I shame the matriarchy

Okay, so this *is* referring to whom I think it's referring to?
 

yes.
 

**disclaimer: this post is solely the opinion of its poster, and is not necessarily reflective of its sponsors**

What a sorry, cowardly, slimy little weasel you are, Dubhe. I can't believe I actually felt sorry for you.
 

I'd rather be a Hacker Empress. How much for that?
 

haxx0r Beyotch!

I'm not trying to expose or humiliate the fine folks at The Den. (I leave that to more qualified individuals...) I respect what they're trying to do and I absolutely stand up for their right to exist and do their thing free from hassle.

However, I feel strongly that misperceptions ought to be corrected, swiftly and completely, especially where such misperceptions can rapidly get WAY OUT OF HAND.

I can only assume that it was pilot error that led Dubhe to the erroneous conclusion that you, B/L, are pro-kiddie-porn with no respect for a highly-regarded non-profit organization.

In fact, to my reading, you are pro-adult-porn (in many but not all its forms) with no respect for Dubhe.
 

He took that quote out of context, though. Completely and entirely. My feeling is, if he's got a beef, say it. And if he's confident of his stand, then quote the other person...actual quote.
 

Yes.
 

There's a real McCarthyite vibe that I didn't and don't care for. Yeah, in general: I agree that people have the right to do their thing, without hassle.

Unless that thing is hassling other people.
 

Your right to swing your arm ends where the tip of my nose begins.
 

Tangentially (or not), this, in my inbox just now:



Unchecked and Unbalanced -- But Now (Somehow) Lawful

Last Friday, a divided 2-1 panel of the D.C. Circuit let the Bush administration get away with one of its seemingly countless efforts to circumvent Congress' lawmaking authority, dealing a blow to privacy interests in the process. Written by Reagan appointee David Sentelle and joined by controversial Bush II appointee Janice Rogers Brown, the majority opinion upholds an administration-requested Federal Communications Commission order saying that an act of Congress - the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) - forces broadband internet providers to make it easier to tap into broadband transmissions. In a heated dissent, Carter appointee Harry Edwards persuasively showed that Congress and CALEA had done no such thing. He called the order "gobbledygook," said the FCC was "trying to squeeze authority from a statute that does not give it" and accused the agency of "manufactur[ing] broad new powers out of thin air." If that weren't enough, the decision immediately raised the hackles of CALEA's chief Congressional sponsor.



The chief sponsor of CALEA, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), agreed with Judge Edwards, saying the court flouted congressional intent and stretched a law written for "the telephone system of 1994 to cover the Internet of 2006." ...



American Council on Education v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 05-1404, slip op. (D.C. Circuit June 9, 2006).
 

He took that quote out of context, though. Completely and entirely.

that's the thing, though, jean - there was no quote.

It was more like one of those movie reviews where Roger Ebert says "This film was such an egregious waste of my time that I'd like to throw rocks at the producer!" and the trailer proudly proclaims "This Film...ROCKS...! says Roger Ebert."
 

And you never do find out exactly *which* film we're referring to...

On the plus side, BL, say-hey! apparently they think you're a feminist! You've Arrived.
 

@ap: True that. Makes it all the worse. I just...hate that crap. Hate it. If a person has to make up strawquotes to argue with, don't argue at all. I'd have...something kind of sort of approaching respect for him if he did that.

@Belle/Unchecked and Unbalanced: Jesus on a popsicle stick. Just...*sputter*
 

You're smart. I just went through a big ol' Jacobean drama with yet another of our favorite cast of characters. I do hope that's the last act, but I'm not holding my breath. Well, I said I'm not going to engage her again, and I'm going to hold myself to it, goddamit.
 

b/l - I could have asked, but shit - what was I gonna say: "Hey, bitch/lab! great site! love your work! by the way, did you claim to be pro-kiddie-porn and call NCMEC a crypto-fascist organization?"

and you'd have said "huh?" (because, brilliant you may be, but you'd have had no idea what I'm on about because YOU NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING!)

and my whole point was that I felt I had do my own research to find out how Dubhe could have come to claim what he claimed.

And all that poking was good for me too. ;) I'm not ashamed of the poking. I'll do it again.

I'm not trying to bait (though I guess it might seem like it). I'm trying to squash the growing misconception that non-anti-porners are filthy perverts. and allegations such as Dubhe's are exactly the shit wherein such allegations bloom.
 

I would have loved to be able to say:

a) Dubhe, you're absolutely right. I'll be damned. Now I've seen everything! I never would have believed it until I saw it with my own eyes.

or

b) oh, she meant "anti-crypto-fascist"! see where she went back and edited it? with that big boldface "EDIT" right there? yeah, that was just a typo.

or even

c) that was one of her commenters, some troll named "Luscious_Tween69", not her.

but instead I can only conclude that Dubhe either deliberately misquoted you in an attempt to discredit you (even without naming names), or was so angered by your post that he was unable to see clearly through his crosseyed rage, and really thought he was quoting you correctly.

either way, it's an error easily corrected, should he choose to.
 

I'm sorry, my mistake.

The NCMEC is idiotic, and reporting to them is cryptoproto facist.

The difference is indeed vast.

I also stand corrected on the point of the comments thread. Although I still wonder about what a person thinks of child porn if that person thinks reporting child porn is cryptoproto facist and the organization that would investigate it is idiotic.
 

The organization that exists specifically to investigate child pornography and locate missing children, mind you, is idiotic.

So child porn is bad, but only idiots actually try to investigate it and only amature, pretense-laden facists report people who want to buy it.
 

I have posted a correction.
 

there are several reasons why an organization may be deemed "idiotic", even if one supports all or part of the organization's mission:

i.e. - I don't want crystal meth available in front of elementary schools. But I think that the Partnership for a Drug-Free America is absolutely idiotic nonetheless. Does my thinking that the organization is idiotic mean that I think drugs are GREAT and that everyone should take them?

of course not.

