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

Consider that child pornography was actually LEGAL at one time. Later, it became illegal to PRODUCE. And then it became illegal to DISTRIBUTE. And then it became illegal to SHOW to someone else. And then it became illegal to POSSESS if produced AFTER a certain date. And then all possession became illegal. And then the penalties became stiffer. Then stiffer, still. And stiffer again and again.

How true

Consider also that child pornography now includes DRAWINGS and CARTOONS which at no time involved the use of actual children, something that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

How true. Even voodoo theory can not justify this. Robert Kurzban can explain how even then victims can be found.

And these laws can DESTROY the rest of your LIFE, even if there are no victims.

This is the essence of incremental social engineering (Quoted from Sex Gulag)

1) Fake Simpsons cartoon is ‘child porn’

A fake cartoon depicting Bart and Lisa from The Simpsons engaging in sexual acts has been deemed as child pornography.

Supreme Court judge Justice Michael Adams ruled in Australia that child cartoon characters could depict a real person.

The Simpsons were doctored to depict child pornography

He upheld a magistrate judge’s decision to convict Alan John McEwan of possessing child pornography after the internet cartoons were found on his computer.

The animation depicted characters modelled on Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson engaging in sex acts. [...]

McEwan appealed against the ruling, arguing that fictional cartoon characters could not be considered people.

Justice Adams said: "If the persons were real, such depictions could never be permitted. Their creation would constitute crimes at the very highest end of the criminal calendar."

He also ruled that, while the characters from The Simpsons had hands with four fingers and their faces were "markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being", the fact they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.

He said the law was in place to deter the production of cartoons that could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children".

Of course, prohibition of child porn fuels the demand for real children, as Dr. Milton Diamond‘s papers prove. Those who can act out their urges masturbating with pictures of children have less urge to abuse real children.  Additionally,  much of child porn is neither porn nor has (prepubescent) children, rather is adolescent erotica (Knox vs. USA, Copine scale).

2) Police see rise in child porn cases committed by children

Of course, children are live child pornography themselves. And they need to be protected from themselves. Putting them in a court of law to save them from victimizing themselves. Sorry, we have difficulty understanding this nonsense witch hunt beliefs.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Police are issuing a warning for Mid-State youth disturbing pornographic images of themselves and their friends via the Internet.

Although sent by minors, the cases are considered child porn and violators will be prosecutors.

Currently in Metro, Sex Crimes Detective Mike Adkins says he has five cases of child-initiated child porn on his desk and the number of cases continues to climb.

According to Adkins, either the juveniles don’t understand the risks involved or they don’t care.

Well, it difficult. Children see naked women everywhere. On Playboy magazine covers. Now if they photograph themselves in the mirror, in the same pose, they commit a heinous crime. They are unaware of voodoo theory that posits that they are victimizing themselves while photographing, and that they get victimized again when their friend looks at their photo.

It is hard to explain illogical things to children. It is difficult enough to explain them logical things, to get them to eat broccoli and abstain from burgers and fries. But making them understand that taking their own pictures is the worst of crimes? Much worse then theft or robbery?

One might explain to a child not to post nude photos on Facebook. But how to explain that what they see when they look in the bathroom mirror is live child porn which can not be photographed even to keep on one’s own camera? Should they close their eyes when changing clothes in front of a mirror?

"The children are committing several crimes manufacturing of child porn, distribution of child porn and if it is still on their phones or computers, the possession of child porn," he explained, adding, "To the kids, understand this is a crime and the Internet is a real place with real rules that you have to follow and if you don’t follow them you could wind up in jail."

"I can’t think of any reason for a kid to have a Web cam in their own room," Adkins said.  "If they do, I can guarantee they are doing things that you might not want them to do."

A good way to acquaint children with the concept of a police state. Senseless silly laws that carry extreme penalties, even for children

While district attorneys have been reluctant to prosecute child-initiated child porn cases, Adkins predicts that will soon change.

Things are getting worse before they get better. Maybe this is the straw that breaks the camel’s back and decent middle class parents will rebel against these laws.

3) Rethinking Sex Offender Laws for Youth Texting |NYT

In Iowa, Jorge Canal is on the sex offenders registry because, at age 18, he was convicted of distributing obscene materials to a minor after he sent a picture of his penis by cellphone to a 14-year-old female friend who had requested it.

In Florida, Phillip Alpert, then 18, was charged with distributing child pornography and put on the sex offenders registry because after a fight, he sent a photograph of his nude 16-year-old girlfriend by e-mail to dozens of people, including her parents.

In most states, teenagers who send or receive sexually explicit photographs by cellphone or computer — known as “sexting” — have risked felony child pornography charges and being listed on a sex offender registry for decades to come.

But there is growing consensus among lawyers and legislators that the child pornography laws are too blunt an instrument to deal with an adolescent cyberculture in which all kinds of sexual pictures circulate on sites like MySpace and Facebook.

Criminalizing children for photographing themselves is a cruel consequence of child pornography laws. Of course, Human-Stupidity thinks that this is only the most extreme example and that child porn laws are cruel in general, damaging adults and children, while doing almost no good at all and actually helping to increase sexual child abuse (Milton Diamond). Child abuse laws should suffice. Why don’t we have laws against possession of murder, mutilation, lynching, adolescent jackass wannabe, and child shaking nanny movies.

