The Claptrap Over Child Porn

[Feynman]

The Claptrap Over Child Porn
Part 1: The Political Exploitation of Statistics
by Jim Peron

http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/kiddie_porn1.htm

[Evil Chris]

Because the term "child porn" is used to mean any publication featuring models under 18 years of age, the number of such publications substantially increased. But the number of publications which actually featured young children remained almost nonexistent. The US government, by unilaterally changing the definition, created what appeared, on the surface, to be a sudden increase in the product. In fact virtually all of the illegal material were items previously allowed but now made illegal by a change in definition. Interesting line...

[Feynman]

Here's what the author of the article, Jim Peron, replied to me today: His reply in yellow.
----------------------------------------------------------------
on 5/7/03 2:58 AM, Dick Feynman wrote:

> I read your article The Claptrap Over Child Porn at
> http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/kiddie_porn1.htm .

I didn't know it was still on the Net.

> There is presently a movement aimed at shutting down the file swapping softwares systems. This movement is spearheaded mostly by the recording industry, and in a minor part by crusaders against child pornography.

>They argue that file swapping software, with their inherent anonymity, are the ideal method for child porn to be distributed.

>What they avoid mentionning is that by their nature, file-swapping software (Kazaa, Morpheus, WinMX, etc) prevents the collection of a fee, thus, cuts off the commercial incentive associated with the production of those files, whether they be music or child porn.

> I am very much tempted to conclude that file swapping of child porn might actually *reduce significantly* the occurence of child porn production (and thus hypothetical child abuse cases).


It would reduce the commercial transactions for sure but there are virtually none of them anyhow. Frequently when some group spams the various newsgroups with offers of child porn it later turns out that the US govt, (in one form or another) is the actually web site owner trying to entrap people. In one case they ran an outfit out of Russia for six months. They inundated groups with offers to come to their web site and buy kiddie porn (which they'd actually send out so they could arrest people). When the US govt. announced that they were doing this and arresting people it turned out that something like 64 people were arrested. Hardly a huge number in light of the effort they put in and little evidence that any of them would have bought otherwise.


> In our beloved Kollektive Komradship of Kanada (aka Kanuck-istan), >[snip]

Canada has no clause in the Const itution guaranteeing freedom of speech only one guaranteeing equality which is very different indeed. I've written on the Canadian situation as well especially the feminist radicals and their desires to enforce censorship.

Clinton pushed through similar legislation in the US which I believe the Supreme Court overturned and now Bush is trying to ram through the same laws again. Originally the NY Supreme Court ruled that child porn could be illegal since it required the "abuse" of children in its production (not technically true since courts later ruled that pictures of nude children playing in a splash pool could be porn). After they justified the law on that basis they then started looking for a way to regulate it with broader definitions. Obviously the items now being banned do not require the abuse of children. They are regulating content (forbidden by the US constitution) instead. And they are increasing child abuse in the process. See Sex and Reason by Richard Posner (a Reagan appoint ed federal judge who is damn good on this sort of thing).


> I am a photographer of erotic imagery. The industry is going nuts about it, and the laws imposed over the entire worldwide industry by the regulations in the USA is causing an administrative nightmare and potential criminal liability.


T he kiddie porn crusade is a fraud. It was never a substantial problem and the govt. knows it hence their desire to entrap people instead of catching producers. The only real distributer of child porn left is the US
government.

But it offers an excuse to confiscate other porn or to regulate it o ut of existence. Govt. regulations always limit competition in an industry. They tend to monopolize the fields being regulated. So you'll often find the big companies supporting the regulations because it keeps the little guys from entering the market. That is true for porn as well as other businesses.

> As a content provider (photographer), I have to maintain records if I want to sell my product in the USA, even if my models clearly look adult by many decades. Of course, in the end, the consumer is ultimately footing the bill.

That's the point of course. They use these laws to make it difficult to buy material that the Constitution doesn't give them the power to regulate.
The political Left pushed through all sorts of regulations because they hate free markets and now the political Right uses those justifications, laws and legal precidents to regulate speech they don't like.

[pornodoggy]

That's an interesting article ... thanks for posting it.

[Bobby Vicious]

Indeed. great article. thanks.

[Pidgin]

I don't understand - what change of definition?
What else would you call a a 15 year old porn movie? Not child-porn?
What was it called before the "change"?
Barely-legal-but-still-ok young porn?
I don't understand what's changed. Child porn is child porn. A person is a child untill he is 18. no? Thats how its in the US and thats how it is in many other countries.. So I don't get it.