europe. Sierra
Club, Federal Trade Commission, and U. S. Department of Justice in USA
My legal arguments and work were praised in High Courts in US and
abroad.
military service 1978-1990 (active and reserve)
StanTheMan
Universities, lecturers, law firms, law partners, publications - dates-
titles, etc. How can you be verified if you do not reveal your real name
together with data that can be checked. What could be fairer than that? If
you were applying for a job that is what you would have to do, and your
potential employer would do a similar reference check. Just be truthful and
there will not be a problem.
Witt <wi...@nemesis.org> wrote in article
<Kdjb2.15928$Wv1.3...@newscene.newscene.com>...
StanTheMan
credentials without fear of them being found to be untrue.
lilboy blue <lilbo...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<14574-36...@newsd-154.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
> Witt,
> personally, I am impressed, and now have a higher level of respect for
> you, however, I dont like the way that you are so condicending (sp?)
> towards others, and how you feel you must make yourself sound so much
> better than others. Like I say, by hearing your degrees and experience,
> it gives me a sense of respect towards you, but still dont like the way
> you always act "above" everyone else..
> matty
>
>
StanTheMan
> Witt <wi...@nemesis.org> wrote in article
> <Kdjb2.15928$Wv1.3...@newscene.newscene.com>...
> > StanTheMan wrote in message <01be22d2$bc71be40$211567d1@roy>...
> > >Supply verifiable proof of your sign off. Universities, degrees,
> diplomas,
> > >training, etc.
> > >
> > >>>Lawyer, Criminologist, & Computer Scientist by qualification
> > >and experience.
> > >
> > >A lack of response will be most revealing!
> > >
> > Sorry to disappoint you.
> >
> > Practised law 1974 - 1982. Specialisms : Criminal Law, Child-Care and
> Family
> > Law.
How can you practise law without a degree? In 1974 you apparently had
nothing.
> >Member of the British Society for Criminology.
But practically anyone can be a member, if you are a member. These are the
qualifications for application taken from their website:
姫ersons engaged full- or part-time in any institution of higher education
as a teacher or researcher who can demonstrate an interest in the study of
criminology or a closely related subject (e.g. sociology of deviance,
sociology of law, forensic psychology, legal psychology, applied criminal
law).
姫ersons engaged full- or part-time by or in any other organisation,
institution, department or foundation, or within the field of criminology
or a closely related subject (e.g. researchers working in government
departments, local authorities, police or probation services).
姫ersons engaged in positions of administration or practice in activities
concerned with crime or criminal justice who have, by their qualifications
or work, demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council of the Society an
interest in promoting, facilitating, studying or applying issues within the
subject matter of criminology. A person would not qualify under this
heading merely by working within the field of criminal justice, but would
have to demonstrate in some way a genuine interest in the subject matter of
criminology.
膝raduate students working for a higher degree in an institution of higher
education, whether by examination or thesis, within the field of
criminology or a closely related discipline.
百tudent Subscribers: other students whether undergraduate or graduate
undertaking a course of instruction whether full- or part-time in
criminology or a related discipline are eligible for election by the
Council as student subscribers for a maximum period of two years. They are
not eligible for membership of the Society's Committees nor do they have
any voting rights. On expiry of their subscribership they are eligible for
election as members providing they satisfy one of the qualifications for
doing so.
StanTheMan
> >Family Law.
If you are a fellow Brit, as I suspect you are from your posts, you should
know that Legal Practice Course university students will need to have
completed the academic stage of legal education, e.g. successfully
completing an LLB course. You should have a first degree in law, or in a
subject with sufficient legal content to satisfy the Law Society, or have
completed the CPE or Law Society Approved Diploma in Law.
> > Awarded Diploma in Law, 1978.
Ah yes. One of my old schools, Westminster, did not have a Graduate Diploma
in Law until 1993/94. The course is primarily intended for non law
graduates who wish to take a conversion course recognised by the Law
Society in order that they may later enter the professional stage of
training to qualify as a solicitor or as a barrister. Applicants must be
graduates.
Strange, you don't seem to satisfy any of the above academic requirements
and your timing is off!
StanTheMan
> >Suggested computational improvements to Iterative Bayesian Analysis
> >based on the Aitken-Steffinson algorithm, now an industry standard.
Something like this you mean?
Imprecision in probability assessments can be due either to difficulties in
eliciting information from experts, or to difficulties in processing or
combining data [Walley1991]. This imprecision is modeled by convex sets of
distributions, called credal sets. To simplify terminology, we use the term
credal set only when it refers to a set of distributions containing more
than one element. Convex sets of conditional distributions are used to
represent conditional beliefs. Inference is performed by applying Bayes
rule to each distribution in a prior credal set; the posterior credal set
is the union of all posterior distributions. An introduction to technical
aspects of Quasi-Bayesian theory, with a larger list of references, can be
found at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~fgcozman/qBayes.html.
Given a Quasi-Bayesian credal set K, a probability interval is induced for
every event A:
p(A) = infp is in K p(A)
p(A) = supp is in K p(A).
A credal set always induces unique lower and upper bounds of probability,
but arbitrary lower and upper probabilities do not induce a unique credal
set.
Lower and upper expectations for a function u() are defined as:
E[xq] = minp Ep[u]
E[xq] = maxp Ep[u],
where Ep[u] is the usual expectation for function u() with probability
distribution p().
Witt
>But he didn't give us ALL the information did he? Anyone can post similar
>credentials without fear of them being found to be untrue.
Somewhat strangely, I value my privacy, as well I might. All I have posted
is true.
You're just being unreasonable in expecting me to post my full life history;
I'd be more forthcoming
if YOU would reciprocate even 10% by citing YOUR credentials - even
fictitious - to speak on
the topics in which I have some expertise. But, I guess you won't do that.
As Marlon Brando said in "The Wild One" : Whaddya got?
Witt
Witt
>Universities, lecturers, law firms, law partners, publications - dates-
>titles, etc. How can you be verified if you do not reveal your real name
>together with data that can be checked. What could be fairer than that? If
>you were applying for a job that is what you would have to do, and your
>potential employer would do a similar reference check. Just be truthful and
>there will not be a problem.
I have been, but I'm not applying for a job here, just putting forth the
results of my
research. Now, I wonder why you cannot argue against what I say, rather than
what my
credentials are?
And I've already stated my qualifications and experience. I go no further,
at least, not until
YOU are prepared to do likewise. I stand firm on this. This is not a boxing
match, but I'm
not prepared to give ground unless and until YOU are prepared to cite your
own qualifications to
speak with any authority on the topics I do. Or perhaps the "Oxford Rules"
allow bare-fist fighting - for one participant only? I do not think so.
Witt
Witt
>
>But practically anyone can be a member, if you are a member. These are the
>qualifications for application taken from their website:
>
I qualified on four of these grounds. Any other questions?
Witt
Witt
StanTheMan wrote in message <01be23a9$ad0ce060$5c2b67d1@roy>...
>
>> >Suggested computational improvements to Iterative Bayesian Analysis
>> >based on the Aitken-Steffinson algorithm, now an industry standard.
>
>Something like this you mean?
< Bayes 101 snipped>
Up to a point, but even I could have used a Search Engine to copy any
gibberish from
a Bayes' website. The stuff you cite is first-year statistics in most UK
Universities,
and is much less than the stuff I did in my six months at Nottingham with
Prof. Adrian Smith.
But this is off-topic: why can't you deal with my original post about child
pornography? Or are you
determined to side-track this debate into irrelevancy?
Witt
Witt
>know that Legal Practice Course university students will need to have
>completed the academic stage of legal education, e.g. successfully
>completing an LLB course. You should have a first degree in law, or in a
>subject with sufficient legal content to satisfy the Law Society, or have
>completed the CPE or Law Society Approved Diploma in Law.
Not necessarily. In the way I practised law, legal qualifications were not
required
by Statute (or Statutory Instrument, to be precise) until 1979. I was
practising at all
times perfectly lawfully. Your knowledge is somewhat out of touch.
Witt
Dana Phillips
right to voice the same as any other and with equal credibility until their
points are proven to be incorrect why are you two arguing this point when so
many real issues exist?
There seems to be about 5 active threads in here and if they are no good you can
create a new one.
--
Dana Phillips
For the story of one family's fight against a power mad DCS worker and
other inept and corrupt people within the system.
Web Page: http://members.tripod.com/~LiberalMinded/index.html
News Group for Pro se and those looking to find out more about the law.
news:alt.self-help-law
"It is easy for men to write and talk like philosophers but to act with wisdom,
that is the rub. Antoine de Rivaroli.
StanTheMan
ways. In my case, however, I know what I am talking about!
Ah yes, dear old Prof. Adrian Smith. I'll look him up right away and ask
some pertinent questions.
I like to know with whom I am dealing in this alias infested Internet. When
I have verified your competency, I will respond.
Thanks for the information.
StanTheMan
which you obtain a degree or professional designation by examination(s),
simply by association.<W2Fb2.863$231.1...@newscene.newscene.com>...
StanTheMan
inviting probing questions like mine in order for you to be afforded the
opportunity to back up your claims to fame.
Witt <wi...@nemesis.org> wrote in article
<T2Fb2.862$231.1...@newscene.newscene.com>...
StanTheMan
and professional qualifications shall we?
Witt <wi...@nemesis.org> wrote in article
<R2Fb2.861$231.1...@newscene.newscene.com>...
StanTheMan
For the benefit of those, like myself, who would like to know how you
practiced law without any formal education in such a broad subject, please
explain how you did it.
Witt <wi...@nemesis.org> wrote in article
<X2Fb2.864$231.1...@newscene.newscene.com>...
Michael Bannerman
We have two people arguing back and forth on the wonderful internet
concerning their academic and life experiences to make comments on a
topic.
I put down a brief resume of my credentials, but I haven't seen either
of these two do similar. Someone can come out with a pseudonym and fake
e-mail address, which both of these people have and say they are
anything. I see Stantheman uses newscene as his news server and his
ISP is Sprint Canada: so he is a Canadian.
Big country.
Witt's newsserver is newsscene and ISP is Demon UK. Another vague
reference.
My ISP narrows down my location to the NE USA, with one exception: I
don't use my assigned newsserver for a bunch of reasons. My stuff is
verifiable which someone could do if they had the inclination. Some
things might take time to verify.
Despite what has been said, my legal background is quite solid.
Now, what the hell is this all about?
Witt
Or appear to be: you forget I have a degree in Computer Science, and FWIW,
can, if I so wish, appear to come from anywhere. But that's not important.
What IS important is that I put forth an argument which, as of this date,
has not been
addressed. *I* have been addressed, rather than what I said. Who and what I
am should
not be important. What I say should be, even if it's wrong. My experience in
Usenet over the
last two years or so has been that very few people have been prepared to
deal with issues
I discuss, in their own right, preferring to attack me for stating something
with which they disagree.
At base, Freedom of Speech, however couched, gives me the right to be wrong,
and to be so in a public forum such as this - but if I am wrong, I expect to
be challenged by those who know whereof they are talking. I'm still waiting.
I don't believe what I say constitutes "clear and imminent/present danger"
within Schenk -v- US or Abrams -v- US.
OTOH, Freedom of Speech gives those who disagree with me and my POVs the
right to say so;
however, I don't believe it gives them gratuitous licence to insult me and
call my qualifications into
question WITHOUT even beginning to deal with what I say, be they the
considered results of the research I have done, or mere opinions, but at
least they will be *informed* opinions, I like to think.
I have spent much time considering whether to do this. On balance, I already
have enough shit to deal with so I make no apology for not so much giving my
full CV here, but I'll flesh out the details
for StanTheMan, who wouldn't believe anything unless it was killed, cooked
and served up to him
on a bed of rice. Short of scanning and posting here everything I have ever
written on topics relevant to that under discussion, and my various
certificates, and I'm not sure even that would satisfy him, I can do no more
than what follows. FWIW, it doesn't matter, I don't have long to live
anyway, but I'm certainly not going to lose one moment's sleep over Stan's
obduracy. I've long since learnt that you can't deal rationally with people
like him, and I, for one, can't be bothered. Not that I consider I've lost
the debate - simply because there hasn't been one.
Real name : Philip Howard Nash
Date of Birth: 9th April 1953, Salford, Lancs, UK.
School : 8 'O' Levels, 4 'A' Levels : General Studies(A), Physics(B),
Maths(D), Chemistry(D).
1970-1973: University of Liverpool, UK : Studied for B. Eng. Electronics &
Elec. Engineering.
(withdrew for family reasons)
1974: Court Clerk, Liverpool City Magistrates' Court, UK. Qualified
in-service, 1978, Diploma in
Law, Manchester Polytechnic. Rose to Senior Court Clerk, competent in all
relevant areas of law.
1979-80: Studied for CPE but withdrew when indicated that funding for full
qualification, including
year's leave of absence for Part II of Bar Exams would not be available.
1980: University of Cambridge, Madingley Hall : Certificate of Qualification
in Juvenile Law.
1982 - 1985: Studied for B. Sc. (Computer Science), University of York.