Here's another example. I am solidly pro-abortion, and NARAL, to me, is utterly idiotic.

An organization can waste money, come up with asinine and ineffectual ad campaigns, fall victim to internal power struggles, lose focus, become tangled in funding issues - there are a hundred different ways for an organization to choke on its own shit and become ineffective and idiotic.

I think what B/L was saying (among other things) is that children are capable of having an experience which adults would call "sexual", without first being abused or exploited, simply as a consequence of being alive and human. I don't think she once even alluded to the idea that she thought taking pictures of such experience, or sharing said pictures (i.e. kiddie porn) was a good idea.

If you want to read nefarious intent into B/L's post, that's your right. I can't stop you. You have a lot of good reasons to insist you see nefarious intent. But, it would make a stronger case for you if nefarious intent were actually present, which in my opinion, it ain't.
 

So child porn is bad, but only idiots actually try to investigate it and only amature, pretense-laden facists report people who want to buy it.

I disagree.

I got the impression only that the methods of investigation used by Cybertipline and y'all were idiotic, and maybe that by extension Cybertipline and y'all were idiots.

she also said the feds were idiots.

I can't argue with that.

re proto-fascists - I think she's saying that internet searches are nothing more (or less) than thoughts, and prosecuting one's internet searches amounts to nothing more (or less) than prosecuting thoughtcrimes, and of course you've read the book 1984 and you know why the idea that thoughtcrimes are prosecutable really bothers some people.
 

people like me, for example.
 

What EL oh boy'd.

Let us know, Dubhe, if you decide to expand your zealous "amature" efforts from the War On Kiddie Pr0n to the War on Terror. Hey, every effort helps, right? The Fedz R R Friendz!

certainly no patriarchy involved there! at the highest echelons of the Bush-appointed government!
 

(also see: War On Drugs, War On Satanic Cults, War On Commies...)
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

internet searches are nothing more (or less) than thoughts, and prosecuting one's internet searches amounts to nothing more (or less) than prosecuting thoughtcrimes

Not only that, but speaking as a self-proclaimed expert on search, the query terms generally are nonpartisan.

How can you differentiate between the fetishist and the researcher/student who's writing a paper on why porn is bad?

The right combination of naughty terms, and I could easily find the Meese Report. In fact, it may actually be quicker and more effective to search on some of the terms within this page of the report itself thus linking directly there, rather than searching for the Meese Report by name (which gets everybody who's written about the Meese Report).
 

Exactly, Lis.
 

But, clearly, everyone who writes such naughty words *must* have Nefarious Purposes. Except, uhhhhh, for BB and Dubhe, I guess...
 

Oh, dig this..this is the entirity of Dubhe's so-called "correction":


It has been brought to my attention that at the tail end of my most recent Sitemeter post, Reluctancy, Purpose, and Sitemeter, I misquoted and thereby misrepresented the position of another blogger.

That post has been edited to reflect the accurate quotation and stated positions of said blogger.

Thank you,
~Dubhe


Of course, he doesn't even bother to mention "said blogger" by name, nor to explicitly state exactly how he mistated and misrepresented "said blogger"...and he certainly doesn't publically repudiate the "pro-kiddie-porn" smack he threw at her.

Karl Rove may have a job for you, Dubhe....you seem like his kind of guy.

The can of SmackDog Whoopass (TM) is already on standby....just give me some time.


Anthony
 

Hello, Anthony! I am honored that you dropped by to comment.

We are civil here. Civil civil civil. Civil to the point of pointlessness. Mind your scare quotes, sir; rules is rules, after all.

I believe (though I could be wrong) that his correction is sincerely given. But I will admit to being severely sarcasm-impaired, so maybe I don't get the joke.

all that aside, I am so pleased you came by, Anthony. SmackDog Whoop-ass is my favorite brand of canned Whoop-ass.
 

the correction, in part, reads:
*(and yes, that's a direct quote from a feminist who, while emphatically not pro-kiddie-porn, believes that reporting someone being an accessory to child rape to law enforcement is "cryptoproto facist bullshit".) (emphasis mine)

thereby repudiating, unless he's going for the "doth protest too much" thing.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

And by the way: I'm looking at the Cyber Tipline website right now.

http://www.cybertipline.com/

Whatever you think of its methods, nowhere is there an indication that "please, I got this string of naughty language on my Sitemeter, you must go track down the IP address right away!" is something they'd be interested in. They mostly have to do with, you know, child prostitution, enticement of an actual child, child sex tourism...

The closest possibilities would be:

The Possession, Manufacture, and Distribution of Child Pornography

and

Misleading Domain Name

You still, unless I'm sorely mistaken, need to have, like, the actual *sites,* though, not just a wild goose chase on some anonymous slob *looking* for such sites.

I mean: there is a difference between finding a website which actually tells you how to make a pipe bomb, and finding a search string in your sitemeter stats that says "pipe bomb how to make kill them all hahaha" One does see that, right? That was a rhetorical question, by the way.
 

"You can't say 'bomb' on a plane"

"I didn't say I had a bomb---"

"You can't say 'bomb' on a plane."

"What if I'm in the army? What if I'm a bombadeer? Bombbombbombbombbombombbomb..."
 

What did he say?”

“Your Honor, he said blah-blah-blah.”

The judge: “He said -blah-blah-blah?-”

Then the guy really yentaed it up:

“That’s right, I couldn’t believe it. Up on the stage, in front of women and a mixed audience, he said *blah-blah-blah.*”

The judge: “This I never heard, blah-blah-blah. He said *blah-blah-blah*?”

“He said *blah-blah-blah!* I’m not gonna lie to you.”

…The D.A. “The guy said blah-blah-blah. Look at him. He’s smug. He’s not gonna repent. He’s *glad* he said blah-blah-blah!”

Then I dug something: they sort of *liked* saying blah-blah-blah. Because they said it a few extra times. They really got *so* involved, sayign blah-blah-blah. The bailiff is yelling,

“What’d he say!”

