As the antifeminist incessantly points out, any man or boy that ever browsed any porn site may have potential child pornography pictures on his computer or his web browser cache. Now that "The Simpsons" cartoons can be called child porn, anyone can be subject to child pornography stings.

And if s/he does not have child porn on the computer, that can be easily remedied. CP can be sent via spam emails, or the person can be entrapped to accidentally access it. No more need to frame someone by planting a pound of cocaine in his or her car. Just entice him to unknowingly visit a child porn site and his life is over.

Child pornography possession is a strict liability crime 2 3 4 5 6.  No intent, no knowledge is needed. Setting someone up is the perfect crime. And the entrapped’s property can be confiscated.

Dangerous entrapment of webmasters and blog authors | Inquisition21

The new form of entrapment is clever and deadly. A dissident has to be both reasonably successful in his activities and a danger or embarrassment to the police to be worth ‘taking out’. If he is reasonably successful, it means that he is being read over his web site and perhaps in spin-off media reports and is exposing facts which are embarrassing or even dangerous for the police. This in turn makes it likely that he has one or more professionally-managed web sites hosted by a server which provides him with daily statistics over a control panel. If, in addition, he is a good writer or employs good writers, traffic to his site will grow as will the number of links from other web sites. These links will come from two sources: from simple lists of ‘recommended’ web sites or from mentions in text, such as articles or in forum-type comments. If the link is a hyperlink, which is likely, it will show up in the daily statistics every time a reader of the remote web site page clicks on it, so that on a daily basis, perhaps after a 24 hour delay, the number of visiting readers from other web sites shows together with the URL of the sites and the number from each site that clicked each day. This web site, for example (inquisition21), has the good fortune to receive hundreds of such visits from hundreds of other web sites each month, some repeating every day or week and some new each day or each few days. [...]

The web site www.jagforums-1.com is in fact set up with images of child pornography to entrap the innocent activist editor who is simply trying to see what new visitors to his web site are saying about his site. He makes one click on the hyperlink in the stats and he has images of little girls being involved in illegal activities, or whatever, on his screen. And even after he deletes them, unless he runs special clearing software, which takes knowledge and time, they are still on his hard drive. If the police are in cohorts with the criminal webmaster who has carried out this entrapment, they can raid before the clearance is complete.
Let us now examine some especially perverse aspects of this situation, and this editor can assure the reader that this is coming from one with very direct and personal knowledge of this situation, both as related to this web site, which has been attacked, and to the many individuals it tries to represent. First, it is virtually impossible to report this crime, for several reasons. [...]

The biggest problem, however, is that you cannot safely say that you were the object of an entrapment attempt because, when you innocently clicked on the link, child porn appeared on your computer screen. This writer cannot even say here that it happened. It gets worse. If it is apparent from a brief look at the images that real children are being exploited in the course of this entrapment (although it is recognized that in most cases old images are used), one cannot report this crime. If anyone thinks that this is not so and that the police will welcome him as an innocent witness that person is naive. The seizure of one’s computers and exposure in the media are the very least of the certain consequences.

Brief Counsel: In the Digital World, What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You

Two years ago, in the hopes of being able to watch a "College Girls Gone Wild" video, Matthew White of Sacramento, CA, downloaded a file from Limewire.com that turned out to be child-porn. White immediately deleted the file, and thought nothing of it — until a full year later, when FBI agents came to White’s home and asked permission to examine his hard drive, and White said yes.

They initially found no evidence of any illegal activity, but after subjecting White’s hard drive to intensive forensic analysis in their lab, the Limewire file appeared — and with it the porn that Matthew had viewed (albeit momentarily) a year earlier. Although the FBI admitted that White had no current access to the porn they undeleted and despite White’s claim that he had no pre-existing knowledge of the file’s contents, the Feds arrested him.

Notwithstanding numerous publicly known complaints against Limewire.com for disguising illegal child porn files as something else, prosecutors told White he faced a 20-year prison sentence unless he took a plea bargain for three and a half years that included 10 years probation plus lifetime registration as a sex offender. Still claiming innocence, White took the deal.

Why did White cop a plea if he was innocent? Answer: possession of child-porn in any form — even unknowing possession — is a strict liability federal crime, like statutory rape. With strict liability, intent is not a factor:the act itself completes the crime. Under federal law, viewing any web content online automatically counts as possession because seeing it involves downloading images in RAM and temporarily storing (and thus, owning) them. Unless the facts are in dispute, there is no trial by jury. 