Graduated, class 2.
1985 - 1986: Studied for Master of Arts in Social Policy and Social Work,
University of York, UK.
1986 - 1988: Research Fellow, same Department. Wrote and delivered courses
on computing and
statistics for PostGraduate students. Research into Distribution of Work
between the Crown Courts and Magistrates' Courts for the Lord Chancellor's
Department. Member of British Society for Criminology by Qualification;
presented paper at Annual Conference, Sheffield, 1987.
1987: Awarded Degree of Master of Arts in Social Policy/Criminology.
Submitted proposal for
research for Ph. D. in the politicisation of the work of coroners. Funding
refused.
1988: Made a crust by being a District Councillor (elected 1987 to Selby
District Council, North
Yorkshire, UK (FWIW, with 64% of the vote)): Committees: Planning,
Environmental Health, Personnel, etc. Various research for the University of
York, UK, into Problems of Mature Students, Catering Services; and for the
York Drugs Project (report co-authored with Steve Watson, B.A., M. Phil).
1989: First few weeks spent in Huntsville, Alabama, USA. Unable to say what
I was doing.
From March - July, Research Assistant, Department of Mathematics, University
of Nottingham,
UK, working on Bayesian Stats Project as already described.
etc., etc.,
But all that is somewhat irrelevant compared with what I actually say.
Meanwhile, I am not happy to deal with morons. Apart from yourself and one
or
two others here, I do appear to be in the minority. So be it. I care for
children as much
as anyone else, but it seems that my views are not popular. So what? Neither
were
Galileo's in 1625, but we now know he was correct. Me, I reserve the right
to see the wider picture.
Mike, your email has not reached me yet. Try wit...@hotmail.com.remove
Best wishes,
Witt.
Witt
Ca...@webtv.net
and, amusing as they can be, peddies and their defenders are not my
life. But I see I've been able to bring some others in to the
"debate", so that you have somebody to talk to, or at. Things were
getting rather thin there for a while, one must admit. There you
were....The Rajah of Rape-Photo Addicts....spouting off, and nobody
listening or responding until I came along.....so happy I was able to
help. All I did was
watch and listen to the peddies and comment on their absurdities.
It's not brain surgery....all you have to be able to do is recognize
inhumanity.....and maniacs...when you see them.
I might be back and I might not....depends on where the biggest laughs
on the internet are to be found. I'm certainly not interested in
"debating" whether or not pedo-maniacs are as "bad as everyone thinks".
There IS no debate, no matter how much the peddies and their defenders
might want it to be so. Bye....
StanTheMan
>
> Or appear to be: you forget I have a degree in Computer Science, and
FWIW,
> can, if I so wish, appear to come from anywhere. But that's not
important.
>
probably couldn't code in dBASE II.
By the way, no trace can be found of a Professor Adrian Smith at Nottingham
University. Another lie!
Garbage snipped
> I don't believe it gives them gratuitous licence to insult me and
> call my qualifications into
> question WITHOUT even beginning to deal with what I say, be they the
> considered results of the research I have done, or mere opinions, but at
> least they will be *informed* opinions, I like to think.
But you do not have any qualifications - period.
>
> Real name : Philip Howard Nash
> Date of Birth: 9th April 1953, Salford, Lancs, UK.
> School : 8 'O' Levels, 4 'A' Levels : General Studies(A), Physics(B),
> Maths(D), Chemistry(D).
What school?
> 1970-1973: University of Liverpool, UK : Studied for B. Eng. Electronics
&
> Elec. Engineering.
> (withdrew for family reasons)
> 1974: Court Clerk, Liverpool City Magistrates' Court, UK. Qualified
> in-service, 1978, Diploma in
> Law, Manchester Polytechnic. Rose to Senior Court Clerk, competent in all
> relevant areas of law.
That's a fatuous claim for sure!
> 1979-80: Studied for CPE but withdrew when indicated that funding for
full
> qualification, including
> year's leave of absence for Part II of Bar Exams would not be available.
Studying and qualifying are two different things. If you had a job you
could have paid your own way like the rest of us!
> 1980: University of Cambridge, Madingley Hall : Certificate of
Qualification
> in Juvenile Law.
Yeh, right.
> 1982 - 1985: Studied for B. Sc. (Computer Science), University of York.
> Graduated, class 2.
Why the sudden change in direction. Be consistent in your data even if they
are untrue.
> 1985 - 1986: Studied for Master of Arts in Social Policy and Social Work,
> University of York, UK.
But no degree, right?
> 1986 - 1988: Research Fellow, same Department. Wrote and delivered
courses
> on computing and
> statistics for PostGraduate students. Research into Distribution of Work
> between the Crown Courts and Magistrates' Courts for the Lord
Chancellor's
> Department. Member of British Society for Criminology by Qualification;
> presented paper at Annual Conference, Sheffield, 1987.
Sounds grand but means nothing.
> 1987: Awarded Degree of Master of Arts in Social Policy/Criminology.
> Submitted proposal for
> research for Ph. D. in the politicisation of the work of coroners.
Funding
> refused.
Into the public purse again. You fail a lot don't you?
> 1988: Made a crust by being a District Councillor (elected 1987 to Selby
> District Council, North
> Yorkshire, UK (FWIW, with 64% of the vote)): Committees: Planning,
> Environmental Health, Personnel, etc. Various research for the University
of
> York, UK, into Problems of Mature Students, Catering Services; and for
the
> York Drugs Project (report co-authored with Steve Watson, B.A., M. Phil).
> 1989: First few weeks spent in Huntsville, Alabama, USA. Unable to say
what
> I was doing.
> From March - July, Research Assistant, Department of Mathematics,
University
> of Nottingham,
> UK, working on Bayesian Stats Project as already described.
If we are to believe this stuff, which I don't, you seem to have been a
perpetual student living off government grants provided by the UK
taxpayers. Shame on you.
>
> etc., etc.,
I see, lots of etc's but no substance.
Michael Bannerman
Kiddie porn is ILLEGAL.
It doesn't matter if the kids are now all over 16, 18, or whatever age
of consent.
it doesn't matter if the pics were taken a thousand years ago.
THEY ARE ILLEGAL TO POSSESS OR DISTRIBUTE.
the Penalties for child porn in various jurisdictions--
Consolidated Statutes of Canada
163.1 (2), Making, publishing, etc. Child Porn--10 Years imprisonment
163.1(3) Distribution or Sale (posting)--10 years imprisonment
163.1(4) Possession--five years
England--Protection of Children Act 1978 production, distribution
(posting), and possession Six months and/or £2000. (may be out of date
since this is from my copy of Archbold's).
United States 18 U.S.C 2251 (d) production, distribution (posting), or
acquisition of child porn 10 years and/or fine of $100,000 first
offence, 15 years and/or $200,000 Any organization which violates this
section shall be fined not more than $250,000.
Saying that owning and looking at KP is "harmless" is ridiculous since
it is illegal to own in most jurisdictions. The import/export is
illegal pretty much everywhere. Owning, collecting, or whatever seems to
be harmful to one's reputation. Not to mention it seems that being in
NGs associated with such postings, even if only in the minds of some of
the delusional, makes one a paedophile.
This is as ridiculous an argument as saying that the machine gun in my
possession should be legal because my grandfather bought it legally, or
was made when machineguns were legal.
You can work to change the legality situation if you don't like it;
however, I don't think you will find a very sympathetic audience.
Now, if the debate is that people in alt.sex.incest (can't say for other
NGs) are paedophiles and child molesters, then that's purely BULLSHIT!
I have also heard (source famous author who wrote book on Atlanta
recently quoting a Kinsey associate) that paedophiles are a VERY SMALL
portion of the population. Picture viewers may not be child molesters.
On the other hand, I can't see what joy they see in looking at that
stuff: it DOES NOT turn me on.
The thing is that this "debate" has become a mudslinging BS session with
people saying all sorts of bullshit about people whom they've never
met. This has detracted from the point of the argument. Witt claims
his privacy as a reason for not responding to anyone, which is a valid
point.
I have opened myself up and been targeted by a headcase because of some
fantasy posts. The privacy point is well taken.
On the other hand, people are demanding to see some backup for the
claims. Which is another valid request. Some people are in a position
of putting up, shutting up, or making complete fools of themselves. The
truth usually does out.
The thing is that I would like to see some backup in the way of studies
ON BOTH sides. Could we see some backup for claims that Witt is a
paedophile?
Let's cut the name calling and get down to serious debate. I hated it
when I was being falsely accused of perversion, which was compounded by
the fact that the person who was accusing me also had a similar bent (I
think this has been well documented)! Not to mention that the
mudslinging takes away from the point of the debate.
StanTheMan
Michael Bannerman <mbannerm*@usa.net> wrote in article
<36713660...@usa.net>...
Baal
> From: Michael Bannerman <mbannerm*@usa.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.children
> Subject: Re: Hi, Wittless (and everybody)
> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:12:32 -0500
> Message-ID: <36713660...@usa.net>
> References: <01be22d2$bc71be40$211567d1@roy>
> <3797-367...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>
> <3671D697...@ihug.co.nz>
> Reply-To: mbannerm*@usa.net
> Let's get this straight--
> Kiddie porn is ILLEGAL.
>
> It doesn't matter if the kids are now all over 16, 18, or whatever age
> of consent.
>
> it doesn't matter if the pics were taken a thousand years ago.
>
> THEY ARE ILLEGAL TO POSSESS OR DISTRIBUTE.
No one is disputing this. The question is, /should/ it be illegal, or
more precisely, are the justifications frequently cited for its
illegality founded in fact or are they merely myths?
[legal penalties snipped]
> Saying that owning and looking at KP is "harmless" is ridiculous since
> it is illegal to own in most jurisdictions.
Perhaps more to the point, harmless to whom? Given the legal penalties,
it is most certainly /not/ harmless to those who possess and/or
distribute these materials.
The question is, are the harsh legal penalties justified based on the
`harm' which this material is alleged to do to children?
Virtually no one will dispute the fact that for an adult to rape a child
(defined as a person under the age of legal consent) should be
illegal--that is a given. However, why should an image of an adult
having sex with a person over the age of consent be illegal? (In Canada,
the age of consent for sexual intercourse is 14 years of age, with a few
reasonable restrictions. However, for anyone to photograph (or even
_write_ about) such activity is a criminal offence--i.e. child
pornography.)
The most-frequently cited justification for the illegality of child
pornography is that it is the evidence of `a crime.' However, in the
example I've just cited, an adult can legally engage in sex with a
14-year-old; this act is not a `crime' so why should the representation
be so classified?
However, the law goes even further--even if the activity being displayed
is only /described/ as involving persons under the age of 18 years, even
if in reality, they are well over 18, it is still classified as child
pornography.
Artist Eli Langer sketched from his imagination, showed his works at a
Toronto art gallery, and was prosecuted for making and possessing child
pornography. Fortunately, he was acquitted, as his work was judged to
have `artistic merit.' Joseph Pecciarich was not so fortunate. He also
engaged in a type of art--computer morphing of catalog images--and he
was convicted on child pornography charges. Does this mean that only
card-carrying artists are going to be safe now?
> The import/export is illegal pretty much everywhere.
Not everywhere. I understand that in Finland, possession of images is
considered as normal, and the penalty maxes out at something on the
order of $500. I remember reading comments made by some Finnish police
who were astounded that one could receive multi-year sentences just for
looking at pictures.
> Owning, collecting, or whatever seems to be harmful to one's reputation.
> Not to mention it seems that being in NGs associated with such postings,
> even if only in the minds of some of the delusional, makes one a
> paedophile.
This almost goes without saying...
> This is as ridiculous an argument as saying that the machine gun in my
> possession should be legal because my grandfather bought it legally, or
> was made when machineguns were legal.
This is not an apt analogy--machine guns /are/ harmful, and their only
purpose is to kill--a more apt analogy would be to make a /picture/ of a
machine gun illegal.
> You can work to change the legality situation if you don't like it;
> however, I don't think you will find a very sympathetic audience.
I would argue that even these efforts have, at least to some extent,
already been criminalized in Canada. My understanding is that the
provision covering text in Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code was
included to ban importations of the NAMBLA newsletter. Now, I've never
seen this newsletter myself, but some gay friends who have have, have
told me that it is `pretty tame.' My understanding is that NAMBLA does
not argue for the breaking of laws, but they /do/ advocate for changes
in the age of consent laws.
Technically, even advocating a /rise/ in the age of consent from the
current age of 14 to a proposed age of 17 would be illegal under Section
163.1 of the Criminal Code, as it could be interpreted as `advocating or
counselling sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years.'
> Now, if the debate is that people in alt.sex.incest (can't say for other
> NGs) are paedophiles and child molesters, then that's purely BULLSHIT!
Agreed, but given the wide scope of Section 163.1, some of the materials
contained therein -- fantasy or not -- may be condemned as child
pornography under Canadian law.
> I have also heard (source famous author who wrote book on Atlanta
> recently quoting a Kinsey associate) that paedophiles are a VERY SMALL
> portion of the population. Picture viewers may not be child molesters.