“*Shut up*, you blah-blah-blah.”

They were *yelling* it in the court.

“He said blah-blah-blah.”

“*BLAH-BLAH-BLAH!”

“*Goddamn!* It’s GOOD to say blah-blah-blah.”

“THAT BLAH-BLAH-BLAH!”


--"The Essential Lenny Bruce"
 

("JEHOVAH! JEHOVAH! JEHOVAH!!!")
 

Poking (ahem) around the Internets, I came across this. It would appear to be another "amature" who is very concerned about the exploitation and kidnapping of children, with many links to many organizations that deal with such matters. Here it would seem they take NCMEC to task:

http://nvfc.us/blog/archives/category/ncmec/

The following written below has my criticism of this agency and their continuous mistakes that are made that seems to be on a daily basis. It was written after this last weekend of mistakes the way NCMEC handled Kirstie-Raie ward and how they mishandled Kayla Reed who is now dead. I have published and unpublished this entry as I do not want to seem critical on this agency that is for helping children. I have decided that this information needs to be seen and if the NCMEC can not do the job right then it is time to get a real agency that will stand up for our children.

The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children has so many errors and continues to have errors that I feel that these errors need to be dealt with. Now I first started noticing these errors long before I noticed that Elizabeth Smart was still showing up a a missing person as of June 2005 on the feeds from the NCMEC.

I am not talking about errors one in a while, they have made so many errors over the last six months that I have caught that I wonder how many more errors that go by undetected. Spelling errors galore on names and cities and these spelling errors are on the same flyer. Missing persons classified as runaways and flyers that clearly have the person on the flyer with their name and statistics listed as an Unidentified child. Not being nit picky here but flyers are sent out in bunches and many of them include incorrect information on them. Then there will be no flyers for a few days only to get a bunch sent out again. I have no idea what criteria they use to determine when to send out flyers and I do not think that the NCMEC has any better idea when they do. It is like someone comes in to work and just emails out a bunch and then leaves. This system they use is flawed terribly and our children deserve a better system, one that will not fail them with having false information out on them.

...Such is the case with Kayla Reed, I did not receive notice from the NCMEC until January 10th, 2006. Kayla was first reported as a runaway on December 3rd, 2005 and then updated a few days later to a missing person. More than an entire month went by before the notice was sent out by the NCMEC. Kayla’s body was found January 10th, 2006 the very same day that the NCMEC sent out their notice to me. Were they covering their ass because they had not sent out her flyer? Law enforcement had not identified her at that time but I am sure they felt strongly it was her. A member at Websleuths that goes by the name of Fourboys posted Kayla as missing on January 18th, 2006. This same person has a forum called Angels Missing.com and their information is very accurate and up-to-date. I assume that this person also did not get a timely poster for Kayla Reed.

This warehousing of children has got to stop. Several state sites call themselves clearinghouses and they also have problems. Many are ready to jump on the DHS departments for all their mistakes but the NCMEC seems to be an agency that many are aware of their faults but it is almost a hush-hush situation when it comes to the NCMEC. They are federally and privately funded. The Department of Justice (DOJ) also funds them and their mistakes run rampant.


***

Well, even if that's so, I'm sure they're right on top of things when it comes to suspected pr0n, no mismanagement whatsoever. Because that is more important than anything else.

And, I for one feel completely safe and secure knowing that this outfit is overseen by the Department of Justice, as it is currently presided over.
 

The first time we sent in a report, they called us, on the phone, within ten minutes, at 9pm on a saturday night, to ask us for more information and to tell us to keep sending what we could.

That was sort of in the posts at the time. But nobody's words mean anything but yours, anyway.

Lis: The Pete Townsend defense, huh? Funny, but actual researches report the stuff they find to the authorities. They have to. if you want a crime being committed, and see evidence of a crime, and don't report it, that's called "accessory after the fact".

I'm sorry that reporting people as being accesories to child rape offends you.
 

Belledame: Re: Gov't Patriarchy:

So battered women shouldn't go to the authorities because they're all about patriarchy?

Rape victims shouldn't tell the police anything?

If a child is kidnapped, and I have information, I'm a patriarchal tool if I bring it up to the FBI?

Nice.
 

The first paragraph was the Belledame, as well.
 

first paragraph of what?
 

The first time we sent in a report, they called us, on the phone, within ten minutes, at 9pm on a saturday night, to ask us for more information and to tell us to keep sending what we could.

That is interesting. What did they say they were going to do with the information?

Now I have this horrible feeling that some day the feds are going to knock down my door because I frequently search for The Den using the terms "biting" + "beaver".

I mean, that's the name of the site, sure, but still, it sounds dirty and violent.

I am uninformed - are these people law enforcement, or deputized by law enforcement? what kind of authority does Cybertipline have over me, the internet searcher?

Should I get a lawyer now or wait for the feds to come get me?
 

*rolls eyes*

Please, AP, don't play stupid.

They have nothing to do with porn users, because PORN is not a CRIME.

They're the National Center for Missing and Exploited CHILDREN, for crying out loud.

Are you hunting for "13 year old whore cunt", finding it, browsing the site for a while, and establishing a pattern of behavior? No? Then don't worry about it.

They take the searcher's IP, check it against a database of registered sex offenders, and if it comes back clean, flag it for further interest. If that IP shows up in other reports, or is observed accessing child pornography, then it's flagged again with a higher priority, until a pattern of behavior is established.

If not, then they leave it flagged for a while, and dump it. They only have so much database space after all.

Also, they want the search result page so they can see if any actual child porn sites came up on it.
 

so Cybertipline = National Center for Missing etc.?

and these good citizens collect data on searchers-for-child-pornography and do what with the data?

give it to the police, on the assumption that searchers-for-child-pornography are also creators-of-child-pornography?

give it to the police, on the assumption that searchers-for-child-pornography are also possessors-of-child-pornography?

give it to the police, on the assumption that searchers-for-child-pornography are also abusers and exploiters of children?

and what do the police do with this information? do they make arrests based on it?