In other words: if someone sends you a download link to the Holy Bible, which turns out to be child porn, your life is over. It does not matter that you are religious, never ever intended to see any porn.According to the voodoo theory of child pornography, the act of downloading and unintentional viewing by the religious Bible seeker victimized children. Makes sense, doesn’t it?   George Orwell’s 1984 finally turned reality.

The Problem of Internet Child Pornography (a very concise analysis, worth reading)

An Offending Typology

Variations among offenders translate into different patterns of Internet behavior. Offenders vary in the level of their involvement in Internet child pornography, the degree of networking in which they engage with other offenders, their expertise in employing security strategies to avoid detection, and the extent to which their Internet behavior involves direct sexual abuse of children. The following typology of child pornography offending has been suggested:[31]

• Browsers: Offenders who stumble across child pornography but knowingly save the images. They are not involved in networking with other offenders and do not employ security strategies to avoid detection. Their browsing is an indirect abuse of children.

If you stumble across child pornography you are indirectly abusing children. A macabre joke, if this absurd voodoo theory would not ruin people’s lives forever

Private fantasizers: Offenders who create digital images (e.g., through morphing) for private use to satisfy personal sexual desires. These offenders do not network with other offenders, do not employ security strategies, and their private fantasies are an indirect abuse of victims.

An indirect abuse of victims that don’t exist is a good reason to imprison someone for a decade and ruin his life forever.

It makes more sense to burn a witch on the stake for having caused  a real hail storm that really happened.  Only Robert Kurzban can explain such nonsense:

• To justify our moral judgments, we invent victims even if there are none | Human Stupidity

Browser

A browser may come across child pornography unintentionally (for example via spam) but then decide to keep it. This is an offence if it can be proved they formed the intention to possess the material. In the absence of a confession, this may be shown by surrounding circumstances, such as repeat visits to a site. Whether a person is an accidental browser or not is a question of fact.

Wrong. As we saw before, if he does not decide to keep it, if he decides to delete it, it does not matter. If forensics can recover the deleted image, then he indirectly abused a child and thus deserves to suffer for the rest of his life (I wish I were joking, but this idiocy is serious)

Private fantasy

If a person has a private fantasy involving sex with a child, no offence is committed. If that fantasy is preserved as something more than a thought, then an offence may be involved. The representation of that fantasy in text or digital format on a computer may be sufficient to constitute the possession of child pornography even if the offender has no intention of sharing it with any other person. The case of Lenny Lawson, referred to above, is an example of a private fantasy collection in video format. For the offender engaged in private fantasy the risk of exposure is low, but it could occur in a number of ways: by tip-off from someone else with access to the computer or data storage device; in the course of searching a computer for evidence of other offences; when a computer is being serviced; when a computer is stolen; or even when a computer has been accessed remotely by a third party.

Trawler

Among trawlers there is little or no security employed and minimal networking of offenders. Taylor (1999) lists three motivations. The sexually omnivorous user is oriented to a range of sexually explicit material of which child pornography is simply a part but not the focus. The sexually curious user has experimented with child pornographic material but has not pursued it. The libertarian is driven to assert a claim to be free to access whatever material they wish  ATypology of Online Child ATypology of Online Child

The above source is very long and precise. Worth reading. Fictional children need to be protected from abuse through thoughts and viewing. Makes total sense.

Creating fictitious children under 16 Child pornography can be created without directly involving a real person. The words ‘describing or depicting’ are capable of including  text,  images  and  threedimensional objects. While these laws w e re  initially  framed  in  relation  to photographs, videos and film, the language extends to cover the development of online pornography. The offence provisions do not require a real person to be described or depicted,  and  they  include  fictional characters in  text or digi tally  created images of fictional characters.