The district attorney told parents of the students involved — both those in the images and those whose phones contained the images — that their children could be prosecuted for child pornography unless they took part in an after-school program.

The program, divided by gender, involved random drug tests, probation and classes in which the girls would “gain an understanding of what it means to be a girl in today’s society,” by, among other things, writing essays on why their actions were wrong.

Only three of more than a dozen families refused to join the program — those of two girls, ages 12 and 13, who were pictured wearing bras at a slumber party, and of a third girl who was shown emerging from the shower with a towel wrapped under her breasts. The parents say the photographs were not pornographic, a question no court has yet considered.

Pictures do not have to be pornographic to be child pornography. (Copine scale, Knox vs. USA).

And there has been no evidence that any of the three girls played a part in circulating the photographs.

The parents went to court, claiming that prosecution would amount to retaliation for refusal to join the program.

It must be traumatizing to participate in such classes. Children get traumatized by cruel repressive sex and child pornography laws. Rarely children get traumatized by child pornography in spite of voodoo theories.

4) Pornography sentence unconstitutionally cruel, judge rules

Between the ages of 15 and 19, he downloaded pornography, much of it involving boys ages 10-12, and shared files with other users.
When he was 19 years old, the FBI ensnared him in a sting and the world came crashing down. Under federal law, “C.R.” faced a statutory minimum of five years in prison.
Until Judge Jack B. Weinstein intervened, ruling that the 5-year minimum is unconstitutional in C.R.’s case, due to the youth’s age and immaturity.
The ruling is part of a crusade by Weinstein, one of the United States’ most accomplished and respected jurists, against what he calls “the unnecessary cruelty of the law.” Previously, the 89-year-old federal judge in the Eastern District of New York led a similar campaign against rigid drug sentencing. 

Read Human-Stupiditý.com’s 50 posts on child porn.

Washington (CNN) — More than 50 members of a child pornography ring who engaged in what authorities describe as "horrific" and "unspeakable" crimes have been arrested for sexually exploiting children from 12 years old to as young as infants.

Video

Network That Preyed on Children Is Broken | NYT

Published: August 3, 2011

WASHINGTON — Federal investigators announced on Wednesday that they had dismantled a sophisticated global network of pedophiles who traded pornographic videos and images of children as young as infants over the Internet, using encryption and proxy servers to evade detection.

About 600 people around the world were members of the online bulletin board “Dreamboard” before it shut down this spring amid the investigation, officials said. The Justice Department announced that 72 people had been charged so far, including more than 50 already arrested in the United States and abroad.

The network specialized in graphic and often violent images of the sexual abuse of children under the age of 12, including infants. It created an incentive among its members to create new files by kicking them out of the network if they did not upload material at least once every 50 days, and by granting them greater access to its archives if they created their own child pornography, said Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer.

“Words cannot describe how horrific the enterprise’s alleged crimes were,” Mr. Breuer said. “Dreamboard was extreme even among online child abuse forums. So-called ‘super hard-core’ images — those depicting adults having violent sexual intercourse with ‘very young kids’ — were highly valued.” [...]

Finally.

• Real children (not adolescents), really young,
• real intercourse (not sexy posing).
• Real victimization (not voluntary sexting or voluntary joyful photo sessions)

Exactly what the unitiated person envisions when the world "child pornography" is used. And they actually encouraged production of more material through actually abusing children. And one section of the board was specifically about children in pain with tears. (level 10 on the Copine scale)

It is shocking that the feminist and religious anti child pornography crusaders devalue the suffering of truly abused children by conflating

1. such horrible true abuse of children with
2. adolescent sexting (self photos) and
3. adolescents in Leotards dancing provocatively (Knox vs. USA).

All theses 3 are called child porn. In cases 2 and 3, there is no child, no porn, but it is called "child porn". Thus , with such manipulative language the populace can be whipped up into a frenzy. It makes them believe that harmless adolescent erotica are violent depictions of child sex.

More Human Stupidity Analysis further below.

The investigation began in 2009, and officials said they were trying to identify the victims

Human-Stupidity Analysis

1. We are surprised we found out about this shocking case months after it turned public. Somehow, amidst all the child pornography witch hunt frenzy, this extreme case did not call an commensurate amount of attention
2. Finally, amongst all the victimless child pornography  [children photographing themselves masturbating, sexting adolescents, fully dressed 15 year old dancers (Knox vs. USA), manga drawings], finally real penetrative child sexual abuse. And members even encourage further actual abuse. Finally one true case where the worst expectations of the child pornography inquisitions became true. And we don’t hear much about it.
3. Those who really produce abusive child pornography deserve punishment for violently abusing pre-pubertal children. Enough laws always were in place for that, child pornography laws are not really needed. Though, we admit, in this case CP laws make prosecution easier.
4. We suspect that the worst CP, freshly produced penetrative sex with young prepubertal children in tears, is just a very small percentage. We also suspect that the lesser members did not have access to that. We suspect that the majority of the CP (child pornography) material found is just the garden variety of adolescents having normal age appropriate sex, joyful posing and more. We can not know, because this analysis is not provided.
5. Note that no financial initiative was given nor needed for the production of CP (child pornography).
6. The lesser members, who did not actively engage in child abuse, nor actively encouraged it, do they need 10 year to 200 year prison sentences? Remember Professor Milton Diamond proved, in peer reviewed academic papers, that freely accessable child pornography greatly reduced child sexual abuse in half a dozen countries. The mechanisms seems to be that the pedophiles watch pornographic material, masturbate and thus take the pressure off their sexual drive. They act out their phantasy with pornographic material instead of with real children.
7. Dr. Milton Diamond suggests to use artificially produced child pornography (drawings, photoshop, young looking adults, etc.). Human-Stupidity suggests to additionally use