I would daresay that the vast majority of picture viewers are not child
molesters; in the Pecciarich case, the Crown tried to argue that he
should be jailed as he posed `a danger' to children. The defence argued
that the (now-convicted) defendent had never so much as touched a child,
and that it could not be /automatically/ presumed that he would do so.
The judge agreed, stating that the defendent could not be punished for
any /future/ acts that he /might/ carry out.
> On the other hand, I can't see what joy they see in looking at that
> stuff: it DOES NOT turn me on.
Well, it /may/ turn some people on; frankly, I'd rather have someone
wacking-off to a picture than out molesting a real child.
My understanding is that number of pedophiles in the United States
has been estimated at about 100,000. Out of a population of
250,000,000+ this represents about 1 person in 2,500 or about 0.04% of
the population.
By any reasonable yardstick, this is a very tiny minority, yet the fear
engendered by this population is all out of proportion to its size. I
daresay that if the `pedophile threat' didn't exist, someone would have
had to invent it.
> The thing is that this "debate" has become a mudslinging BS session with
> people saying all sorts of bullshit about people whom they've never
> met. This has detracted from the point of the argument.
Tell me about it!
> Witt claims his privacy as a reason for not responding to anyone, which
> is a valid point.
Witt isn't so much refusing to respond to anyone, he just doesn't want
to have to publish his entire C.V. to bolster his arguments. (Mind you,
he's pretty-well done it anyway.)
> I have opened myself up and been targeted by a headcase because of some
> fantasy posts. The privacy point is well taken.
Agreed. I've been threatened in the past, so I've made damn sure to
protect myself. This is an emotionally-laden subject, so some people
are going to lose it.
> On the other hand, people are demanding to see some backup for the
> claims. Which is another valid request. Some people are in a position of
> putting up, shutting up, or making complete fools of themselves. The
> truth usually does out.
Let's hope, eh?
> The thing is that I would like to see some backup in the way of studies
> ON BOTH sides.
I can produce a list of abstracts if you'd like... it's long, so I won't
include it in this post.
> Could we see some backup for claims that Witt is a paedophile?
Don't hold your breath...
> Let's cut the name calling and get down to serious debate. I hated it
> when I was being falsely accused of perversion, which was compounded by
> the fact that the person who was accusing me also had a similar bent (I
> think this has been well documented)! Not to mention that the
> mudslinging takes away from the point of the debate.
The heart of the problem is that certain parties in this NG (e.g. Caro7)
don't even /want/ to engage in a debate -- as far as they're concerned,
they're right, and anyone who disagrees with them (e.g. Witt) is wrong!
I haven't seen even so much as a single argument from them to refute
anything that Witt has stated.
Baal <Ba...@nym.alias.net> <Ba...@redneck.efga.org> <alt.anonymous.messages>
PGP Key: http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xA21829FD
PGP Key Fingerprint: 5A 64 DB DB 2C FE C0 FE 63 A7 A3 59 58 DA A6 EA
Occasional Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
iQCVAgUBNnF0oJR7IeiiGCn9AQEr5AP/eGdUlYVT05dFaLB+x3GBWqoiPKIAeEC8
vk+qjxkMamizbslKpLvZwhYCxeW+fnTimzm86xfDFmp7z1scBPZPlIsSHkRCeWtn
TzfGCfL1zNkMSo/e/eHTDjAziKb2MgoGiGsK0BAxSAMzxfBSyHsCTB/7zSQzuneI
JDbuzIPfpww=
=vINT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tony Cook
over one!
But you are right about one thing, "there is no debate". There's such a
vast difference between harmless pic perusers and very harmful child
molesting pedos that I'd expect a very tiny proportion, if any, of the
latter in the news groups anyway. They prefer live bait to paper ones I'm
told.
Tony Cook New Zealand
Tony Cook
I think yours is the first post I've seen that actually spells out very
clearly the case for outlawing KP on the web. I for one would not disagree
with some of what you say.
However, there are one or two points which I think are still debatable and
inconclusive.
1. KP pic perusers are not necessarily dangerous child molesters.
2. The number of actual child molesters engaged in pic perusal on the web
is small.
3. I still believe the web is an entirely appropriate medium to allow
freedom of expression.
If posters break the law it is his or her problem not yours or mine.
I agree KP is illegal in every country I can think of but some countries
don't actually police their laws very conscientiously. However, I'm also
aware that these laws have never been the subject of a democratic vote per
referendum either. In fact only a minority group of politicians have been
responsible for such laws ion every case, and this is the very form of
insidious censorship I campaign against. Such an issue should be put to all
elligible voters in my opinion.
Tony Cook New Zealand
Michael Bannerman wrote:
> Let's get this straight--
>
> Kiddie porn is ILLEGAL.
>
> It doesn't matter if the kids are now all over 16, 18, or whatever age
> of consent.
>
> it doesn't matter if the pics were taken a thousand years ago.
>
> THEY ARE ILLEGAL TO POSSESS OR DISTRIBUTE.
>
> the Penalties for child porn in various jurisdictions--
>
> Consolidated Statutes of Canada
> 163.1 (2), Making, publishing, etc. Child Porn--10 Years imprisonment
> 163.1(3) Distribution or Sale (posting)--10 years imprisonment
> 163.1(4) Possession--five years
>
> England--Protection of Children Act 1978 production, distribution
> (posting), and possession Six months and/or £2000. (may be out of date
> since this is from my copy of Archbold's).
>
> United States 18 U.S.C 2251 (d) production, distribution (posting), or
> acquisition of child porn 10 years and/or fine of $100,000 first
> offence, 15 years and/or $200,000 Any organization which violates this
> section shall be fined not more than $250,000.
>
> Saying that owning and looking at KP is "harmless" is ridiculous since
> it is illegal to own in most jurisdictions. The import/export is
> illegal pretty much everywhere. Owning, collecting, or whatever seems to
> be harmful to one's reputation. Not to mention it seems that being in
> NGs associated with such postings, even if only in the minds of some of
> the delusional, makes one a paedophile.
>
> This is as ridiculous an argument as saying that the machine gun in my
> possession should be legal because my grandfather bought it legally, or
> was made when machineguns were legal.
>
> You can work to change the legality situation if you don't like it;
> however, I don't think you will find a very sympathetic audience.
>
> Now, if the debate is that people in alt.sex.incest (can't say for other
> NGs) are paedophiles and child molesters, then that's purely BULLSHIT!
> I have also heard (source famous author who wrote book on Atlanta
> recently quoting a Kinsey associate) that paedophiles are a VERY SMALL
> portion of the population. Picture viewers may not be child molesters.
> On the other hand, I can't see what joy they see in looking at that
> stuff: it DOES NOT turn me on.
>
> The thing is that this "debate" has become a mudslinging BS session with
> people saying all sorts of bullshit about people whom they've never
> met. This has detracted from the point of the argument. Witt claims
> his privacy as a reason for not responding to anyone, which is a valid
> point.
>
> I have opened myself up and been targeted by a headcase because of some
> fantasy posts. The privacy point is well taken.
>
> On the other hand, people are demanding to see some backup for the
> claims. Which is another valid request. Some people are in a position
> of putting up, shutting up, or making complete fools of themselves. The
> truth usually does out.
>
> The thing is that I would like to see some backup in the way of studies
> ON BOTH sides. Could we see some backup for claims that Witt is a
> paedophile?
>
Tony Cook
Metropolis Delago
Hash: SHA1
Baal wrote in message <199812112040...@nym.alias.net>...
>> The import/export is illegal pretty much everywhere.
>
>Not everywhere. I understand that in Finland, possession of images
is
>considered as normal, and the penalty maxes out at something on the
>order of $500. I remember reading comments made by some Finnish
police
>who were astounded that one could receive multi-year sentences just
for
>looking at pictures.
>
Unfortunately, this is also changing. It seems that the Finnish gov't.
is starting to cave into international pressures and become more
strict in this. This is according to the Helsingin Sanomat from
sometime around six months ago (I don't remember which issue).
Hopefully, they won't get as bad as the UK and its former/current
colonies.
:metropolis
PGP fingerprint: 1AF0 526F 2250 679F 2ADB 6BFD 088B 718F BEF7 B7AE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0
iQA/AwUBNnPz/giLcY++97euEQLPugCfZvcNm6ewYygYr5zDhsc5alPltwIAoNem
tzjbWC1WbD7TLQv+p5ja6d3P
=QoAk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Laurence Taylor
-> I don't want to talk about kp , but I was wondering. " I have a 1 quart
-> bottle of chloradane
-> termite poison in my basement on a shelf . I purchased it before the law to ban
-> it's existance and
-> use went into effect. According to your machine gun possession argument , that
-> makes me a criminal
-> for the possession of a controlled substance. I don't know where you come from ,-> but where I live we
-> have a safe-guard law to protect innocent people like myself from people like
-> you ; called ( ex post
-> facto ) which states that possession of anything purchased or obtained before
-> any law that forbids
-> the same goes into effect is exempt from said law. Hence a prosecuter whould
-> have to prove I
-> obtained said poison recently and that I did not have the poison before said
-> law went into effect.
-> Very hard to do.
Here in the UK, there is no such qualification; in every case where
posession of something or other has been made illegal (some pornography,
unlicensed radio equipment and various type of weapons) it has been up
to the owner to dispose of it within some specified time period.
rgds
LAurence
(BTW, Pink, your message appeared wrapped as above - is your editor OK?)
Laurence Taylor
-> Besides, who needs a virus when Windows '98 can do virus-like things all by
-> itself.
-> To me , WIN'98 is a virus.
->
-> So sorry about the wrapping nature of my post's , but I can't seem to
-> solve the problem.
No matter, I can easily re-format it if I have to.
I haven't tried Win98 - I've used 95 a few times and I don't like it one
bit. Not nearly "hands on" enough for my liking. For all comms work I
use DOS - never had any problem there!
rgds
LAurence
Ca...@webtv.net
possession of images is considered as normal"? And did that mean...In
Finland it's considered "normal" to view photographs of children being
sexually molested and raped??? Do they put them on the WALLS...so the
kids don't miss out on the fun? Do the Finns put pictures of children
being sexually abused on buses...in ads? (Should I call the Finnish
consulate?)
Diogenes
email to in...@finlandla.org (Los Angeles)
Diogenes
Baal
> From: Ca...@webtv.net
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.children
> Subject: Pedo-pig insults Finns
> Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 22:47:44 -0500 (EST)
> Message-ID: <29584-36...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>
> References: <199812112040...@nym.alias.net>
> Am I dreaming? Did I just hear somebody say that....."in Finland,
> possession of images is considered as normal"?
I believe I was the one who said that. These remarks were based on my
recollection of comments made at the time by a Finnish police officer,
Kaj Malmberg, who was involved in the investigation of child pornography
allegations made by against the operator of anon.penet.fi, the former
Finnish anonymous remailer. (The allegations were completely unfounded,
by the way.)
If you'd so much as even bother to check, you could discover for
yourself that possession of child pornography is /not/ a criminal
offence in Finland, unless the situation has changed radically since
March of this year.
So much for your uninformed suppositions--next time, why not try
checking your facts--if you did, then people just might start paying a
tad more attention to what you have to say.
Source: http://www.crin.ch/rc/wkshp9.htm
Country report: FINLAND
First European Regional Meeting of National Coalitions for the Rights of
the Child March 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[snip]
| The Central Union and the Afannerhejin League for Child Welfare
| demanded that the possession of child pornography be made a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| criminal offence. The Ombudsman of the Mannerheim League for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Child Welfare also expressed deep concern about sexual
exploitation of children especially regarding child pornography
and access to telephone sex lines. The report of the Finnish
League for Human Rights draw attention to the discrimination of
immigrant children and children of minorities as well as to the
family reunification of asylum seekers.
If possession of child pornography were /already/ a criminal offence,
why would Finnish NGOs be demanding that it be made one?
Baal <Ba...@nym.alias.net> <Ba...@redneck.efga.org> <alt.anonymous.messages>
PGP Key: http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xA21829FD
PGP Key Fingerprint: 5A 64 DB DB 2C FE C0 FE 63 A7 A3 59 58 DA A6 EA
Occasional Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
iQCVAgUBNn3IN5R7IeiiGCn9AQFGgAQAjvIEtTJKu8uGMTcTOET/mp0WgtMCLH5e
awf1UcJLRa2vIAMHhg4J/x553Pqjd/CMeqCRNL7Uw9NixVek2hk4iHWV7tzh/Uv/
R+K/y40xguzKEgpWZwNJZtExvRmfs/WCGjZObhcZpgznPVKV0XPqCboJ1O4SlTH4
p806gqHII44=
=OZWb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Diogenes
>>
>>
>>email to in...@finlandla.org (Los Angeles)
>>
>>Diogenes
>>
>
>
>
This is the email of the Finnish Embassy in LA. Caro07 can email there if
she wants, hee, hee. <bg>
Diogenes
goo...@webtv.net
Child (sexual) Abuse Photography. Pedophiles can only get erections and
orgasms if they can see photographs of children...even babies... being
raped and abused. Children being raped and sexually abused is "Child
Pornography". Everyone knows this.