More literature

• The Politics of Entrapment Part III
• A simple plan to ruin your boss: plant child porn on his PC
• Child pornography planted on a work computer, a house break-in and illegal wiretapping: The leadership of Germany’s HSH Nordbank stands accused of going to great lengths to rid itself of unwanted senior officials
• Virus could have planted child porn on unsuspecting man’s computer, expert tells trial
• Shaquille O’Neal had Child Pornography Planted: Lawsuit
• A handyman who planted child pornography on his boss’s computer in a bid to get promoted has been jailed.
• Planting Child Porn on Your Boss’s PC Will Make Him Totally Regret Being a Huge Jerkface
• The Problem of Internet Child Pornography
• EXCESSIVE FINES: PROPERTY FORFEITURE IN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASES
• FBI posts fake hyperlinks to snare child porn suspects | CNET
• When Does the Government Cross the Line Between Trapping an Unwary Innocent Person Versus Trapping an Unwary Criminal?
• Strict Liability Crimes

Or at least violation of the "half age plus 6 years" rule should be made a felony. So 84 year old Hugh Hefner could not abuse any woman younger then 84/2 + 6 = 42 + 6 = 48 years, or would be punished for statutory rape of a 47 year old, incapable of consenting to sex with an old geezer like Hugh Hefner. He should be in jail for objectifying women in Playboy Magazine, anyway.

Our sex offender laws are not being enforced. Anyone that has illicit sex with rapes an under 18 y old minor in California needs to get tried and arrested. Yes, that includes minors too, in California two 17 year olds are not allowed to have sex with each other. That, finally, would allow us to imprison a few million men in California, and only a few women (because in couples, men tend to be the older one of the two).

He 84 y, she 24 y (60 years age difference)

Love really must be blind — at least, for 84-year-old Hugh Hefner’s new twenty-something fiancé. Playboy Playmate Crystal Harris, 24, told ‘Entertainment Tonight’ she hardly recognizes the 60-year age gap between herself and her husband-to-be.
‘I don’t notice the age difference with Hef at all,’ Harris said. ‘If anything, I have to keep up with him!’ Harris said Hef’s energy level often surpasses the blond bombshell, who was Playboy Playmate of the Month in December 2009 NY Daily News

But the 83-year-old Playboy publisher took his tried-and-true May-December romance to a whole new level when he started dating then-19-year-old twins Kristina and Karissa Shannon, in 2008 [83-19= 64 years difference] The girls went on to star in ‘The Girls Next Door,’ but the media mogul and the Shannon twins parted ways in early 2010, so Hef could focus on his other blond girlfriend, 23-year-old Crystal Harris.

Don’t miss our articles on

• Actor Dough Hutchinson (51) married Courtney Alexis Stodden, 16 year old child. We suspect he is a child rapist.

• Michel Temer (70), new Vice-President of Brazil was 63 when he married Marcela Temer at age 20. Borderline Pedophilia or healthy human sexuality?

Women Cougars marrying young men is sexual liberation

When a repressed class violates old norms and robs the cradle, then this is sexual liberation, very different from horny perverted men marrying young women. Go girl, liberate yourself and all women from age restrictions!

When Madonna and her ten-years-younger husband, Guy Ritchie, called it quits in 2008, the eternally youthful material girl wasted no time rebounding with an even younger boy-toy. Madge started dating 23- year-old Brazilian model Jesus Luz in 2009, and the pair has been spotted all over the globe since.
Ick Factor: Jesus’ mother is 14 years younger than Madonna.  NY Daily News

The Cougar queen

Hulk Hogan’s ex-wife, Linda Bollea, takes the cake as the cougar queen. Linda, 51, and her 21-year-old boyfriend Charley Hill, started dating when he was only 19! But the duo’s matching platinum ‘dos aren’t the freakiest thing about this relationship …
Ick Factor: The Hogan kids, Brooke and Nick, are 21 and 19, respectively. In fact, Charley is a former classmate of Brooke’s.

Read more: NY Daily News

Gay May December is chique!

Equally, the repressed class "gay men" can do what creepy heterosexual men should never do.

So what’s Calvin Klein’s hottest accessory? It’s got to be his 20-year-old partner, Nick Gruber. The designer and the model/actor make quite the pair, despite the fact that Klein is 67-years-young.

Read more NY Daily News

35 year age difference. With an adopted step daughter.