1. Child porn that was produced without vicitms. Sexting photos, legally produced 15 year old porn from the 70ies in Holland,
2. Old child pornography could be grandfathered. Whatever has been produced before a certain cutoff date is legal, because no new vicitmization will happen (except for the voodoo theory of CP). This site must have a HUGE database of pretty much all CP in existence and could provide CP for decades to come without need to victimize new children to produce more CP.

‘

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, "To give you an example of the scope of this forum, the capture and analysis of the forum revealed that the board may have been the vehicle for the distribution of up to 123 terabytes of child pornography, which is roughly equivalent to nearly 16,000 DVDs. … Additional media recovered from the targets arrested in the United States alone has been found to contain over one million images of child pornography."   CNN

Video

People complained, Google pixeled out the picture. Surprisingly, there was no huge scandal.

According to the voodoo theory of child porn, this child will be constantly victimized whenever someone sees his photo.

This child is certainly scarred for life, justifying drastic measures against the heinous transgressors.

---

Internet Lawyer: Google Street View and Public Nudity

If you were representing Google as an Internet lawyer, you’d be concerned not only about potential privacy issues but also child pornography laws. Even if inadvertent, taking pics of naked kids and posting them online is just begging for trouble — government investigations and probably shakedown lawsuits. This isn’t an issue of an adult sunbathing nude the backyard…it is a child who is mentally incapable of providing consent for the photos to be taken even if they were deemed artistic rather than pornographic.

There’s also an important distinction here that you can discuss with your Internet lawyer if you have privacy issues involving your website. Google was an active participant by creating this particular content and posting it online. That’s a different scenario than a website owner having a third party post similar content to a site without the owner’s knowledge.

The entire Google staff should get 10 years in jail for production and distribution of child pornography. [/end sarcasm].

This actually is not funny: if this photo were, unpixelated, on Human-Stupidity’s web site. we might face long prison terms.

• Family pictures of nude baby bath: ruinous child porn prosecution | Human-Stupidity

Google faces storm over naked child on Street View

Google has apologised after its Street View photo mapping service showed a frontal view of a naked child on a family day out.

Images of the blond boy, aged four or five, went live on Thursday in an update for the service.

They pictured him with his trousers down after going to the toilet on Wimbledon Common, South-West London.

The photos, showing the child’s mother or nanny helping him dress and a man looking on, have sparked fears that paedophiles will have a new way to search for photos or targets online.

Google had blurred the child’s face but not the registration plate of the family’s car, making it possible to trace their address.

The photos were removed soon after Google was alerted yesterday.

But they are further ammunition for critics of Street View, branded a ‘burglar’s charter’ when it launched last year.

Google Street View ‘Naked Child’ Incident Reveals Anxiety About Technology

Here’s the original UK newspaper report:

The Independent on Sunday alerted the internet search giant after finding the image of the toddler, playing at a family summer picnic in a garden square in north London, captured permanently on the revolutionary mapping system. Britain’s privacy watchdog, the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, is considering an investigation into Google if more images of naked children are found to have been picked up by its cameras and made available to internet users.

The article is fairly inflammatory, as the paragraph above suggests. The idea is that Google is somehow aiding would-be child abductors. Further down in the article a more explicit connection between StreetView and crime is made:

The company’s discomfort was compounded by a former criminal, Michael Fraser, who wrote in The Sun yesterday that Street View was a “gift to criminals”.

Germans in the country’s northern state of Schleswig-Holstein are threatening to take legal action against Google because of fears that its photographs of the region’s towns and streets are in breach of the country’s strict privacy laws.

Google Street View: internet search engine ‘apologises over part naked child images’

Google faces storm over naked child on Street View

---

Woman Pissed After Google Street View Captures Her 3-Year Old’s Naked Booty

‘It’s such a clear image, I see it as an indecent photograph – my concern is that paedophiles could see it and there’s no way I ever wanted my son to be seen naked all over the world.

Google Street View Camera Captures Naked Miami Woman On Her Front Doorstep

• Google Street View Snaps Photo Of Naked Florida Woman (PHOTOS)

http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2011/09/14/news/doc4e6fd547c689d983539174.txt

Google street view indiscretions Video| ABC Watch more funny indiscretions on street view

In Brazil, Google was sued by a guy that threw up on the street. He thinks it is undignified to be shown throwing up in public. Strangely he does not think HE was undignified throwing up on public streets in the first place. Similarly, Brazilian Daniela Cicarelli enforced YouTube Ban in Brazil for being shown having sex on a public beach. This shows why Google could only have grown in the USA, where such law suits – requesting privacy on public streets- could not prosper.