(I hate it when people think I'm "playing" stupid. I'm not a poser, y'all. I keep it real!)
 

First off....my apologies, AP, for the drama. I wasn't trying to deliberately violate your humble abode's rules of order and decorum, I probably just got a bit snarky and yanky this morning.

I will save my fury for my own blog, where I will be free to give Duhle and the rest of the Biting Beaver krewe the full strength dose on their misguided campaign against bad Google searchers.

Sorry for prematurly exploding the stink bomb here...and I do appreciate the welcome.


Anthony
 

and you don't get any sort of "1984"-ish feeling about all this, Dubhe?

or are any misgivings you may have on it overcome by your desire to protect innocent children?

(yes, it's an honest question. Honi soit qu'i mal y pense, y'all.)
 

Dubhe:

So what if somebody is researcing those areas? Hmmm? Who makes the call?

And where'd you get that definition of 'accessory after the fact'? Just curious
 

anthony - it's cool. It's just a weird "thing" with me. it's not like I'm going to ban anyone or mod comments.

the most I can do is administer the scolding of a lifetime. oh such a scolding!
 

Funny, but actual researches report the stuff they find to the authorities. They have to.
And how do you know that isn't happening here?
You know nothing about who is using those search terms or why.
I have this sudden vision of you completely exposing an FBI or police investigation...

if you want a crime being committed, and see evidence of a crime, and don't report it, that's called "accessory after the fact". I'm sorry that reporting people as being accesories to child rape offends you.
But what's the crime? All you have is that somebody conducted a search using certain words. You have no evidence that said person found anything (the fact they wind up on your site makes it sound like a fishing expedition) or has anything illegal on their computer or that any rapes are being committed by the people who visit your website.
 

Ah...ap... sorry.

I'll take it outside.
 

@ jean - It's okay. it's damn hard for anyone to remain civil when discussing such a highly-charged issue.
 

So, Dubhe - I understand that by calling in your sitemeter data to this agency, you are helping the authorities establish patterns of behavior.

to what end are these patterns of behavior established? what do they prove, and to whom do they prove it?

have any of your contributions led to an arrest?

how can you be sure in your heart of hearts that you're fighting the good fight, and not just generating piles of paperworks and "flags" to be purged at a later date?

or do you just think you have to do something, and this is better than nothing?

I'm not trying to hassle you or play stupid. I'm just trying to figure out a)how it's useful to report sitemeter data and b) how it's useful to report the data to this agency.
 

anthony - I think someone thought I was you recently. how funny is that?
 

maybe it's a good idea to report someone's search history if the contents of that search history constitute a parole violation...maybe...if that could be the case.

I could see that, if the authorities were hunting for parole violators. but would an internet search constitute a violation of parole?
 

You just hit on one of my problems with the whole Megan's List lifetime reporting of sex offenders.

A parole board should determine who's a danger of re-offending and who the community needs warning about. It shouldn't be solely based on the charge with no room for judgment.

Why am I in so much more danger from a closet-case who had consensual sex in a rest area than from a released axe murderer?
Yet the former are effectively publically branded for life, with restrictions on where they can live and every vigilante in town knowing their address, and the latter are allowed to slip back into society!?

This country has some huge hangups...
 

Um, are we all missing the fact that child rape is a crime, and veiwing evidence of that rape without reporting it is also a crime? Not to mention that possessing pictures of children being raped are crimes in and of themselves?

If a university is doing some odd research project based on googling "six year olds sucking dick", then the government probably already KNOWS because they're reporting their findings. Even if they're saving all their findings to report at the end (for whatever reason), why does everyone seem to act like the feds start busting in doors rather than, you know, INVESTIGATING?

Furthermore, it's nice to know whose rights are more important. It's far more important that someone somewhere may plausibly be able to search for "mom daughter whore lesbo video" for a legitimate research project that the government lost the paperwork on (I hear that happens alot with Mary Jane research, too) to be able to collect their 'data' without anyone knowing than it is to try to prevent small girls from being raped by adult men for fun and profit.

It's nice to know that a vanishingly small minority of adult men have rights that, as always, completely trump the rights of thousands upon thousands of girls. But no, THAT'S not Patriarchy at ALL.

Long Story Short:
(A) They'll explain it to you if you call 'em and ask
(B) Possessing Child Porn is a crime
(C) Searching for child porn as a pattern of behavior probably means you are at least possessing it,
(D) Having evidence that a crime was committed and not reporting that crime (child rape, in this case) makes you an accessory,
(E1) Reporting someone searching for child porn could save childern, but also it could
(E2) Put a legitimate, if absent-minded, university professor who's doing sanctioned research at risk of an inconvenient phone call, and put his dean at risk of having to deal with an inconvenient phone call or two.

Well, convinced me. Better save that poor professor! The kids can fend for themselves. Sorry about all this. I just didn't think it all the way through.
 

Somehow, Duhbe translates a search on "mom daughter..." into childporn.

Infantalizing women much?

I'm nearly 36 and I'm still my mother's daughter.
 

Dubhe - your snideness will not protect you.

you're not sorry at all. you're allowed to make your point without apologizing, so why blow smoke up my ass? Seriously - don't waste the keystrokes.

I am convinced that you think you're doing God's Work (so to speak) with all this, and to try to convince you otherwise is folly.

So you're turning in people who you have reason to believe are accessories (to something - rape of young girls, you seem to hope) after the fact. I get that. Have any arrests been made due to the evidence you dig up? how much weight does this information have in court? is it enough to nail the lid shut on a dangerous criminal's coffin?

(not for nothin' but who here has read The Crucible?)
 

My sincere apologies, AP, but this stupidity just cannot go unanswered.