If the people of Finland have not yet realized that the children used
for "Child Pornography" are raped and abused and die even MORE due to
the demands inherent for good "pics" for pedophiles....then the Finnish
people must be barbaric....to say the least.
Michael Bannerman
Pornography.
Unfortunately, it is yet another useless rant from the webtv crowd
demonstrating why most other Internet users have a low opinion of them.
In the opinion of many Netizens Webtv is considered the ISP of choice
for those too stupid to be on AOL.
Anyway, This line of attack against the Finnish people is downright
useless if not counter productive. Let's say that everyone here writes
the Finnish Embassy in Washington, DC
Embassy of Finland
3301 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington DC 20008
Tel. (202)298-5800, Fax (202)298-6030
E-mail: in...@finland.org
(See also http://www.finland.org/). Denouncing the fact that Finland
allows child pornography.
Do you think that will have any real result?
Maybe we could go and mount a protest vigil. The 3300 block of Mass Ave
NW is in a very safe area of WDC. Would that get any results?
Defninitely not since we are away from traffic and no one would see us.
The thing is a soverign state is not going to listen to a few people
ranting at them. Belgium got stricter about child porn after an
incident where several children were killed with lots of political
corruption involved. Don't ask for the exact incident name (even though
I made a post on that topic in a few "pedo NGs") but it was around 1996.
The thing is that this is an internal Finnish matter and they aren't
going to care what a few people think in the USA. You have to realise
how much push you have to go through to just get something like
Apartheid ended. Now, imagine a topic like Child Pornography/Pedophilia
which seems to only attract the attention of a few people.
Anyway, as for calling the Finns barbaric. I believe that they have
universal health care, which is something the United States does not
offer its children. Think of all the children who are lacking basic
health care. There are other social services which America does not
offer its children to take care of their basic food, clothing, shelter,
health etcetera needs that Finland DOES.
Now, who is calling whom barbaric?
It's all in your perspective.
wat...@webtv.net
is considered "normal" in Finland", he should be the one to tell us
exactly what the Finnish law is. The enjoyment of photographs of men
raping children is considered barbaric, by ANY standards.... not by
"just a few people in the U.S." Just because Bannerman thinks such
photographs are perfectly lovely and it's silly to "make a fuss" tells
us that Bannerman is just as barbaric as Finns are....if what he says
about them is true. What a silly and stupid man Bannerman is showing
himself to be.
wat...@webtv.net
all the state-supplied health care they can possibly get. If Finnish
children are being raped and sexually abused to supply "perfectly legal
CP" for the Finnish populace, the medical, psychological, and
institutional needs of these children must be very great, indeed.
Baal
> From: Michael Bannerman <mbannerm*@usa.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.children
> Subject: Re: Child pornography laws in Finland
> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:40:19 -0500
> Message-ID: <3688E9D3...@usa.net>
> References: <199812210740...@nym.alias.net>
> <26314-36...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>
> I was hoping that this was going to have the Finnish laws on Child
> Pornography.
- From Good22? You gotta be joking....
> Unfortunately, it is yet another useless rant from the webtv crowd
> demonstrating why most other Internet users have a low opinion of them.
> In the opinion of many Netizens Webtv is considered the ISP of choice
> for those too stupid to be on AOL.
.sig alert! .sig alert! (If you've no objections, I'm gonna swipe this
one, as it's just too good to pass up.)
> Anyway, This line of attack against the Finnish people is downright
> useless if not counter productive. Let's say that everyone here writes
> the Finnish Embassy in Washington, DC
> Embassy of Finland
> 3301 Massachusetts Avenue NW
> Washington DC 20008
> Tel. (202)298-5800, Fax (202)298-6030
> E-mail: in...@finland.org
> (See also http://www.finland.org/). Denouncing the fact that Finland
> allows child pornography.
> Do you think that will have any real result?
I have no idea... What do you think?
> Maybe we could go and mount a protest vigil. The 3300 block of Mass Ave
> NW is in a very safe area of WDC. Would that get any results?
> Defninitely not since we are away from traffic and no one would see us.
More than likely all you'd succeed in doing is pissing off the Finns;
they'd probably view it as a bunch of Yankees trying to dictate what
their internal policies should be. How would Americans view it, if the
positions were reversed? Sauce for the goose... sauce for the gander.
> The thing is a soverign state is not going to listen to a few people
> ranting at them. Belgium got stricter about child porn after an
> incident where several children were killed with lots of political
> corruption involved. Don't ask for the exact incident name (even though
> I made a post on that topic in a few "pedo NGs") but it was around 1996.
You're referring to the Marc Dutroux case...
> The thing is that this is an internal Finnish matter and they aren't
> going to care what a few people think in the USA. You have to realise
> how much push you have to go through to just get something like
> Apartheid ended. Now, imagine a topic like Child Pornography/Pedophilia
> which seems to only attract the attention of a few people.
And of those few, how many are losers like Good22, that couldn't put
together a cogent, rational argument to save their lives? (If he writes
letters to government like what he writes here, I can virtually
guarantee that his letters would end up in the wastebasket--I've worked
for government--you wouldn't believe some of the kooky stuff that they
get.)
If you're really interested in effecting change in Finnish internal
affairs, then I would suggest that you contact the Finnish NGOs
concerned with child welfare and ask them how you can help. They know
their own goverment and political systems far better than any outsiders
would, and know the most effective places (not to mention methods) for
applying pressure on their own government.
> Anyway, as for calling the Finns barbaric. I believe that they have
> universal health care, which is something the United States does not
> offer its children. Think of all the children who are lacking basic
> health care. There are other social services which America does not
> offer its children to take care of their basic food, clothing, shelter,
> health etcetera needs that Finland DOES.
AFAIK, the only 2 countries that do not offer some form of a universal
health care system are South Africa and the United States.
Just for starters, education in Finland, even at the university level,
is FREE. There is no tuition--all you have to pay for is food, lodging
and books. University education is /far/ more accessible to the average
Finn than to the average American.
> Now, who is calling whom barbaric?
> It's all in your perspective.
No kidding. You can just imagine the reaction from Americans if
foreigners were to similarly criticize the internal affairs of the
United States...
"In the opinion of many Netizens Webtv is considered the ISP of choice
for those too stupid to be on AOL."
Michael Bannermann
Baal <Ba...@nym.alias.net> <Ba...@redneck.efga.org> <alt.anonymous.messages>
PGP Key: http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xA21829FD
PGP Key Fingerprint: 5A 64 DB DB 2C FE C0 FE 63 A7 A3 59 58 DA A6 EA
Occasional Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
iQCVAgUBNoffhZR7IeiiGCn9AQFo6wP/fkchOED30MeWCzWen6jlAGgyjdMWEovv
BtdgDy9OpV6uYMU9sF5zAvBA01miutMVk405nD7UcF7ppU9dCnh6imCqbAPjZ62r
YLi8oxqflpj757otarTnQdooqVZXlUH/gG7eKKjSpscwknmVAiZFONGk2LfNok14
OB/4fXBZuMI=
=eigD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hauskka Joulla
you have such an interest in this topic? Why do people here imagine
that we have pictures of child pornography on our buses? Is that what
you would do if you had no laws against it?
On the other hand, I understand that USA has a problem with gun
violence. THAT is epidemic for you. Is the number of children who are
victimized by pedophiles larger than that of children who are shot each
year? These children may be permanently crippled if not killed.
We have strong gun laws, perhaps you should as well.
The slaughter of your young is barbaric. You are barbaric that you need
weapons that kill rather than discuss things like civilized humans.
QuikFred
Michael Bannerman wrote in message <3688E9D3...@usa.net>...
>I was hoping that this was going to have the Finnish laws on Child
>Pornography.
>
>demonstrating why most other Internet users have a low opinion of them.
>In the opinion of many Netizens Webtv is considered the ISP of choice
>for those too stupid to be on AOL.
>
>useless if not counter productive. Let's say that everyone here writes
>the Finnish Embassy in Washington, DC
>
> Embassy of Finland
> 3301 Massachusetts Avenue NW
> Washington DC 20008
> Tel. (202)298-5800, Fax (202)298-6030
> E-mail: in...@finland.org
>
>(See also http://www.finland.org/). Denouncing the fact that Finland
>allows child pornography.
>
>Do you think that will have any real result?
>
>NW is in a very safe area of WDC. Would that get any results?
>Defninitely not since we are away from traffic and no one would see us.
>
>ranting at them. Belgium got stricter about child porn after an
>incident where several children were killed with lots of political
>corruption involved. Don't ask for the exact incident name (even though
>I made a post on that topic in a few "pedo NGs") but it was around 1996.
>
>going to care what a few people think in the USA. You have to realise
>how much push you have to go through to just get something like
>Apartheid ended. Now, imagine a topic like Child Pornography/Pedophilia
>which seems to only attract the attention of a few people.
>
>universal health care, which is something the United States does not
>offer its children. Think of all the children who are lacking basic
>health care. There are other social services which America does not
>offer its children to take care of their basic food, clothing, shelter,
>health etcetera needs that Finland DOES.
>
>
>It's all in your perspective.
>
Perhaps the Finnish government feels that by legalizing child pornography
they can regulate and control it. I would be interested
in reading their laws on this subject. I take the position that U.S.
law enforcement spends too much time and too many tax dollars prosecuting
people for possession of small amounts of 20-30 year old child porn that
they obtained freely off the Internet simply to satisfy
a personal curiosity. I do not believe this is what the U.S. Congress
intended under 18 USC, 110, 2252 Sec. 4. (B) knowingly possesses 3 or more
books, magazines, periodicals, films, video tapes, or other matter which
contain any visual depiction that .....
I read this as saying 2 or less is 'legal' and the the phrase 'other matter'
can be construed to mean a computer hard drive. Thus, if one is not engaged
in the production or distribution of CP for profit, simple possession would
be legal.
Your opinion, Mr.. Bannerman?
Portia Davis, Executive Director
I couldn't agree with you more. I am still amazed that there are folks on
this list that appear to be promoting pedophilia. It is great to see others
that are speaking out about it and standing firm that peodophiles are
harming our children.
--
Portia A Davis, Executive Director
The Ross County Network For Children
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/3648/
goo...@webtv.net wrote in message
<26314-36...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>...
Michael Bannerman
I can't believe that you portray yourself as a child welfare activist.
Obviously, you have no experience dealing with the governments of other nations
in regard to internal matters. On the other hand, I have been working in
international transactions and law for the past 11 years. It sounds as if Baal
has also had some experience in this line as well.
To suggest mere handwringing in this NG will do ANYTHING to stop pedophilia in
Finland is downright naive if not unrealistic. Additionally, to suggest that
people in the United States (or other foreign countries) merely contacting the
Embassy of Finland will have any effect on the Finnish legislature is purely
nonsensical.
I raised the example of ending apartheid in South Africa. I had a friend whose
mother refused to buy South African Apples in the 60s because of apartheid,
which was a noble start. On the other hand, apartheid did not end until the
1990s which was due more to internal South African pressures than cultural and
economic boycotts of the country.
There were continuous protest vigils outside the South African embassy in London
and other countries which did nothing.
Now, how is one protest in a NG going to do anything.
My question for you, have you written the Finnish Embassy protesting child
pornography? Would you please post their response if you have?
On the other hand, I think that we would best be served getting away from the
emotionalism and name calling which has been going on in regard to this issue.
There is an epidemic of drugs and guns in the two major urban areas I have lived
in, not pedophilia. I worked in the US attorney's office in Washington, DC and
we had a handful of cases of pedophilia in contrast to children selling and
using drugs and falling victim to gun violence.
I think you ought to provide statistics to back up your assertion that there is
an "epidemic" of pedophilia. Otherwise, you discredit yourself as a child
welfare advocate by emotionalising and misstating the issues.
Portia Davis, Executive Director
You are a fool to think that I would feel any obligation whatsoever to
address your ignorance. It is quite apparent that you are a pedophile
promoter. You have no credibility. You sir, are a fool and an evil one at
that.
By the way, I spent a lot of time protesting and promoting boycotts against
South Africa in the 80's. You don't know who I am or what I have done in my
life. Once again, the babble of a fool and a peodphile promoter's approach
to anything and anyone who doesn't agree with them. I really do feel sorry
for the likes of you.
--
Portia A Davis, Executive Director
The Ross County Network For Children
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/3648/
Michael Bannerman wrote in message <368DF97C...@usa.net>...
Baal
> From: "Portia Davis, Executive Director" <por...@eurekanet.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.children
> References: <199812210740...@nym.alias.net>
> <26314-36...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>
> Subject: Re: Child pornography laws in Finland
> Message-ID: <uhhj2.53$KH1.4...@iagnews.iagnet.net>
> Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 04:30:18 GMT
> goo...@webtv.net wrote in message
> <26314-36...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>...
> good22,
> I couldn't agree with you more.
Really? Do you agree with /all/ of his points, or only some of them?
Which ones precisely?