McDonald’s finds a way around San Francisco’s ‘Happy Meal ban’

San Francisco’s so-called "Happy Meal ban" goes into effect Thursday, but McDonald’s has already found a way around it.

The ordinance prohibits fast-food restaurants from including free toys with children’s meals that don’t comply with nutritional standards.

McDonald’s answer? It will charge 10 cents for the toy. The proceeds will be donated to Ronald McDonald House, the company’s charity for children with cancer.

It would be more behooving to start a charity for childhood diabetes and other obesity related diseases.  An NGO for promotion of exercise also could help undo the damage.

[...] that McDonald’s response "allows them to continue marketing this unhealthful food to children in the midst of an obesity crisis."

Eric Mar, the member of the Board of Supervisors who led adoption of the law, called the 10-cent charge a "marketing ploy," but he told The Associated Press that he didn’t plan to seek any changes to address the tactic.

Maybe he should change his plans. We are talking hundreds of millions of children, world wide, heading towards a life of obesity, disease and early death. And almost nothing is being done about it.

• "Child Food-Porn" (Junk food advertising) makes our children obese & unhealthy
• Childhood Obesity Promotion: Cartoon characters attract kids to junk food
• Food Porn arouses Lust for Food with No Nutritional Value

McDonald’s, said all of the company’s U.S. stores would offer Happy Meals with apples and smaller servings of french fries by March.

We are amazed how McDonald’s escapes through a loop hole huge as a barn door and can continue to cause grave damage to children. The damage is not just the one happy meal, but conditioning malleable children to a life-long preference of wrong foods.

Human-Stupidity is amazed, how, on the other hand, any loop-hole gets closed to prevent people from seeing so called child porn, due to voodoo theory. In spite of evidence by professor Milton Diamond that Child pornography viewing reduces child abuse.

We would like to invert the situation: seducing children to grievous bodily harm should be a crime, whose damage has been clearly proven.

Should Parents of Obese Kids Lose Custody? Yes. They expose children to harm. Our entire system needs to be revamped. Feeding children into obesity, allowing them to sit all day on video games and in boring schools, all this needs to be seriously changed. Social workers, advertising, public relations, all need to work together to save our children.

The punishment for violating the privacy of adults is negligible compared to the draconian child porn prison terms he faces. For peeping and filming minors, he is likely to suffer enormous and disproportional punishment. Decades for each count of child pornography "production" could add up to a century.

The victims did not even notice they were filmed. So they did not suffer great harm (except for the Voodoo theory of child porn victimization).  No, I am not saying that there should be no punishment.

But does it make sense to punish him as strictly as for child kidnapping for ransom?

• Do you prefer your child to be secretly watched and filmed by a shy immature pervert or be kidnapped?
• Don’t you prefer your kid to be secretly filmed on the tanning bed 100 times, then to suffer one single instance of kidnapping?  I would be more concerned about the cancer risk from 100 tannings.

Wouldn’t you rather have your kid secretly filmed on a tanning bed then to fall victim to any of the following

• The neighborhood gang extorting an adolescent’s or child’s lunch money
• School bullies sticking a kid’s head in the toilet or beating the child (even if only lightly)
• Drunk drivers running over children on the street
• Bicycle robbers that dangerously push children off bicycles
• Dog owners that don’t keep their dogs leashed, locked, muzzled and thus get children bitten?
• A flash mob roaming the neighborhood, setting ablaze buildings

All the above crimes carry much lower penalties.  So why does our perverted filming peeping Tom get so much higher penalties then those who truly endanger and traumatize our children?

This peeping Tom erred, committed a puerile immature mistake. Unlike many other victims of the child pornography witch hunt that are totally innocent

• Jailed for possession of video of himself masturbating when he was 12. Another victim of child porn laws faces minimum 2 year jail
• Family pictures of nude baby bath: ruinous child porn prosecution
• "Operation Protect Our Children" mistakenly shuts down 84,000 Sites with no child porn
• Sexting: Courts victimize Teens with child porn charges for exchanging their own nude photos
• Border arrest & instant jail for owning DVD with young looking 19 year old porn star.
• Dangerous pedophile hunters threaten harmless pedophile (Jack McClellan)
• Pedophilia witch hunt discussed by academia and press

This peeping Tom is an example of compulsive people who might be helped to refrain from acting out their urges with real children, if they had easier access to legal child "pornography": depictions of harmless photos and videos of adolescents in tanning beds.

• Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)

We can not know if he was interested in actual true children because we invented manipulative language to confuse on purpose, confuse adolescents with children

 

"Tanning bed pervert" nailed for kiddie porn production

Doyce Dean Griffis of Starke, FL, is charged with seven counts of production of child pornography, two counts of receiving child pornography, and one count of possession of child pornography.

According to police reports, from February 2000 until April 26 of this year, the 48-year old Griffis operated and maintained a tanning bed in an "outbuilding" at his residence.