[quote from Dubhe]
Um, are we all missing the fact that child rape is a crime, and veiwing evidence of that rape without reporting it is also a crime? Not to mention that possessing pictures of children being raped are crimes in and of themselves? [/Dubhe]

Ahhh, Dubhe, dewd, you are missing the point entirely. Yes, child rape is a crime. So is adult rape. Hell, so is consensual sex with a non-legal minor. But sticking some words onto a Google search engine is NOT a crime, even if those words refer tangently to those illegal acts. Otherwise, you over at Biting Beaver could be held as liable for promoting child rape with your posting of those search engine terms as would any other blogger. But of course, since you are feminists working the vice beat for the authorities, that would be no problem, ehhhh??


[Dubhe]
If a university is doing some odd research project based on googling "six year olds sucking dick", then the government probably already KNOWS because they're reporting their findings. Even if they're saving all their findings to report at the end (for whatever reason), why does everyone seem to act like the feds start busting in doors rather than, you know, INVESTIGATING?[/Dubhe]

Probably because, perhaps, you realle DO want the government to knock on their doors and arrest them for child rape?? And besides, thanks to the Supremes today, they don't even have to knock on the door anymore, they can just break in without a warrant and trample all in your computer for bad searches. But only guilty child molestors ever search for such things, right???

[Dubhe]
Furthermore, it's nice to know whose rights are more important. It's far more important that someone somewhere may plausibly be able to search for "mom daughter whore lesbo video" for a legitimate research project that the government lost the paperwork on (I hear that happens alot with Mary Jane research, too) to be able to collect their 'data' without anyone knowing than it is to try to prevent small girls from being raped by adult men for fun and profit. [/Dubhe]

First off, most abusers of girls (I guess that abusers of young boys are either exempted from prosecution, or they are prosecuted under a different statute..probably under the "homosexual menace" portion) don't need Google searches to locate their victims; they are perfectly able to find them on their own, especially since most cases of abuse are where the victim already knows the assailant. Second, what's to say that those who really are out to use these searches to find easy marks don't run under the cover of "preventing" such materials...similar to undercover drug dealers getting immunity and getting paid to snitch on others??? Would you be so willing to be a cover for real pedophiles, Dubhe???

[Dubhe]
It's nice to know that a vanishingly small minority of adult men have rights that, as always, completely trump the rights of thousands upon thousands of girls. But no, THAT'S not Patriarchy at ALL.
[/Dubhe]


Ahhhhhh...not really, Dubhe....as you said, child rape is still illegal, and victims already have a strong incentive to report real abusers to the authorities. But there is a big difference between capturing REAL live pedophiles and other nonconsensual sex offenders, and using the law to entrap innocent Internet lurkers into such suggestive searches to pad their arrest numbers for mere publicity sakes. The latter does absolutely NOTHING to deal with real issues of sexual abuse.


Long Story Short:
(A) They'll explain it to you if you call 'em and ask
(B) Possessing Child Porn is a crime
(C) Searching for child porn as a pattern of behavior probably means you are at least possessing it,
(D) Having evidence that a crime was committed and not reporting that crime (child rape, in this case) makes you an accessory,
(E1) Reporting someone searching for child porn could save childern, but also it could
(E2) Put a legitimate, if absent-minded, university professor who's doing sanctioned research at risk of an inconvenient phone call, and put his dean at risk of having to deal with an inconvenient phone call or two.

Well, convinced me. Better save that poor professor! The kids can fend for themselves. Sorry about all this. I just didn't think it all the way through.
[/Dubhe]

Be careful of what you ask for, Dubhe....I remember quite strongly the case during the Meese Commission years of a man who ended up entrapped unintentionally in a child porn sting set up by the Justice Department merely because he decided to answer a ton of snail mail spam sent to him by the Justice Dept's sting operation. The only inconvienence he suffered for his troubles was to committ suicide.

Just a minor "inconvenience" to punish men for their evil sexual fantasies, I guess. Better to let several innocents punished or dead so that all women can live in peace, you know.

I see now why BB and Dim like you so much.


Anthony
 

Whoa. Coming into this thread late... only about halfway into catching up on all the comments. But, I have to say, I cannot believe some of the conclusions Dubhe is jumping to here!! And I don't mean that in a snarky way - I am serious! The cognitive dissonance that it must take to continually make some of the leaps exhibited here... well, my mind boggles.

I also wonder if he realizes that collecting an amalgamation of search engine queries is basically useless information, and could potentially distract law enforcement from doing things that are actually effective at catching predators.

(Full disclosure: I work in the IT industry.)
 

Awww, lookee here....seems like Dubhe is really Dim in disquise!!

Why am I not particularly suprised at that???


Anthony
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

He changed the name a while back, I believe. Personally I liked the old moniker better; it had a certain mot juste-ness about it.

As long as you're here, Dubhe: am I right in thinking I remember you saying something about nudist colonies also being hotbeds for child molesters?
 

Amber: I believe that point has been expressed to the gentleman several times, in point of fact. But by all means, give it another shot.

>If a university is doing some odd research project based on googling "six year olds sucking dick", then the government probably already KNOWS because they're reporting their findings.>

That's so sweet! Of COURSE they do. Certainly the government is right on top of every research project that any university would make. Certainly, any sensible person would be sure to let the government know before embarking on such a project of *entering a search string into google.* As well they should.
Freedom isn't free, after all.

And the government never makes a mistake, of course, as Anthony notes; and innocent people *never* get their doors knocked down and their lives ruined because some happy asshole decided to go on a half-competent witch hunt.

By the way: where have you been these past five and a half years? Or, like, ever? Just curious.


And thank you, by the way, for providing that concrete example viz the hypothetical six year olds; much like a good old-fashioned revival preacher who reminds us, always, to think on the fires and sufferings of hell, you're right in there with the imagery as always, bless your heart.
 

>I hear that happens alot with Mary Jane research, too

That took me a second. Mary Jane would be mary jane, the smokable substance, not Mary Jane the poor exploited porn star whose disgustingly tragic exploits you were planning to relate in great, breathless detail, right?

If so, shall we take this to mean that the government *also* knows exactly what it's doing (i.e. the Right Thing) when it comes to the War On Drugs? groovy, baby.
 