> I am still amazed that there are folks on this list that appear to be
> promoting pedophilia. It is great to see others that are speaking out
> about it and standing firm that peodophiles are harming our children.
It is not so much about `promoting pedophilia', as you mis-characterize
it, as it is about combatting a moral/sexual panic and the accompanying
witch-hunts. Your self-righteous posturing is going to accomplish
exactly /nothing/ for children.
To be frank, I am no more in favour of sexual abuse than you are--the
ultimate question should be, what is the best course of action to
reduce/eliminate both child abuse in general, and child sexual abuse in
particular? Sadly, public policy in much of the United States and
Canada (as well as parts of Western Europe) is focused far more on
ideology than it is on results.
Have you ever considered the many correlations between the so-called
`war on child pornography' and the `war on drugs'? In both instances,
the appropriate foci should be on /harm reduction/ -- in reality both
campaigns are long on rhetoric and propaganda, but pitifully short on
results.
With respect to the drug war, the only tangible results have been to
turn the United States into a virtual armed camp--automatic weapons are
now ubiquitous--and to obscenely fatten the coffers of the drug cartels,
while at the same time, squandering billions of taxpayer dollars that
could have been better spent elsewhere. In many urban centres in the
United States a child has a many-times greater chance of being caught in
a crossfire and being shot, than they have of being sexually abused and
photographed.
By virtually any reasonable reckoning, the drug war in America is a
dismal failure--the flow of drugs only continues to increase. If the
authorities cannot stop the flow of a /tangible/ good such as cocaine
into the country, how can they possibly halt the flow of bits over a
wire? (I have heard it said that drugs are /easier/ to obtain in prison
than they are on the outside--and prisons are arguably one of the most
controlled environments in our society. If the authorities cannot stop
the flow of drugs into prisons, what chance do they have of stopping it
in society in general?)
For ideological/political reasons our respective governments have
continued with their `get tough' policies with respect to both drugs and
child pornography, despite the marked lack of results from both
policies. With respect to child pornography, as far as I can gather,
there have been less than 1000 arrests world-wide for child pornography
offences over the last 8-10 years.
Like the drug war, most often the casualties are just the end-users --
the producers are all-too-frequently never apprehended. None of those
apprehended in the most recent `Pedo U' busts, to my knowledge, have
even so much as touched a child--their crimes subsist merely in the
alleged possession of images. Furthermore, these busts have not stemmed
the flow of illegal materials one iota--in fact, some of the hardest,
vilest, most disgusting stuff I've ever seen has been posted in the last
week and a half.
Let's face it--like the `War on Drugs' the `War on Child Pornography' is
a dismal failure. Interdiction is not successful -- another policy --
one that works -- must be found and implemented. Until the politicians
are made to realize that the public is more interested in results than
mere posturing, nothing is going to change.
> --
> Portia A Davis, Executive Director
> The Ross County Network For Children
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/3648/
>> "Child Pornography is a misnomer. The term "Child Pornography" means
>> Child (sexual) Abuse Photography.
That is /one/ definition--which, by the way, I do not dispute. However,
the legal definitions of `child pornography' in various jurisdictions
frequently include far more than `child sexual abuse photography.'
For instance, in the jurisdiction where I live (Canada) even the
/written word/ can be classified as child pornography. Some time ago,
there was a move to ban Stephen King's novel "Needful Things" because it
included a passage where a high-school student fantasized about having
sex with one of his teachers. Under Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code
of Canada, this would have been sufficient to classify the work as child
pornography, the mere possession of which is forbidden and carries a
5-year-maximum prison sentence.
If this had gone through, novelist Stephen King would never have been
able to enter Canada, as he would have been subject to immediate arrest
and prosecution for `making child pornography.'
>> Pedophiles can only get erections and orgasms if they can see
>> photographs of children...even babies... being raped and abused.
This is complete nonsense--/nothing/ I've ever seen in the literature
supports such a blanket assertion. There is no doubt in my mind that
there are /some/ people who may require hardcore imagery to achieve
climax, but it is well-documented that some people may achieve sexual
arousal from something as innocuous as images in children's clothing
catalogs.
Portia, how can you expect to maintain even a /shred/ of credibility, as
an anti-child-pornography activist, if you find yourself agreeing with
statements about pedophilia such as Good22 has made above. Placing
oneself onside with such emotionally-laden outbursts, which fly in the
face of the literature, serve to do little but diminish your own
credibility.
>> Children being raped and sexually abused is "Child Pornography".
>> Everyone knows this.
Children being raped and abused are children being raped and abused.
Photographing such activities is `child pornography.'
>> If the people of Finland have not yet realized that the children used
>> for "Child Pornography" are raped and abused and die even MORE due to
>> the demands inherent for good "pics" for pedophiles....then the Finnish
>> people must be barbaric....to say the least.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.... America has a
lot to answer for... did you know that Cuba has lower rates of infant
mortality and illiteracy than the United States?
Baal <Ba...@nym.alias.net> <Ba...@redneck.efga.org> <alt.anonymous.messages>
PGP Key: http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xA21829FD
PGP Key Fingerprint: 5A 64 DB DB 2C FE C0 FE 63 A7 A3 59 58 DA A6 EA
Occasional Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
iQCVAgUBNo5wNJR7IeiiGCn9AQGbhQP+OeuA8Ajle95N4isYFNLYVI8gRjB9j8QT
ed2Qj4j5l/dPjIhbZo5VVmIG7neu2l0l+v1cjKabvekQ1ObA2kBHmPLilHDJKwQL
GyTB7nMkQ5WfqvApZB67cqWqXHSrgPo5DMiZUZDg+idNL57qu82lA+bScAjSVjR/
CoT4aB8YYE8=
=Js5J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Diogenes
Well, thank you for this post, I would have replied in much the same terms,
and so would my colleague, Witt, but he's currently recovering from a
serious
illness and is unlikely to be around much in the foreseeable future.
However,
I hope my own comments will be received with as much respect as yours will
be.
>> I am still amazed that there are folks on this list that appear to be
>> promoting pedophilia. It is great to see others that are speaking out
>> about it and standing firm that peodophiles are harming our children.
I haven't seen ANYONE in this NG "promoting" pedophilia. OTOH, what I have
seen
is those who realise the complexity of the topic, such as yourself, Witt,
and myself, as well
as Michael Bannerman, DESCRIBING the phenomenon, and applying their
analyses,
usually based on research and knowledge, to the problem.
And problem it surely is. The dichotomy between the two obviously polarised
factions
in this debate could not be more clear. On the one hand, we have the
"anti-pedo brigade",
which includes Caro7, Water, Good22, StanTheMan, OhNoApr, etc., who not only
do not cite
research of their own, or, indeed, at all; OTOH, we have what I prefer to
call the "rationalists"
who have done, or read the research, ON BOTH SIDES of the argument, and come
to somewhat
different conclusions. I see neither side being prepared to give ground,
save to the extent that the
latter (among whom I am humbly pleased to belong) seem to be able not only
to perceive a
wider picture, but also to understand its context, both historically and
socially.
WRT the last clause of the part of the post to which I respond, I'm afraid
that all the available
evidence from child-care and protection organisations across the whole of
the Western world,
at least, shows the contrary. Children are at most risk from their parents
or parent substitutes; this risk is primarily of neglect, physical, and
emotional abuse, and is only rarely sexual abuse. It follows that those who
merely download pictures from a newsgroup - without ever even coming into
improper contact with a child - are not a major part of the problem and
hence, I'd argue that
efforts to prosecute them are extremely misguided, if not pointless.
>It is not so much about `promoting pedophilia', as you mis-characterize
>it, as it is about combatting a moral/sexual panic and the accompanying
>witch-hunts. Your self-righteous posturing is going to accomplish
>exactly /nothing/ for children.
I couldn't agree more. "Pedophilia", in itself, is not a problem. "Child
abuse", however, is,
and I hope my comments above put this into some perspective.
>
>To be frank, I am no more in favour of sexual abuse than you are--the
>ultimate question should be, what is the best course of action to
>reduce/eliminate both child abuse in general, and child sexual abuse in
>particular? Sadly, public policy in much of the United States and
>Canada (as well as parts of Western Europe) is focused far more on
>ideology than it is on results.
If only it had been in Western Europe and the USA between 1970 and 1982,
we would not now be having this discussion. But it's too late to turn back
the
clock. Child pornography exists, there's no denying it. What should be the
focus
here, IMHO, is whether it's as much of a problem as it is made out to be.
Personally,
having considered it for many years now, I don't think it is. However, it's
being
used a a stick with which to beat the Internet, particularly Usenet. However
unpopular
this view is, I maintain that the Internet merely reflects that which
happens in the
real world, and to attempt to impose censorship on the Internet, without
attempting
to do the same in the real world, misses the real point by a mile.
>
>Have you ever considered the many correlations between the so-called
>`war on child pornography' and the `war on drugs'? In both instances,
>the appropriate foci should be on /harm reduction/ -- in reality both
>campaigns are long on rhetoric and propaganda, but pitifully short on
>results.
Again, agreed. There are limited successes in the war against drugs in the
UK - every so often, a major seizure is announced - but even the Customs &
Excise
estimate that they only ever seize about 10% of the trade.
>
>With respect to the drug war, the only tangible results have been to
>turn the United States into a virtual armed camp--automatic weapons are
>now ubiquitous--and to obscenely fatten the coffers of the drug cartels,
>while at the same time, squandering billions of taxpayer dollars that
>could have been better spent elsewhere. In many urban centres in the
>United States a child has a many-times greater chance of being caught in
>a crossfire and being shot, than they have of being sexually abused and
>photographed.
Or, of course, being physically or emotionally abused by a parent.
>For ideological/political reasons our respective governments have
>continued with their `get tough' policies with respect to both drugs and
>child pornography, despite the marked lack of results from both
>policies. With respect to child pornography, as far as I can gather,
>there have been less than 1000 arrests world-wide for child pornography
>offences over the last 8-10 years.
Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI, in the past couple of years, has called
for more
funds to detect and prosecute purveyors of child porn. Yet their success
rate thus
far is less than glittering. The USA prosecutes about 60
producers/distributors of
child porn each year. Given the pervasive nature of the Internet, I, as an
American
taxpayer, would expect more for my bucks.
>Like the drug war, most often the casualties are just the end-users --
>the producers are all-too-frequently never apprehended. None of those
>apprehended in the most recent `Pedo U' busts, to my knowledge, have
>even so much as touched a child--their crimes subsist merely in the
>alleged possession of images. Furthermore, these busts have not stemmed
>the flow of illegal materials one iota--in fact, some of the hardest,
>vilest, most disgusting stuff I've ever seen has been posted in the last
>week and a half.
Agreed, although the "PU busts" were allegedly for distribution via Usenet
or
IRC. Also, hard-core images, I'm reliably informed, can still be seen in the
usual places.
>Let's face it--like the `War on Drugs' the `War on Child Pornography' is
>a dismal failure. Interdiction is not successful -- another policy --
>one that works -- must be found and implemented. Until the politicians
>are made to realize that the public is more interested in results than
>mere posturing, nothing is going to change.
Couldn't agree more, but, of course, it's politically convenient at present
for the
"moral majority" to be seen to be doing something. Globally, I see the Right
wing of
politics in retreat, trapped by its own reliance on control of the masses
and having been
severely discredited by its own failures over the last twenty years or so to
adapt to
changes in society. Equally, I don't see the Left, having almost always been
fundamentally
dishonest, as champions of individual liberty. Also, I have forsaken
Liberalism as
optimistic, but impractical in the face of human nature. I am now, I
suppose, an
Anarchist Libertarian - which means that I see no objection to anyone doing
anything they like - as long as it causes harm to nobody else.
>
>>> "Child Pornography is a misnomer. The term "Child Pornography" means
>>> Child (sexual) Abuse Photography.
>
>That is /one/ definition--which, by the way, I do not dispute. However,
>the legal definitions of `child pornography' in various jurisdictions
>frequently include far more than `child sexual abuse photography.'
When simple nudity of children is being prosecuted as "child pornography",
as it is, in the UK, for example, there is a serious problem.
>
>For instance, in the jurisdiction where I live (Canada) even the
>/written word/ can be classified as child pornography. Some time ago,
>there was a move to ban Stephen King's novel "Needful Things" because it
>included a passage where a high-school student fantasized about having
>sex with one of his teachers. Under Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code
>of Canada, this would have been sufficient to classify the work as child
>pornography, the mere possession of which is forbidden and carries a
>5-year-maximum prison sentence.
Even in the UK, this is permitted. I'd be interested to know if "Lolita" is
banned in Canada under this law?
>
>>> Pedophiles can only get erections and orgasms if they can see
>>> photographs of children...even babies... being raped and abused.
>
>This is complete nonsense--/nothing/ I've ever seen in the literature
>supports such a blanket assertion. There is no doubt in my mind that
>there are /some/ people who may require hardcore imagery to achieve
>climax, but it is well-documented that some people may achieve sexual
>arousal from something as innocuous as images in children's clothing
>catalogs.