[...] without to his customers’ knowledge, the room had been equipped by Griffis with a two-way mirror that allowed him to view the room from a second concealed room. Griffis also made a hole in an air vent near the foot of the tanning bed that allowed him to view the customers as they lay inside the tanning bed.

Using the two-way mirror and the hole in the air vent, Griffis secretly videotaped dozens of female customers, including minors.

On each of the production counts, Griffis faces 15 to 30 years in federal prison. On each of the receipt counts, he faces five to 20 years in prison. On the possession count, he faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in federal prison.

Find dozens more articles about the excesses of the child porn witch hunt and the damage it causes.

• victimize children by making them sex criminals for taking, passing on or possessing harmless photos of themselves
• put a large percentage of children at risk (those who possess so called child porn but are lucky not to be prosecuted)
• victimize children by increasing actual sex crimes against children (Professor Milton Diamond). Some dangerous pedophiles end up abusing real children because they have no legal outlet perusing pictures.
• victimize adults that inadvertently possess child pornography. Almost any computer has one potential child porn photo somewhere in a computer cache, recycle bin or spam email. Or in legally downloaded over-18 porn where the actress turned out to be a minor with a true valid government ID that “proved” she was over 18
• victimize adults that, by sexual orientation, seek child pornography. The prohibition takes away the chance to use a harmless outlet, in the privacy of their home, that does not harm real live children. In the US, possession of photos carries higher penalties then actual forcible child abuse.

The discussion is further complicated by manipulative language that intentionally confounds children and adolescents, confounds  erotica and explicit pornography.  We will elaborate further below.

30 percent of 17-year-olds with cell phones report receiving sexually-explicit texts

In other words, 30% of our adolescents are committing felonies and are at risk of getting victimized by law enforcement and court prosecutors. They are at risk to become registered sex offenders.

A 13-year-old girl and a 12-year-old boy from Valparaiso have been charged with possession of child pornography and child exploitation after it was discovered they were using their cell phones to exchange nude pictures of themselves with each other.

So the children are exploiting themselves. And photographing oneself is a heinous felony.

Maybe children should go to prison for looking at themselves in the mirror when nude. Obviously, what they see in the mirror is child pornography.

Actually, nude children themselves are child pornography. Children see children nude all the time, but they cannot photograph them. It is probably hard for them to fathom that a photo of what they see all the time is a terrible thing,  punishable with higher prison sentences then actual child beating , mutilation and child killing. The reason for this distorted logic is hard to understand. [1] [2]

Adult laws are crazy and insane, and thus hard to explain to reasonable children.

The “sexting” case is being dealt with in Indiana’s juvenile court system. In adult court, they could have faced 11 years in prison and been forced to register as sex offenders.

11 years in prison for photographing oneself. Pure insanity. If they inadvertently keep the photos it still can happen when they grow up [2]

Porter County Deputy Prosecutor Cheryl Polark told the Northwest Indiana Times that young people don’t understand the ramifications of texting nude pictures or posting certain material on social networking sites like Facebook. She said a nude picture could end up being shared with half the school and could get in the hands of people who seek out child pornography.

It is somewhat embarrassing if the photos get distributed all over school. But there are so many other embarrassing things in life that might end up on the internet. Photos of picking one’s nose, for example.

But what if they end up in the hands of people who seek out child pornography? Great! So these people could get child pornography that was produced without harming children!  And if they live far away, then even the anonymity of the children is preserved.

Child pornography reduces sex crimes

Don’t forget, as Dr. Milton Diamond proved very clearly, that free access to child porn reduces sex crimes against children. The explanation for this is that a pedophile can masturbate to the child porn and thus diminishes his sexual urge and the need to seek live children.

Of course, “watching child porn victimizes the child”, according to the Voodoo science of child pornography laws”. Again, we can not understand how a child gets victimized if someone secretly looks at their photos, 1000s of miles away, in the privacy of his home. Child pornography laws are simply irrational witch hunt.

We fail to protect children from serious life threatening damage, be it fetal alcohol syndrome or child food porn that kills millions prematurely.

Make war, not love

Interestingly, movies of deadly violence towards children and adolescents do NOT victimize children. Only nudity and love-making victimize. Clubbing a 15 year old to death is mainstream TV news video. The same 15 year old happily nude and alive, or making love, would be felony child porn

• Years of Jail for “clicking on child porn link”. But lynching videos are legal.
• Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. But violent robbers get freed.
• Couple stoned to death by Taliban Video. 17 year old girl stoned to death, too.
• Woman causes permanent brain damage in infant: 2 years. Kills baby: 4 years. Man possesses photos: priceless (40 years)
• “Child Porn” Witch Hunt: Insane Laws”

In reality, any rational child (and even rational adult) can see that teens are not victimized by taking their photos, nor by someone looking at their photos. They are victimized by law enforcement and courts.