Just nice to know whose rights you find more important, is all. The rights of men to fantasize about fucking pre-teens, and to collect illegal pictures of pre-teens being fucked (actually, raped) by adult men trumps, as always, the rights of pre-teens to have some legal entity trying to prosecute their rapists and remove their images from the internet.

And, seriously, it can't be a complete waste of time and a distraction to law enforcement while simultaneously being a lurking threat to the freedoms of porn-loving men. Unless you're saying it'll just let the child porn collectors go while arresting the "normal" porn watches, specifically and intentionally.

As for nudists:
Nikki Craft says it better than I can.

Lis: Re: "Mother daughter": So you expect me to believe that the majority of people using that search term are looking for a middle-aged woman and a thirty-year-old woman? Do you really think we're that stupid?
 

Lis: Re: "Mother daughter": So you expect me to believe that the majority of people using that search term are looking for a middle-aged woman and a thirty-year-old woman?

Try setting the younger age between 18 (which is legal) and 25, and yes. That is what folks are looking for. With the "older" woman around 40.

I do actually read (nonvisual prose fiction) porn, including some male-oriented, including some which have involved that kink, and usually that's how it's portrayed.

Do you really think we're that stupid?
Well, yes, but not for that reason. 8} [Sorry, easy cheap shot.]

But I have evidence to back up my justifications that mother-daughter kinks aren't necessarily childporn. Can you say the same about your assumptions?
 

Lis: Re: "Mother daughter": So you expect me to believe that the majority of people using that search term are looking for a middle-aged woman and a thirty-year-old woman?

Well, when you start playing the game of trying to discern what people are thinking (otherwise known as, trying to read minds) you just into a colossal waste of time. You will never be able to know for sure what someone else is thinking, what their motivations are for a particular statement, web search, whatever. Trying to do so is pretty futile and exhausting. There are better things to focus one's time on - like prosecuting actual predators.
 

lis and dubhe - shame on you both.

no, I don't care who started it!

scold scold scold.
 

>Do you really think we're that stupid?>

(biting tongue, hard)
 

Lis: Try doing the search, see what kinds of places you come up with.

Also, in general, I'm glad I'm getting a lesson in the distinction between being pro-kiddie-porn and being pro-men's-right-to-look-at-kiddie-porn. I was not aware the two things were as different as they appear to be.
 

Oh, yeah, and: a lot of people who type in such searches? They're looking for--or at least settle for--*written* porn. Text. No actual humans involved. Stories about incest. Stories about rape. Stories about necrophilia. Stories about pigfucking. *Stories.* I'd be happy to provide a link to some of the mega story-sites which include such categories (no, they aren't my cup of tea), except, you know, I really think you might be capable of researching *that* much all on your very own.

(You do know how to Google, don't you? You just put your fingers together and type).

And, Dubhe? Ponder this allegory, son. Ponder it well:

***

A man goes to a psychologist. The psychologist starts with the classic inkblot test. "So, tell me what you see."

"I see...two people having sex."

(makes note) "And this one?"

"A dirty old man, staring at a woman. He's got an erection, look here. Look how frightened she is! Oh, run! Run!!"

"Uh huh. And this one?"

"It looks like an orgy. A filthy, depraved, Satanic orgy."

"I see. And this one, what does this one look like to you?"

"Oh, filthy! Filthy!! I can't even say it out loud. Here, let me whisper in your ear (does so)"

...and so on. At the end of the session, the doc sez:

"Well, Mr. Blahblah, it is apparent to me that you have a rather morbid fixation on sex."

"Me! ME??!!! But, doc, YOU'RE the one showing me all the dirty pictures!"

***

If nothing else, D, consider the *first* sentence in that story.
 

--wait a minute! YOU'RE doing those searches, Dubhe? You already ARE? yourSELF? YOU are? and you've SEEN "those places?" You've...clicked on them.

I'm terribly sorry, sir, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to turn you in.
 

one brief look at the Nikki Craft site. so, okay: it's completely fuckwitted, but it isn't fuckwittery original to yourself. cool.

You know...agh.

Dubhe, am I correct in thinking that you were raised in a strict, punitive sort of religion? Sin, hellfire, the whole bit? Just wondering/
 

Lis: Try doing the search, see what kinds of places you come up with.

This after you dismiss the research defense?

Is this your attempt at entrapment?

If not, to which authorities should I inform that I'm doing these searches solely as an exercise to avoid being branded as a perv?

Have you done such searches yourself? How did you differentiate yourself in the eyes of statwatchers from the kinds of searchers you report?

Besides, why do I need to conduct searches. I told you, I've read mother/daughter fics where both are overage. Plenty of them exist. No real women harmed (except possibly the writer and reader); no minors involved in the story.
 

Mother and daughter fics, again, as in (I'm presuming, Lis): *text.*

but uh yeah. at this point I'm hardly going to go on a serious search for hardcore kiddie pr0n photos and videos, even for research purposes; who knows? Maybe I'll be one of the lucky slobs who ends up with a file of my very own. For all I know I've got one already.

I could call the government and clear it with them first, I suppose. (Is that what you did, D?) I'm not officially with a university or anything, but I'm sure if I make it perfectly clear to them in advance that I'm on *their* side, certainly not likely to use any kiddie pics I find as wanking material myself, they'll understand. Hold on. Oh, the line's busy. I'll have to try again later. Sorry.
 

Yup, belle, that's correct:

fic, short for work of fiction. Words without images.
Pure text...
(...impure thoughts)

And yay for imagination, for coming up with far more vivid and interesting imagery than any photograph.
 

Since I've made my points on Dim...errrrr, Dubhe...pretty clear at my own blog, and I feel no need to debate parrots mimicking broken records, I believe I'll respect AP's wishes and take myself out of this debate. Seems like Lis and Bell are holding up quite well without my assistance.


Anthony
 

I did mean to say "Lis and Belle" of course...sorry.