Agreed. Portia knows NOTHING about what turns pedophiles on. And I only
know, because I've bothered to research them as far as I can.
Diogenes
pasi.ku...@bof.fi
> orgasms if they can see photographs of children...even babies... being
> Pornography". Everyone knows this.
>
> for "Child Pornography" are raped and abused and die even MORE due to
> the demands inherent for good "pics" for pedophiles....then the Finnish
> people must be barbaric....to say the least.
Just searched the news for postings on Finland and found this.
I do not know where these misconception come from, Finland
*does have legislation that prohibits child pornography* and Finnish
authorities have acted on several occasions to stop the spreding
and production of that kind of material in Finland. In few occasions
the police has worked in co-operation with other countries police force
to stop the stuff on the internet, which is pretty demanding and
frustrating job on its sad vastness least to say. I've also read that
the police has detectives specialising in this kind of cases.
Here is an extract from a change (563/98) to the criminal law that describes
the main points specifically criminalising child pornography. The Clause 18
criminalizes the production and importing of such material (max two years
prison) and the Clause 19 criminalizes the possession of such material (max 6
months of prison). Direct child abuse is criminalized elsewhere in the same
law. ---- 18 § Sukupuolisiveellisyyttä loukkaavan kuvan levittäminen Joka
pitää kaupan tai vuokrattavana tai levittää taikka siinä tarkoituksessa
valmistaa tai tuo maahan kuvia tai kuvatallenteita, joissa
sukupuolisiveellisyyttä loukkaavasti esitetään lasta tai väkivaltaa taikka
eläimeen sekaantumista, on tuomittava sukupuolisiveellisyyttä loukkaavan
kuvan levittämisestä sakkoon tai vankeuteen enintään kahdeksi vuodeksi.
Mitä 17 §:n 2 momentissa säädetään, koskee myös tässä pykälässä tarkoitettua
kuvaa tai kuvatallennetta.
19 § Sukupuolisiveellisyyttä loukkaavan lasta esittävän kuvan hallussapito
Joka oikeudettomasti pitää hallussaan valokuvaa, videonauhaa, elokuvaa tai
muuta todellisuudenmukaista kuvatallennetta, jossa esitetään lasta
sukupuoliyhteydessä tai siihen rinnastettavassa seksuaalisessa
kanssakäymisessä taikka muulla sukupuolisiveellisyyttä ilmeisen loukkaavalla
tavalla, on tuomittava sukupuolisiveellisyyttä loukkaavan lasta esittävän
kuvan hallussapidosta sakkoon tai vankeuteen enintään kuudeksi kuukaudeksi.
----
Laws explicitly mentioning child pornography must be a fairly
new phenomenon as the whole discussion on the topic has
really surfaced only during the 1990's. Therefore, the above
mentioned Clauses are new (1998) as such. There has, however,
naturally been legislation that limits the spreading of obscene
and immoral material which has, as far as I know, been
interpreted as including child abuse. The new law reinforces
the existing policy.
I'd say that the Finnish legislation concerning child pornography is
rather tight and also reasonably well executed. The problem
exists but in small scale and the public opinion and the government in
Finland are very very much against it. If one hears of Finnish child
pornography its probably because its discussed in out and open and
not concealed in any hideous way, not because there would be much
of it. What comes to barbaric I'd say its barbaric to label others barbars
without any evidence.
--
Pasi Kuoppamaki
All opinions presented here are mine.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
goo...@webtv.net
>I'd say that the Finnish legislation concerning
>child pornography is rather tight and also
>reasonably well executed. The problem exists
>but in small scale and the public opinion and
>the government in Finland are very very much
>against it.
So Bannerman's assertion that "The viewing of images (CP, KP, whatever)
is considered as normal in Finland" was a total lie, and an insult to
the Finnish people.
Pedophiles never stop trying find SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE, who thinks that
the pedo obsession for photographs of children being abused is "normal".
When Bannerman tried it, he defamed and insulted an entire nation of
decent and humane people. He defamed the Finnish people.
Thank you, Pasi, for telling us the truth about the laws against Child
Pornogaphy in Finland. And we especially thank you for telling us that
"public opinion" (the "normal" people of Finland) is VERY VERY MUCH
AGAINST IT.
We wish the Finnish people all the best, and we look forward to visiting
your lovely and sane country someday.
creek k
>When simple nudity of children is being
>prosecuted as "child pornography", as it is, i
>the UK, for example, there is a serious problem.
A "problem" for whom? Nobody but a pedphile would object to the
elimination of photos of nude children from the internet. We don't need
it. Only pedophiles "need" to see nude children on the internet. Only
pedophiles need to see nude, sexually abused, expoited, and raped
children on the internet.
The only "problem" in eliminating all of it would be....pedophiles
would have a harder time getting off. This is a big "problem"? Only
to pedophiles is this a "problem".
Michael Bannerman
Pornography law!
I never made the statements which you attributed to me.
Please get your facts correct because you are fast on the way to some
serious legal trouble.
Laurence Taylor
pi...@webtv.net "creek k" writes:
-> >When simple nudity of children is being
-> >prosecuted as "child pornography", as it is, i
-> >the UK, for example, there is a serious problem.
->
-> A "problem" for whom? Nobody but a pedphile would object to the
-> elimination of photos of nude children from the internet.
Apart, that is, from the parents prosecuted for taking pictures of their
children in the bath or on the beach, or the teenagers prosecuted for
taking sexy polaroids of themselves, or even keeping a personal diary.
rgds
LAurence
Baal
> From: pi...@webtv.net (creek k)
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.children
> Subject: Diogenes and his Problem
> Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 21:32:11 -0500 (EST)
> Message-ID: <18790-36...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>
> References: <RFzj2.15902$re.32...@newscene.newscene.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net
> Diogenes said:
>> When simple nudity of children is being
>> prosecuted as "child pornography", as it is, in
>> the UK, for example, there is a serious problem.
> A "problem" for whom? Nobody but a pedphile would object to the
> elimination of photos of nude children from the internet.
Just a second here... quit trying to put words in his mouth. Where above
did he say /anything/ about the Internet? I didn't see it in what you
quoted....
Now, with respect to the net, even in the nudist groups, they don't
particularly object to nude photos of children--why should they, after
all? When a nudist family goes on vacation, they take their children
with them, and their snapshots happen to include their kids, just as
textile families include their kids when /they/ are on vacation.
> We don't need it. Only pedophiles "need" to see nude children on the
> internet.
Pray tell, when are you going to realize that mere (not to mention
continual) repetition of a statement does not render it true?
> Only pedophiles need to see nude, sexually abused, expoited, and raped
> children on the internet.
I have news for you... however much you might wish it to be so, nudity
does /not/ automatically imply sexual abuse, exploitation nor rape.
Further, if you would bother even so much as to make a casual survey of
the literature, you would find that a wide variety of images can be used
for the purposes of sexual arousal -- up to and including children's
clothing catalogs.
Now, speaking of literature, following are abstracts of two studies that
show that pornography is not a major factor in sexual abuse.
On a final note, have you ever considered that your approach and
methodology are doing serious harm to the cause that you allegedly
espouse? Using a variety of WebTV screen names is not fooling
anyone--the content and style of your numerous rants make your identity
obvious. Even Matty <lilbo...@webtv.net> is turned off by your
antics--you going to accuse /him/ of being a pedophile now?
My advice to you would be to grow-up. It is perfectly possible to be
opposed to child abuse/child sexual abuse, while at the same time to be
opposed to some of the measures that are allegely taken to combat it.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Child sexual abuse and pornography: Is there a relationship?
Knudsen,-Dean-D.
Purdue U, West Lafayette, IN, US
Journal-of-Family-Violence; 1988 Dec Vol 3(4) 253-267
AB: A review of official reports and other research indicates
that the circumstances surrounding sexual abuse are inadequately
specified to allow specific causal interpretations. The role of
pornography in contributing to such abuse is explored by
reviewing laboratory studies and the circumstances of child
sexual abuse. An assessment of the research literature suggests
that pornography is a minor and indirect influence on child
sexual maltreatment.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Pornography and sexual offences.
Langevin,-Ron; Lang,-Reuben-A.; Wright,-Percy; Handy,-Lorraine; et-al
Clarke Inst of Psychiatry, Toronto, ON, Canada
Annals-of-Sex-Research; 1988 Vol 1(3) 335-362
LA: English
PY: 1988
AB: Examined whether erotica is harmful and incites sexual crimes
by interviewing 227 male sex offenders and 50 control Ss from
the community in Canada about purchase of erotic magazines and
videos and attendance at erotic movies. Erotica use was not a
pertinent factor in offenders' sex offenses nor to their legal
situation. Results do not support the conclusion of the Meese
Commission (1986) that there is a causal association of sexual
violence and use of violent pornography.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Baal <Ba...@nym.alias.net> <Ba...@redneck.efga.org> <alt.anonymous.messages>
PGP Key: http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xA21829FD
PGP Key Fingerprint: 5A 64 DB DB 2C FE C0 FE 63 A7 A3 59 58 DA A6 EA
Occasional Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
iQCVAgUBNpNAJZR7IeiiGCn9AQEr/wP+KAhzSLF3FRh4v321ypgx5CnCoJebUcNN
tk0gTcpHWqujske24U4s3Xgt3+nXaS0CEAGRWkWssPTMg2PlRFGN3ij5PN8eUhqK
xaoPBbtT/DSecFvUcdZNSvjq3AFc+plAQxQ1Zd2VMfNCdo7aLAmWsnxRO3S+PnpF
4xe9aYuSeZE=
=NKGM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Baal
> From: Michael Bannerman <mbannerm*@usa.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.children
> Subject: Re: Thank you, Pasi Kuoppamaki
> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 10:03:18 -0500
> Message-ID: <369229B5...@usa.net>
> References: <76q73m$jm4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> <19102-36...@newsd-124.bryant.webtv.net>
> Please provide the citation where I made the comments about Finnish Child
> Pornography law!
He can't, because /you/ didn't make those remarks, /I/ did.
> I never made the statements which you attributed to me.
A fact which he can't seem to get though his head, for some reason. For
some reason, known only to himself, he seems to have fixated on you.
> Please get your facts correct because you are fast on the way to some
> serious legal trouble.
Methinks you expect far too much from him.... he's on a crusade -- a
mission from God -- what does he need facts for?
Baal <Ba...@nym.alias.net> <Ba...@redneck.efga.org> <alt.anonymous.messages>
PGP Key: http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xA21829FD
PGP Key Fingerprint: 5A 64 DB DB 2C FE C0 FE 63 A7 A3 59 58 DA A6 EA
Occasional Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
iQCVAgUBNpP09pR7IeiiGCn9AQFeyAP/Sjs+ksLtrRWaPkdiAHUQEwBYpWwX5PPr
QazQNeqXR7tQt566ig9xDvQxMQbPXMi09KAdFAnhjCRWBAWZoKTgS+qHAh2Sg6Js
DdzrVojeHrVgRCnN1UTDqGGK/VrDezGC6XuUnDtQhA4SLpLf8+cQKfluzCIp8JzX
Mqz/md3MdnM=
=jw7i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Michael Bannerman
Baal wrote:
Diogenes
Diogenes said:
>When simple nudity of children is being
>prosecuted as "child pornography", as it is, i
>the UK, for example, there is a serious problem.
>>A "problem" for whom? Nobody but a pedphile would object to the
>>elimination of photos of nude children from the internet. We don't need
>>it. Only pedophiles "need" to see nude children on the internet. Only
>>pedophiles need to see nude, sexually abused, expoited, and raped
>>children on the internet.
>> The only "problem" in eliminating all of it would be....pedophiles
>>would have a harder time getting off. This is a big "problem"? Only
>>to pedophiles is this a "problem".
In almost all respects, you miss the point here,
For example, if you go to alt.binaries.pictures.nudism, you will undoubtedly
see
images of naked children. Some of these images will undoubtedly, although
perfectly legal, turn pedophiles on. Similarly, you can go to
alt.binaries.pictures.
children, which as far as I remember, is largely a forum for pictures of
child models,
yet largely fully clothed. However, these images may also turn a pedophile
on.
The question is how far we are to go in banning any image of a child from
public gaze
simple because "some pedophile, somewherem might be turned on by it". I
maintain
that this is an unreasonable stance to adopt, when we all can see around us
advertisers
such as Calvin Klein & Bennetton *using* such images to sell product.
As to your contention that "Only pedophiles "need" to see nude children on
the internet. Only
pedophiles need to see nude, sexually abused, expoited, and raped
children on the internet." ,
I'd be glad if you could distinguish the cases here. Do you see a
distinction between "nude"
and "raped"? I do, but I doubt if you do - simply because you say "and"
rather than "or", which makes
me think that you tend to lump *all* child nudity in with "child rape" - bug
mistake, and a simplistic
assumption on your part.
>> The only "problem" in eliminating all of it would be....pedophiles
>>would have a harder time getting off. This is a big "problem"? Only
>>to pedophiles is this a "problem".