• Sexting: Courts victimize Teens with child porn charges for exchanging their own nude photos
• Jailed for possession of video of himself masturbating when he was 12. Another victim of child porn laws faces minimum 2 year jail
• Consult a lawyer before playing doctor. Perverse sex laws traumatize children.
• Cruel child porn laws kill, “destroying lives unnecessarily” (Judge Jack B. Weinstein)
• Sexting children Margarite, Isaiah in Lacey, Washington avoid jail
• Eek! A Male! Pedophile hysteria hurts and kills children
• 6-year-old charged with sexual assault for consensual doctor play

Parents, law abiding citizens, arts are victimized

• Family pictures of nude baby bath: ruinous child porn prosecution

Any honest law abiding citizen can be victimized by these laws.

• Border arrest & instant jail for owning DVD with young looking 19 year old porn star. Any honest citizen risks jail
• Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them

Even arts and artist are endangered:

• Child Porn on Australian WTV television (and in video stores and academy award winning movies “The Tin Drum”)?
• Gallery escapes court over nude child photos (external link)

Films like “Blue Lagoon” are obviously child porn (underage actors depicting minors in sensual sex scenes). Nobody dared to prosecute, yet. And lots of 1970 mainstream newspapers page 3 girls (15 year old topless girls) and even the cover of “Der Spiegel” of 1977 are child porn by today’s standards.

Legal access to child pornography reduces child abuse crimes

And all these laws are not only in vain, but actually victimize real children. These prohibitions help to increase criminal child abuse. Serious respectable academic research has proven

• Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)

A recent study from the Pew Research Center reported that 15 percent of teens ages 12-17 say they’ve received on their cell phones sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude images of someone they know.

So 15% of the teens deserve 11 years in jail for receiving harmless photos that other teens took of themselves.

We end our quotes from  “30 percent of 17-year-olds with cell phones report receiving sexually-explicit texts” and move to other articles.

Another Really Good Article on Sexting

In July 2009, Reason magazine published my feature, “Anatomy of a Child Pornographer,” which examined the phenomena of teen sexting, and the ramifications — legal, emotional, political — of one incident in upstate New York.

Today’s New York Times runs, on page 1, “Poisoned Web: A Girl’s Nude Photo, and Altered Lives,” a fabulous and comprehensive piece covering the same issues, this time in the state of Washington, with a school administrator and prosecutor two years further down the line, and having learned the behavior will not change, only the way it is handled when handling becomes required.

More links

• Pedophilia witch hunt discussed by academia and press
• Bruce Rind Study: Scientific Publications Condemned and Repressed by US Congress and Senate
• Leading sex research experts against child porn laws: “Adolescents and young adults are no children”
• Cute child photo scares Reddit’s men’s rights into child porn frenzy
• Unborn Child Porn is Unborn Child Abuse. Outlaw fetal abuse!
• 17 year old “children”? United Nations confesses political manipulation of “child” definition
• History of child pornography production and laws, told by an insider

It is time now technicians learn what child pornography is. Do you know? You think child pornography is photos of 7 year olds in explicit sexual activities? You really have no clue about the law!

• 17 year old "children"? United Nations confesses political manipulation of "child" definition

17 year olds have become "children", department store children’s swim suit catalogue photos become child porn when collected by a person who seems to have prurient reasons to collect such photos. Knox vs. USA determined that photos of 15 year olds in Leotards can constitute child pornography

• Copine/ Sap Scales, Dost Test: Severity of child porn

Can you imagine all the cell phone repair-men now are required by law to turn in adolescents for taking their own photograph or having a photograph the girl friend sent?  Sexting teens in Oregon will prefer to destroy defective cell phones to getting free warranty repairs that might land them in jail.

• Sexting: Courts victimize Teens with child porn charges for exchanging their own nude photos
• Sexting children Margarite, Isaiah in Lacey, Washington avoid jail

We wonder why the law does not include teachers and parents in their duty to report and criminalize adolescents. With some effort, 20-30% of adolescents could be criminally persecuted just for sexting. Remember, receiving the photos is a heinous crime, too.

Oregon’s Senate approved a bill that requires computer technicians to report images of child pornography

The measure passed the state Senate on a 24-1 vote Friday and now heads to the governor for signature or veto.

Technicians who believe they may have spotted images of child porn must notify the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the state Department of Human Services or law enforcement. Failure to do so could result in a misdemeanor charge.

Only a misdemeanor? We think technicians should get mandatory felony charges </sarcasm>

We are surprised, that in this day and age where toddlers play with cell phones, no 7 year olds have yet been arrested for photographing themselves nude or their doctor plays. It will happen!

• 6-year-old charged with sexual assault for consensual doctor play

And don’t forget all the family photos of babies taking bath, changing diapers. They all need to be analyzed painstakingly by police and and highly paid defense lawyers to see if baby poses in a way that the perverted mind of a public prosecutor considers sexually enticing or provocative.

• Family pictures of nude baby bath: ruinous child porn prosecution 

Privacy laws? Technicians snooping our income tax return?

So the technician now is encouraged to snoop cell phones and computers to find child pornography? What if he finds the income tax return? Insider information about the stock market? Or stories about adult love affairs? Is he not violating the privacy of his customer?

Everyone now risks 10 years in jail and  has to be wary when

• crossing international borders with a computer or cell phone
• developing photos at Wal-Mart and now
• having computers and cell phone repaired.