Anthony
 

Of course you realize that the Den has a couple of pieces on, what was it now? "fantasizing responsibly." So I wouldn't be sure that you're off the hook just on account of it's text.

fortunately Lily Law doesn't see it that way.

at the moment, anyway.
 

"fantasizing responsibly"

Oh fer fuck's sake. LOL!!!
 

Okay, Belle, I had to see it to believe it for myself - not to cast any doubt on you, of course, but because "fantasizing responsibly" is such a ludicrous phrase. So I did a Google search of The Den for that phrase, and here it is, in the flesh (as it were)... the actual post. They really did use that phrase!

Look at some of these choice outtakes...

1) Are your fantasies consistent with who you believe yourself to be?
2) Can you truly respect and honor your partner/s while still engaging in these fantasies?
3) Would the person/people in your fantasy object to the treatment that you're giving them?
4) Would they feel endangered by you knowing what your fantasy was?
5) Are you holding yourself accountable for your thoughts and fantasies?

Shame is an excellent indicator that you are not fantasizing responsibly and need to apply the above questions to the prurient behaviors your mind shows you and others engaging in.

Now, as an aside, I’d like to address using a “faceless stranger” in your fantasies. After applying the principles outlined in this post, it might turn out to be ok.

Very creepy stuff... reminds me a little too much of some crazy fundie books I read (and did book reviews of).

It should also be noted that they Googled "turtle sex" to find the cutesy picture that accompanies the post. I'm afraid I may have to report that to PETA. I'm very concerned about the safety of the innocent turtles.
 

It sounds like the fucking Red Guard *and* the fundies *and* the Scientologists.

"Shame is an excellent indicator that you are not fantasizing responsibly and need to apply the above questions to the prurient behaviors your mind shows you and others engaging in."

sweet weeping dicksplitting jesus mary and joseph the carpenter from brooklyn heights.
 

At this juncture, I would like to introduce the works of Robert Jay Lifton, who is a researcher/writer in the field of political psychology, and is best known for his work studying totalitarian structures both at the government structure and less formally (among his subjects: the psychological meaning of nuclear bombs and living in a nuclear age, the Nazi doctors, "thought reform" at the height of the Cultural Revolution, the cult Aum Shinrinkyo--you know, who dumped poison gas into the Tokyo subways a few years back). He arrived at a few criteria for determining totalistic/cultlike behavior in a group, which goes outside of any particular ideology or creed. (Other people using similar criteria have also considered it in the context of domestic relationships and other parts of the "private" sphere).

http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studycult/study_lifton2.htm

"Two main concerns should inform our moral and psychological perspective on cults: the dangers of ideological totalism, or what I would also call fundamentalism; and the need to protect civil liberties.
totalism and fundamentalism in forms that are political, religious or both...

Certain psychological themes which recur in these various historical contexts also arise in the study of cults. Cults can be identified by three characteristics:

1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;
2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;
3. economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

Milieu Control
The first method characteristically used by ideological totalism is milieu control: the control of all communication within a given environment. In such an environment individual autonomy becomes a threat to the group. There is an attempt to manage an individual's inner communication. Milieu control is maintained and expressed by intense group process, continuous psychological pressure, and isolation by geographical distance, unavailability of transportation, or even physical restraint. Often the group creates an increasingly intense sequence of events such as seminars, lectures and encounters which makes leaving extremely difficult, both physically and psychologically. Intense milieu control can contribute to a dramatic change of identity which I call doubling: the formation of a second self which lives side by side with the former one, often for a considerable time. When the milieu control is lifted, elements of the earlier self may be reasserted...

The term loading the language' refers to literalism and a tendency to deify words or images. A simplified, cliche-ridden language can exert enormous psychological force reducing every issue in a complicated life to a single set of slogans that are said to embody the truth as a totality. The principle of doctrine over person' is invoked when cult members sense a conflict between what they are experiencing and what dogma says they should experience. The internalized message of the totalistic environment is that one must negate that personal experience on behalf of the truth of the dogma. Contradictions become associated with guilt: doubt indicates one's own deficiency or evil.

Perhaps the most significant characteristic of totalistic movements is what I call "dispensing of existence." Those who have not seen the light and embraced the truth are wedded to evil, tainted, and therefore in some sense, usually metaphorical, lack the right to exist. That is one reason why a cult member threatened with being cast into outer darkness may experience a fear of extinction or collapse. Under particularly malignant conditions, the dispensing of existence is taken literally; in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and elsewhere, people were put to death for alleged doctrinal shortcomings. In the People's Temple mass suicide-murder in Guyana, a cult leader presided over the literal dispensing of existence by means of a suicidal mystique he himself had made a central theme in the group's ideology...

Historical Context
Totalism should always be considered within a specific historical context. A significant feature of contemporary life is the historical (or psycho historical) dislocation resulting from a loss of the symbolic structures that organize ritual transitions in the life cycle, and a decay of belief systems concerning religion, authority, marriage, family, and death. One function of cults is to provide a group initiation rite for the transition to early adult life, and the formation of an adult identity outside the family. Cult members have good reasons for seeing attempts by the larger culture to make such provisions as hypocritical or confused.

In providing substitute symbols for young people, cults are both radical and reactionary. They are radical because they suggest rude questions about middle-class family life and American political and religious values in general. They are reactionary because they revive pre-modern structures of authority and sometimes establish fascist patterns of internal organization.