This part of your post only demonstrates your ignorance. Pedophiles "get
off" on
perfectly *legal* images, such as Sears' catalogues, Brooke Sheilds movies,
Macaulay
Culkin movies, "Leon", the early films of Jodie Foster, even Shirley Temple
movies.
All legal, and all fuel to such desires. And all, paradoxically, all
perfectly legal. Now, answer
me this: how far are you prepared to censor *anything* just because
*someone*, *somewhere*,
*might* be turned on by it? And kindly explain how it *necessarily* follows
that *harm* *will* result to a
real person because of what is, in reality, no more than fantasy? And please
don't bother telling
me about that "tacky little pamphlet in your Daddy's bottom drawer". We both
know the reality.
You tell ME.
Diogenes.
goo...@webtv.net
comment about the Finnish people. It was Mr. Baal who said that it was
considered "normal"...in Finland...to view Child Pornography.
Pasi Kuoppomaki has been kind enough to demonstrate that Mr. Baal's
outrageous statement was a total fabrication.....a lie. A vicious and
hurtful lie.
Why did Mr. Baal make such an untrue and terrible statement about
Finland and the Finnish people in the first place? What did he hope to
gain? Why, on earth, did he do it?
Will Mr. Baal respond to these questions?
We shall see.
goo...@webtv.net
merits a repeat. Here it is....
Hi, Wittless (and everybody)
So you've missed me, oh Witty One...I'm so touched. I've been busy...
and, amusing as they can be, peddies and their defenders are not my
life. But I see I've been able to bring some others in to the
"debate", so that you have somebody to talk to, or at. Things were
getting rather thin there for a while, one must admit. There you
were....The Rajah of Rape-Photo Addicts....spouting off, and nobody
listening or responding until I came along.....so happy I was able to
help.
All I did was watch and listen
to the peddies and comment on their absurdities. It's not brain
surgery....all you have to be able to do is recognize inhumanity.....and
maniacs...when you see them. I might be back and I might not....depends
on where the biggest laughs on the internet are to be found. I'm
certainly not interested in "debating" whether or not pedo-maniacs are
as "bad as everyone thinks". There IS no debate, no matter how much the
peddies and their defenders might want it to be so. Bye....
Baal
> From: goo...@webtv.net
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.children
> Subject: It was "Mr. Baal"
> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 00:10:44 -0500 (EST)
> Message-ID: <1096-369...@newsd-124.bryant.webtv.net>
> References: <1999010703133...@nym.alias.net>
> So it was Mr. Baal who made the defamatory, insulting, and untrue
> comment about the Finnish people. It was Mr. Baal who said that it was
> considered "normal"...in Finland...to view Child Pornography.
I don't know whether you have a problem with reading comprehension
or whether you are being deliberately obtuse (although I suspect
the latter.)
As you will have seen, if you'd so much as bother to even read what I
post, is that my comments on the viewing of images being considered as
`normal' were based on a recollection of remarks (made several years
ago), by a Helsinki police officer, one Kaj Malmberg. Those were his
words.... I remember reading that he was quite surprised to discover
that the possession of images could result in multi-year jail sentences
abroad, whereas in Finland, the maximum penalty was a fine equivalent to
approximately $500 U.S.
Assuming you are even capable of it, if you'll read carefully what I
have posted below, you will find that:
"When enacted the reforms will: change provisions on sexual offences
in the Penal Code with the aim of improving the legal protection of
children in criminal cases; make possession of child pornography and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the purchase of sexual services from persons under 18 years of age
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
punishable offences; impose more severe sentences for offences such
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
as the distribution of child pornography; extend the penalty for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sexual abuse of a child from only a fine to imprisonment; and,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
broaden the grounds on which a person can be considered guilty of
aggravated sexual abuse of a child."
This is taken from a report by the Finnish government to the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights (quoted in full below, with the URL
if you wish to look up the original.)
You gonna accuse the Finnish government and the U.N. of insulting the
Finns and/or being pedophiles?
Do you intend to keep deliberately taking remarks out of context,
hurling insults and invective, and deliberately ignoring facts that
don't support your position?
I have already characterized you elsewhere as the single most
intellectually dishonest person I have ever attempted to debate
with--the tenor of your response to this message will either confirm or
rebut this assertion.
Are you going to continue to ignore all facts that do not support your
position, or will you demonstrate the intellectual and moral integrity
to acknowledge these facts?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On 21 Dec 1998 07:40:05 -0000,
in Message-ID: <199812210740...@nym.alias.net>,
Baal <Ba...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
I believe I was the one who said that. These remarks were based on
my recollection of comments made at the time by a Finnish police
officer, Kaj Malmberg, who was involved in the investigation of
child pornography allegations made by against the operator of
anon.penet.fi, the former Finnish anonymous remailer. (The
allegations were completely unfounded, by the way.)
If you'd so much as even bother to check, you could discover for
yourself that possession of child pornography is /not/ a criminal
offence in Finland, unless the situation has changed radically since
March of this year.
Country report: FINLAND
First European Regional Meeting of National Coalitions for the Rights of
the Child March 1998
[snip]
| The Central Union and the Afannerhejin League for Child Welfare
| demanded that the possession of child pornography be made a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| criminal offence. The Ombudsman of the Mannerheim League for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Child Welfare also expressed deep concern about sexual exploitation of
children especially regarding child pornography and access to telephone
sex lines. The report of the Finnish League for Human Rights draw
attention to the discrimination of immigrant children and children of
minorities as well as to the family reunification of asylum seekers.
If possession of child pornography were /already/ a criminal offence,
why would Finnish NGOs be demanding that it be made one?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Source: http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord1997/vol6/finland.htm
Thematic Reports
Mechanisms and Reports of the Sub-Commission
Sale of children, child prostitution, child pornography:
(E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/11, para. Finland)
The report summarized information provided by the government in terms
of steps taken for the protection of children. The government
referred to reforms contained in a Government Bill that was sent to
Parliament early in 1997. When enacted the reforms will: change
provisions on sexual offences in the Penal Code with the aim of
improving the legal protection of children in criminal cases; make
possession of child pornography and the purchase of sexual services
from persons under 18 years of age punishable offences; impose more
severe sentences for offences such as the distribution of child
pornography; extend the penalty for sexual abuse of a child from only
a fine to imprisonment; and, broaden the grounds on which a person
can be considered guilty of aggravated sexual abuse of a child.
The full report can be referenced at:
http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord1997/documentation/subcommission/e-cn4-
sub2-1997-11.htm
Text follows:
Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Prevention of the Sale of
Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography
Economic and Social Council
Distr.
GENERAL
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/11
16 May 1997
Original: ENGLISH
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Sub-Commission on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection
of Minorities
Forty-ninth session
Item 6 of the provisional agenda
CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF SLAVERY
Report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the
Programme of Action for the Prevention of the Sale of
Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, submitted
pursuant to Sub-Commission resolution 1996/12
CONTENTS
Introduction
REPLIES RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENTS
Estonia
Finland
Introduction
The Commission on Human Rights adopted the Programme of Action for the
Prevention of the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child
Pornography in its resolution 1992/74, and requested the
Sub-Commission to submit to it every two years a progress report on
the implementation of the Programme of Action by all States.
In its resolution 1996/12, the Sub-Commission requested the
Secretary-General to invite all States to inform the Working Group of
measures adopted to implement the Programme of Action and to submit a
report thereon to the Sub-Commission at its forty-ninth session and to
the Commission at its fifty-fourth session.
In order that the Working Group might examine this matter at its
twenty-second session, the Secretariat, on 23 December 1996, sent
notes verbales to Governments requesting the desired information. As
of 13 May 1997, replies had been received from Estonia and Finland.
REPLIES RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENTS
[Estonia information snipped]
Finland
[Original: English]
[5 May 1997]
The Government of Finland stated that the Government Bill on the reform
of the provisions on sexual offences contained in the Penal Code (chap.
20) was given to Parliament on 14 February 1997. One aim of the
Government Bill is to improve the legal protection of children in
criminal cases.
| Under existing legislation, possession of child pornographic material
| and the purchase of sexual services from persons under 18 years of age
| are not punishable acts. Under the Bill, these acts would become
| punishable offences.
| It is proposed in the Bill that the sentences for certain offences be
| more severe, for example for the distribution of child pornography.
| Moreover, the penalty for sexual abuse of a child would no longer be
| only a fine, but imprisonment. The grounds on which a person can be
| considered guilty of aggravated sexual abuse of a child would be made
| wider.
The authorities have mandated several working groups to deal with
problems relating to the phenomenon of commercial sex. In 1994, the
working group set up by the Police Department of the Ministry of the
Interior proposed several measures aimed at reducing prostitution and
crimes relating to prostitution. In 1995, the committee appointed by the
Ministry of Justice on commercial sex and prostitution made various
proposals to reduce sex tourism and problems arising from sex bars and
restaurants. In spring 1997, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health,
in cooperation with the Ministry of Trade and Industry, will carry out
an information campaign concerning sex tourism.
The team of experts on prostitution set up by the National Research and
Development Centre for Welfare and Health gave its final report in 1996.
The team emphasized the responsibility of different administrative
sectors for dealing with prostitution and proposed certain measures for
preventing prostitution and mitigating its negative effects.
The Government's equality programme, which was presented in February
1997, includes a chapter on commercial sex, prostitution and trafficking
in wives, explaining the measures for which ministries will be
responsible. The implementation of the Government's equality programme
is monitored on a yearly basis.
Promoting sexual health and welfare has a preventive effect on
prostitution; the development of young persons' knowledge of their
sexuality has been found to be particularly important. Sex education is
included in school curricula. Moreover, the State finances special
projects in this field as well as projects to eliminate young persons'
social exclusion, in order to further prevent prostitution among the
young.
The annual voluntary collection for charity arranged by schoolchildren
and students will in 1997 raise funds for the preventive work of the End
Child Prostitution in Asian Tourism (ECPAT) movement against child sex
tourism in Thailand. The organizers of the collection will deliver
material relating to the issue to Finnish schools.
(c) Copyright 1997
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Geneva, Switzerland
I suppose that now, you will accuse the UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights of insulting the Finns and/or being a pedophile?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Source: Spring, 1997 Believe the Children newsletter.
FINLAND
Police in Finland discovered a "massive computer library of child
pornography that included pictures of torture, mutilation, and
cannibalism." The owner of the child pornography was not arrested
because distributing hard-core child pornography is a minor offense
in Finland. (World, 1996.)
"Child exploitation." World (USA Today), September 7, 1996, p. 10.
`Believe the Children' is a now-defunct organization that apparently
believed in a conspiracy orgnized by a world-wide Satanic cult that
engaged in ritual abuse, murder and cannibalism.
Sounds like the kind of organization that Good22 would fit right in ...
You going to accuse `Believe the Children' of insulting the Finns and/or
being pedophiles as well?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Pasi Kuoppomaki has been kind enough to demonstrate that Mr. Baal's
> outrageous statement was a total fabrication.....a lie. A vicious and
> hurtful lie.
My statements were (and are) based on the facts available to me--unlike
yours. If I read Mr. Kuoppomaki's post correctly, it would appear that
the reformed legislation is either already in effect, or well on its way
to being so. That does not change the fact that /prior/ to these
reforms, child sexual abuse and possession of child pornography were not
considered major criminal offences in Finland, punishable as they were,
only by means of monetary fines.
> Will Mr. Baal respond to these questions?
> We shall see.
It still remains to be seen whether or not you have eyes to see...
Baal <Ba...@nym.alias.net> <Ba...@redneck.efga.org> <alt.anonymous.messages>
PGP Key: http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xA21829FD
PGP Key Fingerprint: 5A 64 DB DB 2C FE C0 FE 63 A7 A3 59 58 DA A6 EA
Occasional Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
iQCVAgUBNpdDIZR7IeiiGCn9AQGzYgQAj2QmKu7SWCY6L/LaaHLnEpa3XV1naHH6
pg7OyCmyEa3Nl+rHVXBUYtJUgEj+7cZZLC+6YLwB7lvv9B2yDoeIwiOgTfLva0qR
1WxGuBG4u287PKdz18O9gzPtP39izy2Nh52nUWjwNf0ZuwNGBQVFDU3SWMBRGHRO
zdtlrCgF+yU=
=ZqaM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
goo...@webtv.net
Pornography." He said NOTHING about Finnish LAWS. He said, and he
tried to make us believe, that "normal" people in Finland think it is
"normal" to view photographs of children being sexually abused and
exploited. His statement was a disgusting insult to all "normal" Finns.
It is not considered "normal", in this day and age, to get ANY kind of
thrill, sexual or otherwise, from a photograph obtained through the
abuse and suffering of other human beings...and CHILDREN are included,
nowadays, much to the dismay of pedophiles.
Fortunately, most of the world now recognizes that those who do so are
not "normal". I fact, they are patholgical...criminally so, and the
laws everywhere increasingly demonstrate this.
Mr. Baal's statement about what is considered "normal" in Finland is
still a lie.
swe...@my-dejanews.com
> > So it was Mr. Baal who made the defamatory, insulting, and untrue
> > comment about the Finnish people. It was Mr. Baal who said that it was
> > considered "normal"...in Finland...to view Child Pornography.