They only started their affair when she was 22. The old pervert must have groomed her when she was younger. Maybe he already adopted her with such ill intent. All men are rapists and perverts. She got brain-washed to accept such an age difference. We can not understand why she would pick such an old man, so it must be rape. [We are kidding, in case you don't get the joke]

In 2005, the notoriously private Woody Allen finally discussed his scandalous marriage to Soon-Yi Previn. Despite never getting married, the now 74-year-old filmmaker and actress Mia Farrow were together for twelve years, had one biological child and adopted two children together, one of whom was Soon-Yi. The pair split in 1992 after Farrow discovered Allen, then 56, and Previn, then 22, were having an affair.
Despite a 35-year age difference, the couple have been together ever since, tying the knot in 1997.

Read more: NY Daily News

OTTAWA – John Reilly, a retired judge and Liberal candidate for the Alberta riding of Wild Rose, was forced to apologize Thursday for suggesting in a radio interview that not all sexual offenders should be incarcerated.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff called an Alberta candidate’s comments on sexual offenders "disgraceful,” but said he has accepted Reilly’s apology and he’ll continue to serve as the party’s candidate for the riding.
Alberta Liberal candidate John Reilly apologizes for remarks on sexual assault 

The "sexual assault":

she goes, gets into bed naked, he goes up, he’s thinking he’s going to be able to, that she’ll probably agree to have sex with him, he fondles her privates, and she wakes up and tells him to go away, and he goes away. They report it, he’s charged with sexual offence, he has digitally penetrated her,  
Judge John Reilly interview

Most likely the defendant did not stick the entire finger in there but just passed the limit with one phalanx.  Also he was ill advised and probably admitted the penetration before getting a lawyer’s advice. Of course, the women would always be believed anyway

Now this does not look like a habitual predator, the judge is totally right.

But, this is an example how powerful the feminist language distortion is. Call some behavior "rape" or "sexual assault", and the perpetrator is to be crucified. If you told it by the real name, "fondling the privates of a naked girl while sleeping at a party", that would not cause the feeding punishing frenzy in the interviewer and the populace. You can notice this in the strong reactions of the interviewer in the written and his aggravated tone in the audio transcript.

Former judge John Reilly’s interview with The Rutherford Show Transcript

JR: There are. But I believe that the percentage of ‘bad dudes’ that are in there is a lot lower than the, I mean, this is one of my problems with the criminal justice system the way it is, is that I say we put too much emphasis on the offence and not enough emphasis on the offender. If you’re looking at what the Conservative government wants to do is say if this is the offence, you go to jail. And that’s going to put people in jail that don’t need to be there.

Host: But what kind of offences though?

JR: Sexual assault.

Host: You shouldn’t go to jail for a sex assault?

See. The term "sexual assault" triggers the automatic punishing knee jerk reflex in the host.

JR: Well, you know, there are sexual assaults and there are sexual assaults.

Host: Sure?

The host does not get it. I am stunned how well the feminist language distortion tactic works. Change the name and get instant conviction from the press and a jury that would not convict if the crime was named by its real name.

JR: And I had another young man, not a young offender, but a 19, 20 year old. He’s at a party, there’s a lot of sexual innuendo, one of these women is being very aggressive with her boyfriend and they’re drinking a lot, the boyfriend passes out, she goes, gets into bed naked, he goes up, he’s thinking he’s going to be able to, that she’ll probably agree to have sex with him, he fondles her privates, and she wakes up and tells him to go away, and he goes away. They report it, he’s charged with sexual offence, he has digitally penetrated her,
Judge John Reilly interview

So the guy saw a naked women at the end of a hot party, touched her, and went a bit overboard. He was not her partner, so he clearly went too far, without consent. When the clear non-consent was given, he stopped.

Men, as a gender, are dumb victims of feminist victimhood ploys. If women committed such things, feminist women long ago would have found a sexual frenzy syndrome, similar to the "battered woman syndrome" that gets women light suspended sentences for clearly meticulously planned and long premeditated murder

No, I am not saying his behavior is defensible. I am not saying he did not overstep boundaries. He just was a bit dumb, maybe drunk, more dumb even for probably admitting his transgression.  No indication that he is more then a harmless drunk dummy. The judge was quite correct that he does not deserve mandatory 3 years in jail.

the crown prosecutor says this is a digital penetration of a woman’s vagina, he should go to jail for three years, that’s the starting point for this sexual offence. And I’m looking at this 20 year old, socially inept young man, and his offence is a sexual assault and it’s one that they consider a major sexual assault because it involves digital penetration. I don’t think in those circumstances that that what happened there should put that young man in a penitentiary for three years.