Reporting laws create suffering for adults and children

A lot more suffering will be created. Not only for innocent children accused of sexting, of adults inadvertently getting child porn  photos,

• Cruel child porn laws kill, "destroying lives unnecessarily” (Judge Jack B. Weinstein)

Lots of so called child porn certainly does not cause any damage to the minor when produced, for example taking one’s own nude photos, or boyfriend and girlfriend engaging in legally allowed sex (age of consent of 16 or 14)

• Jailed for possession of video of himself masturbating when he was 12
• Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them
• Eek! A Male! Pedophile hysteria hurts and kills children!

Well, and sometimes our zeal goes a bit overboard

• "Operation Protect Our Children" mistakenly shuts down 84,000 Sites with no child porn

Child pornography reporting laws don’t make children safer

Only the perverted logic of feminists and religious zealots can invent the lore that (even inadvertently) downloading or looking at some pictures somehow hurts a person thousands of miles away that is not even aware of the guy’s action.

• "Watching child porn victimizes the child". The Voodoo science of child pornography laws"

So 95% of so called child porn never endangered any child, because it really is adolescent erotica, involves legal acts, …. There is small percentage of true child pornography that serves as the excuse for the witch hunt. It did hurt a child at some time, but its viewing will not hurt it again as some mystics claim.

• Leading sex research experts against child porn laws: "Adolescents and young adults are no children"

Equally as viewing photos of stoning, whipping, clubbing to death or beheading of minors will not re-victimize the victim of violence.

Do NOT report movies of children whipped by Taliban, stoned to death, beheaded by terrorists or of self mutilating jackass wannabees

Our sex obsessed society feels comfortable about violence, vigilantism, killing and mayhem.

• Adolescent girl-fights with injuries: cheer on! Nudity, love and sex are crime and victimization.
• Hollywood movies glorify criminal heroes: how romantic!
• Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. But violent robbers get freed.
• Woman causes permanent brain damage in infant: 2 years. Kills baby: 4 years. Man possesses photos: priceless (40 years)

Do report academy award winning movie "The Tin Drum" when in Oklahoma

• Child Porn on Australian WTV television (and in video stores and academy award winning movies "The Tin Drum")?

By conventional logic, Brooke Shields must be a total wreck. Her movies and photos have been seen by millions and still are all over the net. And her movies "Taxi Driver" and "Blue Lagoon" clearly are child porn by today’s standards. She still gets re-victimized tens of thousands of times per day.

• Brooke Shields nude: exploited pedophile magnet?

Many minors were on the cover of Playboy magazine or on page 3 of British tabloids in the 1970s. Now this needs to be reported as child porn.

Child  porn prohibition likely to cause increased child abuse

World renowned academic researcher is getting ostracized for his scientific research that showed that

• Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)

He suggested to use artificially created child porn so no children would be harmed. We suggest to add so called child porn depicting that was clearly created without hurting children, and to grandfather child porn that has been around for decades, where no new damage is being done.

Close the loophole: outlaw unborn child porn

A tasteless article poking fun at the child pornography prosecution craze:

• Unborn Child Porn is Unborn Child Abuse. Outlaw fetal abuse!

Start reporting REAL avoidable damage caused to children

Pregnant women drink alcohol,cause brain damage in offspring with no legal consequences or social ostracism. Nothing is done about families and food industry conspire to create a generation of obese diabetics who will die 15 years prematurely

• "Child Food-Porn" (Junk food advertising) makes our children obese & unhealthy"

The enormous cache of computer files taken from Osama bin Laden’s compound contained a considerable quantity of pornographic videos, U.S. officials said Friday, adding a discordant note to the public image of the Islamist militant who long denounced the West for its lax sexual mores.   Porn videos found in bin Laden’s computer files

If Bin Laden’s porn collection contains a single child porn video, the punishment is almost as high as for blowing up the twin towers and killing 3000 people. Each image in a video can count as one instance of child porn photos. It is easy to convict, as the burden of proof usually is inverted, as Mr. Simon-Timmerman found out when he was arrested for having a video of over 18 year old younger looking porn star Little Lupe. Possessing child porn has higher punishments then actually abusing the children. And, by US laws (Knox vs. United States), movies of 15 year olds gyrating sensually while fully dressed in Leotards qualifies as child porn.

It might prove easier to convict Bin Laden on child porn charges then to prove his authorship of terrorist acts. Almost any man on earth who ever surfed porn sites has some questionable photos he could be indicted for. It does not matter if photos were already deleted but can be recovered. And, if in doubt, photos can be planted by the CIA. Such photos must not be presented to the press, so it would be a safe strategy.

Whatever you might think of Rinehart’s judgment or ethics, his relationships with the girls weren’t illegal. The age of consent in Indiana is 16. That is also the age of consent in federal territories. Rinehart got into legal trouble because one of the girls mentioned to him that she had posed for sexually provocative photos for a previous boyfriend and offered to do the same for Rinehart. Rinehart lent her his camera, which she returned with the promised photos. Rinehart and both girls then took additional photos and at least one video, which he downloaded to his computer.