Well, it was "Good22" who saw it fit and proper to make rather silly
assumptions about Finland and the Finnish people made on the basis of an ill-
conceived reading of a post. Instead of jumping at a chance to throw insults
at Finns, "Good22" could´ve bothered to check the facts first. But no harm
done, no apology necessary:-)
> As you will have seen, if you'd so much as bother to even read what I
> post, is that my comments on the viewing of images being considered as
> `normal' were based on a recollection of remarks (made several years
> ago), by a Helsinki police officer, one Kaj Malmberg. Those were his
> words.... I remember reading that he was quite surprised to discover
> that the possession of images could result in multi-year jail sentences
> abroad, whereas in Finland, the maximum penalty was a fine equivalent to
> approximately $500 U.S.
It´s possible that the remarks were misunderstood or used out of contest.
It´s true that Finns don´t shy away from natural nudity or nude children, and
it´s sometimes difficult to see how photographs of such things could be
considered "pornography", or that possession of such photographs in whatever
form could be considered criminal.
There haven´t been special laws against child pornography much for the same
reason that there hasn´t been a law against female circumcision, i.e. existing
laws have been considered (against pornography, statutory rape or grievous
bodily harm) quite sufficient and the need for such laws superflous. But the
legislative body seems to have a need to reflect the changing of the public
opinion and the tone of the times.
It should also be pointed out that the "sexual abuse" of children that was
previously punishable only by a fine had to be a rather slight, borderline
case - otherwise it would´ve been tried as something else, with heavier
sentences to expect.
B
Baal
> From: goo...@webtv.net
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.children
> Subject: Mr. Baal is still a liar
> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 00:51:42 -0500 (EST)
> Message-ID: <5862-369...@newsd-123.bryant.webtv.net>
> References: <1999010917550...@nym.alias.net>
> Mr. Baal said: "In Finland It is considered as normal to view Child
> Pornography." He said NOTHING about Finnish LAWS.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[rest of drivel mercifully snipped]
Wrong again, as usual. To resort to the vernacular for a moment,
"You are full of shit."
Yet again, you have deliberately mis-quoted me, as well as having taken
my remarks totally out of context, in addition to ignoring my comments
about legality which I reproduced in my last message.
Sadly, your continued lies and mis-representations no longer surprise
me. I have come to the conclusion that you would be utterly incapable of
recognizing the truth even if it bit you squarely on the ass.
For the benefit of anyone else who may be reading this, what I actually
said, follows; furthermore, the complete original message, in its
entirety, is reproduced below, although I doubt you will even so much as
bother to read it, since you apparently tend not to let little things
like the truth get in the way of your little jihad.
Any /reasonable/ person can see there that the entire context was
concerning child pornography laws, with a specific mention of my
understanding of the Finnish legal situation.
Unfortunately, according to the tenor of the discussion thus far, you
come across not as a reasonable person, but rather as a zealot
completely and totally uninterested in the truth (except for how it can
be twisted to suit your own particular ends). These are the very same
tactics used by Senator Joe McCarthy in his anti-communist witch-hunt.
Like Senator McCarthy, you have honed your ability to lie to a very fine
degree--have you ever considered a career in politics? Anyone with such
a facile ability to lie should consider politics a natural occupation.
Your latest response has only confirmed (as if any confirmation were
necessary) my earlier characterization of you as the single most
dishonest person I have ever debated on Usenet.
This discussion has now gone on for a month, and seeing as you are not
likely to change your long-standing pattern of misrepresentation, libel,
outright fabrications and lies, even about /provable/ factual
statements, then there is little point in continuing this discussion, at
least with you.
Welcome to my killfile.
*Plonk*
Baal <Ba...@nym.alias.net> <Ba...@redneck.efga.org> <alt.anonymous.messages>
PGP Key: http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xA21829FD
PGP Key Fingerprint: 5A 64 DB DB 2C FE C0 FE 63 A7 A3 59 58 DA A6 EA
Occasional Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> The import/export is illegal pretty much everywhere.
Not everywhere. I understand that in Finland, possession of images is
considered as normal, and the penalty maxes out at something on the
order of $500. I remember reading comments made by some Finnish police
who were astounded that one could receive multi-year sentences just for
looking at pictures.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Date: 11 Dec 1998 20:40:07 -0000
Message-ID: <199812112040...@nym.alias.net>
From: Baal <Ba...@nym.alias.net>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.children
Subject: Re: Hi, Wittless (and everybody)
References: <01be22d2$bc71be40$211567d1@roy>
<3797-367...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>
<3671D697...@ihug.co.nz>
Organization: Porno-Terrorist union - aka PTu Local 666
Reply-To: Ba...@nym.alias.net
Cc: Ba...@nym.alias.net
Mail-To-News-Contact: postm...@nym.alias.net
Lines: 204
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> From: Michael Bannerman <mbannerm*@usa.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.children
> Subject: Re: Hi, Wittless (and everybody)
> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:12:32 -0500
> Message-ID: <36713660...@usa.net>
> References: <01be22d2$bc71be40$211567d1@roy>
> <3797-367...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>
> <3671D697...@ihug.co.nz>
> Reply-To: mbannerm*@usa.net
> Let's get this straight--
> Kiddie porn is ILLEGAL.
>
> It doesn't matter if the kids are now all over 16, 18, or whatever age
> of consent.
>
> it doesn't matter if the pics were taken a thousand years ago.
>
> THEY ARE ILLEGAL TO POSSESS OR DISTRIBUTE.
No one is disputing this. The question is, /should/ it be illegal, or
more precisely, are the justifications frequently cited for its
illegality founded in fact or are they merely myths?
[legal penalties snipped]
> Saying that owning and looking at KP is "harmless" is ridiculous since
> it is illegal to own in most jurisdictions.
Perhaps more to the point, harmless to whom? Given the legal penalties,
it is most certainly /not/ harmless to those who possess and/or
distribute these materials.
The question is, are the harsh legal penalties justified based on the
`harm' which this material is alleged to do to children?
Virtually no one will dispute the fact that for an adult to rape a child
(defined as a person under the age of legal consent) should be
illegal--that is a given. However, why should an image of an adult
having sex with a person over the age of consent be illegal? (In Canada,
the age of consent for sexual intercourse is 14 years of age, with a few
reasonable restrictions. However, for anyone to photograph (or even
_write_ about) such activity is a criminal offence--i.e. child
pornography.)
The most-frequently cited justification for the illegality of child
pornography is that it is the evidence of `a crime.' However, in the
example I've just cited, an adult can legally engage in sex with a
14-year-old; this act is not a `crime' so why should the representation
be so classified?
However, the law goes even further--even if the activity being displayed
is only /described/ as involving persons under the age of 18 years, even
if in reality, they are well over 18, it is still classified as child
pornography.
Artist Eli Langer sketched from his imagination, showed his works at a
Toronto art gallery, and was prosecuted for making and possessing child
pornography. Fortunately, he was acquitted, as his work was judged to
have `artistic merit.' Joseph Pecciarich was not so fortunate. He also
engaged in a type of art--computer morphing of catalog images--and he
was convicted on child pornography charges. Does this mean that only
card-carrying artists are going to be safe now?
> The import/export is illegal pretty much everywhere.
Not everywhere. I understand that in Finland, possession of images is
considered as normal, and the penalty maxes out at something on the
order of $500. I remember reading comments made by some Finnish police
who were astounded that one could receive multi-year sentences just for
looking at pictures.
> Owning, collecting, or whatever seems to be harmful to one's reputation.
> Not to mention it seems that being in NGs associated with such postings,
> even if only in the minds of some of the delusional, makes one a
> paedophile.
This almost goes without saying...
> This is as ridiculous an argument as saying that the machine gun in my
> possession should be legal because my grandfather bought it legally, or
> was made when machineguns were legal.
This is not an apt analogy--machine guns /are/ harmful, and their only
purpose is to kill--a more apt analogy would be to make a /picture/ of a
machine gun illegal.
> You can work to change the legality situation if you don't like it;
> however, I don't think you will find a very sympathetic audience.
I would argue that even these efforts have, at least to some extent,
already been criminalized in Canada. My understanding is that the
provision covering text in Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code was
included to ban importations of the NAMBLA newsletter. Now, I've never
seen this newsletter myself, but some gay friends who have have, have
told me that it is `pretty tame.' My understanding is that NAMBLA does
not argue for the breaking of laws, but they /do/ advocate for changes
in the age of consent laws.
Technically, even advocating a /rise/ in the age of consent from the
current age of 14 to a proposed age of 17 would be illegal under Section
163.1 of the Criminal Code, as it could be interpreted as `advocating or
counselling sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years.'
> Now, if the debate is that people in alt.sex.incest (can't say for other
> NGs) are paedophiles and child molesters, then that's purely BULLSHIT!
Agreed, but given the wide scope of Section 163.1, some of the materials
contained therein -- fantasy or not -- may be condemned as child
pornography under Canadian law.
> I have also heard (source famous author who wrote book on Atlanta
> recently quoting a Kinsey associate) that paedophiles are a VERY SMALL
> portion of the population. Picture viewers may not be child molesters.
I would daresay that the vast majority of picture viewers are not child
molesters; in the Pecciarich case, the Crown tried to argue that he
should be jailed as he posed `a danger' to children. The defence argued
that the (now-convicted) defendent had never so much as touched a child,
and that it could not be /automatically/ presumed that he would do so.
The judge agreed, stating that the defendent could not be punished for
any /future/ acts that he /might/ carry out.
> On the other hand, I can't see what joy they see in looking at that
> stuff: it DOES NOT turn me on.
Well, it /may/ turn some people on; frankly, I'd rather have someone
wacking-off to a picture than out molesting a real child.
My understanding is that number of pedophiles in the United States
has been estimated at about 100,000. Out of a population of
250,000,000+ this represents about 1 person in 2,500 or about 0.04% of
the population.
By any reasonable yardstick, this is a very tiny minority, yet the fear
engendered by this population is all out of proportion to its size. I
daresay that if the `pedophile threat' didn't exist, someone would have
had to invent it.
> The thing is that this "debate" has become a mudslinging BS session with
> people saying all sorts of bullshit about people whom they've never
> met. This has detracted from the point of the argument.
Tell me about it!
> Witt claims his privacy as a reason for not responding to anyone, which
> is a valid point.
Witt isn't so much refusing to respond to anyone, he just doesn't want
to have to publish his entire C.V. to bolster his arguments. (Mind you,
he's pretty-well done it anyway.)
> I have opened myself up and been targeted by a headcase because of some
> fantasy posts. The privacy point is well taken.
Agreed. I've been threatened in the past, so I've made damn sure to
protect myself. This is an emotionally-laden subject, so some people
are going to lose it.
> On the other hand, people are demanding to see some backup for the
> claims. Which is another valid request. Some people are in a position of
> putting up, shutting up, or making complete fools of themselves. The
> truth usually does out.
Let's hope, eh?
> The thing is that I would like to see some backup in the way of studies
> ON BOTH sides.
I can produce a list of abstracts if you'd like... it's long, so I won't
include it in this post.
> Could we see some backup for claims that Witt is a paedophile?
Don't hold your breath...
> Let's cut the name calling and get down to serious debate. I hated it
> when I was being falsely accused of perversion, which was compounded by
> the fact that the person who was accusing me also had a similar bent (I
> think this has been well documented)! Not to mention that the
> mudslinging takes away from the point of the debate.
The heart of the problem is that certain parties in this NG (e.g. Caro7)
don't even /want/ to engage in a debate -- as far as they're concerned,
they're right, and anyone who disagrees with them (e.g. Witt) is wrong!
I haven't seen even so much as a single argument from them to refute
anything that Witt has stated.
Baal <Ba...@nym.alias.net> <Ba...@redneck.efga.org> <alt.anonymous.messages>
PGP Key: http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xA21829FD
PGP Key Fingerprint: 5A 64 DB DB 2C FE C0 FE 63 A7 A3 59 58 DA A6 EA
Occasional Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
iQCVAgUBNnF0oJR7IeiiGCn9AQEr5AP/eGdUlYVT05dFaLB+x3GBWqoiPKIAeEC8
vk+qjxkMamizbslKpLvZwhYCxeW+fnTimzm86xfDFmp7z1scBPZPlIsSHkRCeWtn
TzfGCfL1zNkMSo/e/eHTDjAziKb2MgoGiGsK0BAxSAMzxfBSyHsCTB/7zSQzuneI
JDbuzIPfpww=
=vINT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
iQCVAgUBNpqCSZR7IeiiGCn9AQG6CAP/RRP0UKvC5rj82ndi3OeMYPMU6XXlzmtr
2u5IvWX/yioEgE3kUWUf2WjZzwjp8ztrzXGAgJd/EQP04yPoU78sm5CRpWqdbpUp
ncOLVwFXmIJ9TrwQScZXLHs2Ccj/E3Hk3uymXTPXy1EZFyE8Zclin9joyu5cu6Ia
1MPiHgQNNN8=
=y0+g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----