Furthermore, in their assault on autonomy and self-definition some cults reject a liberating historical process that has evolved with great struggle and pain in the West since the Renaissance. (Cults must be considered individually in making such judgments. Historical dislocation is one source of what I call the "protean style." This involves a continuous psychological experimentation with the self, a capacity for endorsing contradictory ideas at the same time, and a tendency to change one's ideas, companions and way of life with relative ease. Cults embody a contrary restricted style,' a flight from experimentation and the confusion of a protean world. These contraries are related: groups and individuals can embrace a protean and a restricted style in turn. For instance, the so-called hippie ethos of the 1960s and 1970s has been replaced by the present so-called Yuppie preoccupation with safe jobs and comfortable incomes. For some people, experimentation with a cult is part of the protean search..."
 

and I would like to single out this bit for individual consideration:

"In such an environment individual autonomy becomes a threat to the group. There is an attempt to manage an individual's inner communication."
 

and this bit:

"The principle of doctrine over person' is invoked when cult members sense a conflict between what they are experiencing and what dogma says they should experience. The internalized message of the totalistic environment is that one must negate that personal experience on behalf of the truth of the dogma. Contradictions become associated with guilt: doubt indicates one's own deficiency or evil."
 

There're also the theories of Alice Miller, who can be a bit Janie One-Note herself, but does imo make some excellent observations regarding the ways in which we, even as grownups, will take on everything and anything "out there" in the entire world in order to avoid confronting the deepest, earliest wounds when we were most powerless, at the hands of dear ol' Mom and Dad. At the hands of the people who had (we thought, probably correctly, if incoherently) the power to not just hurt us but annihilate us.

Go out on your white horse, running to the rescue of every abstract Cause, every concrete *other* woman, child. Kill all those *other* Bad Guys out there; they're easier to get a grip on than the internalised Bad Mom And Dad, who unlike the real ones, can and will live forever unless you get in there, preferably with help, and really confront them. Project your hurt out into the world, onto those other people; fight their fight; merge with them, mentally, at least. It's too much to bear all alone.
 

You know, not to get too tangential here, but I had really only been peripherally aware of Nikki Craft.

Doing some follow-up viz the nudist/pedophile business as well as some other of her activities/beliefs...

Well. The things you learn.

More later.
 

Didn't Nikki Craft make some kind of feminist art in a public place (possibly a library) involving pouring chocolate syrup all over library materials?

I'm all for feminist art, and public art, and public feminist art, AND the right to voice objections about the sexual exploitation of women's bodies in print media - but for me her message got all scrambled up in her medium. I don't really remember much about what she was trying to say. All that sticks in my mind is that I think she wrecked library books.

NO EXCUSE for wrecking library books. I don't care if it's Mein Kampf or 120 Days of Sodom or Care and Feeding of Your Underage Sex Slave - once it's got that little dewey decimal tag on the spine, it becomes somehow sacred.

I know. My priorities are mad screwed up.

But I often wonder what the world would be like if the library at Alexandria hadn't been sacked.
 

Didn't Nikki Craft make some kind of feminist art in a public place (possibly a library) involving pouring chocolate syrup all over library materials?

I'd never heard of that, but looked it up and you are correct.

I found further details on Wikipedia for Craft and Krims (creator of said book)

NO EXCUSE for wrecking library books. I don't care if it's Mein Kampf or 120 Days of Sodom or Care and Feeding of Your Underage Sex Slave - once it's got that little dewey decimal tag on the spine, it becomes somehow sacred.

I know. My priorities are mad screwed up.

Hey, you get no disagreement from me. :)
 

If your priorities are screwed up, then so are mine!
 

Another great slogan from Nancy Buttons:

"They got the library at Alexandria -- they're not getting mine"
 

from Wikipedia's page on Les Krims:

On March 31, 1980, anti-porn activist Nikki Craft destroyed a portfolio of The Incredible Case Of The Stack O'Wheat Murders owned by a university library by tearing the pictures to pieces and pouring chocolate syrup over them [1]. She faced felony conspiracy and malicious mischief charges at University of California, Santa Cruz, however charges were later dismissed and she was nominated for a chancellor's award by her arresting officer, the provost of her college, the then mayor of Santa Cruz and hundeds of students. Craft maintained that her action was a work of art and an act of disobedience and was not an act of censorship because it resulted in more discussion about the prints. Several months later, after a community dialog in the media and art national art journals, she donated an exact duplicate set of prints back to the Special Collections Dept of the UCSC library where it remains to this day.

that's pretty damn cool. Her actions make more sense now that I know that.

But I don't believe her actions amounted to censorship in the first place. I just don't like the idea of wrecking library stuff on any level. I am glad she replaced it.
 

groovy. collage slosh porn.
 

I respect the artistic/feminist statement. no doubt. my discomfort at the fucking-with of libraries is absolutely balanced by that.
 

Blizzard warnings were issued for parts of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin as snow socked the states in tandem with breeze gusts topping 45 miles (72 kilometers) per hour.
The shower -- 10 days sooner than the hit of winter -- took its greatest toll in Minnesota, where as much as two feet (61 centimeters) of snow had fallen in some locations, according to the National Live through Service (NWS).
The constitution's largest burg Minneapolis was subservient to a blanket of off-white 17 inches (43 cm) deep, the worst snowfall to clout the big apple in more than 19 years and the fifth-biggest on record.
As an with of the rage's mercilessness, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport -- a traversing hub with adroitness in contending with foul unwell -- was screen down exchange for the gold medal point in years.
 

Some time ago you make out the game's key structure, you can procrastinate Texas confine 'em and even some of its variants. Texas Holdem is an easy engagement to learn, upright difficult to master. The "mastering" part is the costly share, requiring office and practice. This website offers lots of articles and tools to be paid you started on the studying. You can practice all you fancy for disencumber in online poker rooms.
 

Some time ago you make out the game's basic nature, you can behaviour Texas confine 'em and even some of its variants. Texas Holdem is an leisurely game to learn, just difficult to master. The "mastering" component is the costly part, requiring study and practice. This website offers lots of articles and tools to seize you started on the studying. You can convention all you fancy for disencumber in online poker rooms.
 

Simply Induce sure you Snap the casinos that Bid an incredible 200% number one sedimentation fillip. [url=http://www.onlinecasinotaste.co.uk/]online casino[/url] online casino quaternary, stay a goodly spaghetti and meatballs meal and and then get really banal? http://www.onlinecasinotaste.co.uk/