Host: Unless it’s your daughter, and then maybe you’ve got a whole another perspective! You haven’t mentioned the word ‘victim’ once yet!

This is why you would not put the father in the jury. A father can get angry, chide the perpetrator. But he should not be given the right to jail a guy for a few years for a minor offense, or to castrate the girl’s boyfriend, as Human Stupidity reported recently from Germany.

For my daughter, I would prefer a light penetration with a finger to getting the face dilacerated with a broken glass!

JR: You know, I am concerned about victims, but what I’m concerned about is our society as a whole. Often, these minimum sentences that I’m stuck with, if I have an assault occasioning bodily harm, that’ll qualify now as a crime of violence. Again, a couple of guys have too much to drink in a bar and get into a fight, maybe somebody gets hit with a glass. I had a woman in front of me who was charged with assault occasioning bodily harm. She was drunk, guy offended her, she went to throw the beer in her glass in his face and she hit his face with the glass and it broke and there was huge damage done to his face. Now, they’re saying she’s got to go to jail, this is an aggravated assault because it has caused serious bodily injury.

Gender discrimination: no excuse demanded from John Reilly for leniency for woman causing serious bodily injury

Judge John Reilly was not forced to apologize for not wanting to jail a woman that caused serious facial injury to a man, who could even have caused blindness had she hit him slightly differently. No!

Look the difference. The girl had malicious intent (to throw beer in the guy’s face). She hurt him badly in disfiguring way. I wonder if there is proof that this really was non-intentional. We suspect that here he differentiates because the perpetrator is a woman.

Women slapping men is not a crime

And it just so happens that women slapping men (or throwing water, beer and things at men) is portrayed as "normal" non-offense by Hollywood. A man who lightly shoves or slaps a woman immediately is considered a felon, even if the "victim" does not have the slightest mark or injury. Now if a man shoves a woman lightly, she trips, falls badly and gets a serious head injury, no judge would claim leniency.

Yes, maybe, and I repeat, maybe she did not have the intent to injure. But she intentionally engaged in aggressive behavior, and caused serious damage, even if maybe she did not intend to do that. She is a person with anger control issues, probably more dangerous then the guy with the wandering finger. A drunk driver is not excused for much less intent to hurt then that drunk girl who had the intent to throw something into the victim’s face.

Host: You say booze.

Hey host, did you not notice  Judge Reilly forgot to mention the word "victim" for the disfigured seriously hurt guy! Well, a guy with a cut-up face is not a victim. A women that sleeps naked in a semi-public place and gets groped, she is a much more serious victim. No, I am not saying the groping behavior is correct and defensible

JR: No, I just say is this a person that needs to go to a federal penitentiary, and if I can keep her out of the federal penitentiary, that guy has just suffered a big financial loss, because this is going to cost him a lot. If we send the offender to jail automatically, this is the offence he’s committed, he’s not able to earn the money that’s going to allow him to make restitution for the damage he’s done. And so some of these things you know . .

This, of course, could spin into interesting issues about alternative penalties, which is beyond the scope of this article.

RELATED STORIES FROM AROUND THE WEB

• Liberal candidate regrets sex assault view  Edmonton Sun, Canada Thursday, April 07, 2011
• Ex-judge and Liberal hopeful apologizes for sex assault remarks Toronto Sun Thursday, April 07, 2011
• Alberta Liberal candidate apologizes for remarks on sexual assault Saskatoon StarPhoenix, Canada Thursday, April 07, 2011

Is our sex obsessed society punishing sexual child abuse too severely,
compared to serious bodily harm to children?

Julie Carr Performed oral sex with baby daughter: 17 years jail; filmed it: 20 years.
Compare: killing baby: 4 years; causing permanent brain damage: 2 years.

We will be attacked now with untrue accusations of "promoting child abuse". Which, of course, we are not doing. We don’t say Julie Carr should go unpunished.

Warning: not safe for children. Do not continue reading if you are easily offended.

We try to avoid explicit language, but even CNN uses some semi-explicit language

We are wondering what is less damaging to the infant:

1. a mother licking baby in the wrong places. (17 years in jail) plus 10 years supervision plus life long sex offender registration
2. physical abuse: violent shaking of an infant causing permanent life long brain damage (2 years jail). Or killing infant (4-5 years in jail). No registration in murderous-nanny-registry to prevent future work as nanny.