The girl produced, possessed, distributed child porn. Why is she not in jail?  So she will learn not to victimize herself with her own photos! And the previous boy friend! Why has the FBI not arrested him yet?

In 2007 Rinehart was convicted on two federal charges of producing child pornography. U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton, who now serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, reluctantly sentenced Rinehart to 15 years in prison. Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, Hamilton wrote, his hands were tied. There is no parole in the federal prison system. So barring an unlikely grant of clemency from the president, Rinehart, who is serving his time at a medium-security prison in Pennsylvania, will have to complete at least 85 percent of his term (assuming time off for good behavior), or nearly 13 years.

Hamilton was not permitted to consider any mitigating factors in sentencing Rinehart. It did not matter that Rinehart’s sexual relationships with the two girls were legal. Nor did it matter that the photos for which he was convicted never went beyond his computer. Rinehart had no prior criminal history, and there was no evidence he had ever possessed or searched for child pornography on his computer. There was also no evidence that he abused his position as a police officer to lure the two women into sex. His crime was producing for his own use explicit images of two physically mature women with whom he was legally having sex. (Both women also could have legally married Rinehart without their parents’ consent, although it’s unclear whether federal law would have permitted a prosecution of Rinehart for photographing his own wife.)  You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them

Of course not. Why would one have the right to stay out of jail for photographing the own wife if she is under 18? The wife needs to be protected, by putting her husband in jail for a decade or two.  Remember, each time someone looks at child pornography, the child is victimized.  Even if the adolescent can be fully clothed in a movie, it still can be child pornography (Knox vs. USA).

The girl is in urgent need of protection. Locking away her beloved boy friend is for 1-2 decades is for her own good. He is a creep anyway, what does a 34 year old do with TWO girl friends, 16 and 17 years old? He deserves 15 years in jail. The antifeminist is right: these laws are to instill terror in men, so they will not even look at or talk to women under 25.

Even if the woman presents you a fake ID, you still go to jail for sex or child porn. Women with fake ID need protection too. 

In his sentencing statement, Hamilton urges executive clemency for Rinehart. He points out that under federal law Rinehart received the same sentence someone convicted of hijacking an airplane or second-degree murder would receive. For a bank robber to get Rinehart’s sentence, Hamilton writes, "he would need to fire a gun, inflict serious bodily injury on a victim, physically restrain another victim, and get away with the stunning total of $2.5 million."

Having provocative photos of your 16 year old girl friend needs a much higher jail term then inflicting serious bodily injury while robbing a bank.  And you thought laws are supposed to make sense?

Woman causes permanent brain damage in infant: 2 years. Kills baby: 4 years. Man possesses photos: priceless (40 years) Sure, killing and mutilating is not as bad as looking at photos. Or possessing them unknowingly without even looking at them. Movie of 15 year old girl repeatedly brutally stomped on head: prime time news. Depicting the same girl posing nude would be child porn, a heinous crime Thank God, we have the right to watch killings, beatings,stoning to death of minors, decapitation. The only problem is sexuality and nudity. Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. But violent robbers get freed. Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV For some entertainment where adolescents ("children") endanger and hurt themselves seriously see Jackass wannabee movies at break.com/surfacevideo/jackass Well, as long as there is no nudity, it is ok to get seriously hurt for sensationalism.

Hamilton is not the first federal judge to express frustration over federal child porn sentencing laws. In May 2010, The New York Times profiled U.S. District Court Judge Jack Weinstein, who after 43 years on the bench has essentially gone rogue, twice throwing out convictions of a man convicted of receiving child pornography because of the five-year mandatory minimum sentence attached to the offense. Weinstein has also indicated that in future child porn cases he will disregard the federal rules of criminal procedure and inform his juries of the sentences defendants will get if convicted.

The law demands that the jury be not informed of the sentencing. The law makers are worried that juries will not convict if they know the insanely high mandatory sentencing guidelines. language abuse to deceive is common in the child porn witch hunt. Read my article about the Copine scale 

Rinehart was convicted of producing child pornography. But in cases where a suspect is charged with receiving child pornography, prosecutors need not even show intent. The mere presence of the images on the defendant’s computer is enough to win a conviction.

Everyone is at risk for 15 year jail convictions

Do you understand? It does not matter how these photos got onto your computer. 15 years in jail!  Someone who hates you just needs to put the photos onto your computer. Or if you are a woman, your adolescent boy surfed and they stayed in the cache. Or you looked at legal photos and somehow they got onto your computer.

Plant child porn photos to get even

Now,  false rape accusations are not the only way to get back at men. Just upload a nude photo of yourself when under age, or surf the internet on his computer until you find some child porn. It will linger in the browser cache or in the recycling bin for a long time.

Child porn laws kill and cause increased child abuse

Milton Diamond showed in convincing academic research that in half a dozen countries child abuse crimes increased when child porn was outlawed, and decreased when it was legalized. Dr. Diamond made his name proving that legalization of regular adult pornography reduced rape and sexual assault crimes in many countries.

In our Judge Jack Weinstein article we showed how many people actually committed suicide because of the persecution.

• Cruel child porn laws kill, "destroying lives unnecessarily” (Judge Jack B. Weinstein)