No, we are not condoning either behavior. We don’t think it is normal, healthy behavior. Sorry for questioning conventional wisdom and asking taboo questions.

If we suggested killing Julie Carr vigilante style, to mete out a death sentence, or 4 life sentences without parole, that would be acceptable.

But suggesting to even think about lower sentencing for certain kinds of child sexual abuse, is a no-no. We have been warned that this would be dangerous. We hope we will not attract vigilante threats.

But, our sense of justice, our sense of scientific curiosity compels us to ask these questions: Are some licks in inappropriate places really warrant much longer jail terms then violent brain and spinal cord trauma? What kind and how much damage is being caused in the infant by mom licking in inappropriate places? No, we don’t promote or condone such behavior.

And how many other so called "child rapists’ did not do more then Julie Carr? (Did we mention that we don’t condone this behavior, but are opposed to misleadingly call fondling and licking "rape").

Woman sentenced after streaming sex abuse of daughter over webcam|CNN

[Julie] Carr used a webcam to deliver four live videos of herself performing oral sex on her youngest daughter, according to the documents. The videos were sent to Nicholas Wilde, then 19, in West Midlands, England, whom Carr had met on an internet dating site, the documents said.
Woman sentenced after streaming sex abuse of daughter over webcam|CNN

We were surprised that the crime was labeled correctly:
"oral sex on an infant"  and and not the usual "rape of infant".

In case you don’t know, any sexual activity, like kissing or fondling with a minor is defined as "rape". Probably it would sound too weird and incredible to write "Mother raped infant daughter". If it were perpetrated by a man, certainly the headline would read "Man raped his infant daughter".   And everyone would imagine the guy having committed more atrocious acts then licking a baby’s privates.  (No, we don’t approve of this!)

Compare this headline:  Former Army Major Daniel Woolverton Sentenced For Raping Baby. Whereupon Human-Stupidity provokingly asked "What kind of rape"?  (No, we don’t condone Woolverton’s behavior).

We did not want to be sexually explicit, so we refrained from the graphic terminology CNN used in this case here. But we suspect Woolverton probably engaged in similar activities as mother Julie Carr, like oral sex and manual indecent touching.  In Woolverton’s case, we can not know, due to modern misleading language definitions of rape.

We will be crucified for this. People will falsely accuse us of condoning sexual abuse of children. We do not condone Woolverton’s or Julie Carr’s behavior..

Rather our message is 2 fold

1. Don’t mislead! Use correct clear language: Saying "raping a baby"  is meant to confuse people into thinking he did worse things then "oral sex on an infant". NO! we are not saying that oral sex on an infant is right. We are saying: call a spade a spade. Call crimes by their names, don’t mislead the public by abusing and re-defining the language. The real crime is bad enough. No exaggeration is needed.
2. Re-analyze our sex-obsession. Are the punishments for sexual non violent acts overblown? This issue has already been discussed above.

If Carr (the mother) had licked the baby on the hand, the feet, the arm, even the belly, nobody would think anything of it. It would be perfectly legal, normal, and morally acceptable. She was probably unaware that putting the tongue in the wrong place would be considered a heinous crime, much worse then killing or permanently disabling her infant. Quite likely she was stupid and thoughtless, but probably she is in no way a carreer criminal and long term danger. (Did we mention that we don’t condone Julie Carr’s behavior?)

"I want to say that I am sorry," she told the court. "I never meant to hurt anyone in my family, and I have regretted it ever since."

Once released, Carr will receive a mandatory 10 years of supervision where, along with checks for drugs and alcohol, her computer and internet use will be monitored, the documents said. She will also be registered as a sex offender
Woman sentenced after streaming sex abuse of daughter over webcam|CNN

• We wish that murderous nannies with anger control problems had the same type of supervision and registry to make sure they will not cause further damage to children.
• We also wish that unbiased unencumbered free academic research can evaluate the amount of damage caused by different types of child sexual abuse. Even if the findings are not what society expects.
  • Since the prestigious Rind study was condemned unanimously by US Senate and Congress, researchers will be wise enough not to get unpopular taboo results that can terminate their carreer. 
  • Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii) is a rare example of a politically incorrect study that escaped censorship, probably because Dr. Diamond is already Emeritus (retired).

Related articles