From xyclopedia - the history of pornography and sexual expression
During the 1970s sex shops from New York to Los Angeles offered explicit materials featuring bestiality, rape and children.
In 1977, Dr. Judianne Densen-Gerber told a U.S.
Congressional Panel probing the sexual exploitation of children that,
"We are dealing with organized crime, the same group of people who
filled this country with narcotics..." Dr Densen-Gerber said "kiddie
porno was started...in Seattle, Washington, by a man named Tony
Eboli, who headed the Genovese family." The doctor apparently refers to
Tommy Eboli, also called Tommy Ryan, who was shot to death from ambush
as he left the Brooklyn apartment of his mistress. He had fallen out
of favor with fellow Mob leaders who invested in a heroin smuggling
scheme he engineered that went sour and cost millions. Eboli briefly
shared leadership of the Vito Genovese Mafia family with Gerado Catena
after Genovese was sent to prison.
Most of the child pornography traded in the late '60s
to 1977 was photographed in Europe, Asia, and North Africa. Many photos
depicted erotic nudity rather than sex, and about 10-20% of photos in
child porn magazines were pirated from nudist magazines, showing
children playing innocently.
A number of experts who have observed the child
pornography industry from its beginnings to its demise agree that the
number of minors shown in commercial child pornography magazines and
films did not exceed 5,000 - 7,000 worldwide. Few of the children were
runaways, prostitutes or drug addicts. Most came from middle-class
homes and knew the adults for whom they posed. Most were between the
ages of seven and fourteen. Instances of infants being molested and
photographed simultaneously are rare if they've occurred at all.
Claims of child auctions in Amsterdam, toll-free
numbers and mail-order houses for ordering child prostitutes, child
"snuff" films, satanic molestation rituals in which animals are
dismembered, "chains of [American] brothels and bordellos...where
children are kept...under lock and key," and motorcycle gang rapes are
touted by anti-pornography activists, law enforcement officers,
prosecutors, politicians, and others without presenting persuading
evidence of such occurences. (Law Professor Lawrence A. Stanley)
Holland, Denmark and Germany produced kiddie porn
magazines and films during the late '60s to mid '70s. Few such
productions were made in the United States. The approximate number of
commercial child pornography magazines produced in the United States and
Europe from the late 1960s onward consist of: less than 550 magazines
depicting children having sex with other children or adults,; 460
magazines depicting boys nude and less than 100 magazines depicting
"Yes, we did publish a couple of child porn mags in the mid'70s,"
says Rupert James, who works for Peter Theander's Rodox corporation
based in Copenhagen, Denmark. "We also did animal-sex mags and films.
I suppose that we must have started about 1974 or so and it was all
over 1978. One of them was called Children Love, and it went about 30
issues. The original idea was that everybody else was doing it, and in
any case, it was supposed to be the softer, affectionate kind of child
sex - not rape and brutality...
"Why did we stop? We didn't like the nature of the material coming
in. Originally we published stuff mostly from enthusiasts. But, of
course, we were publishing it commercially as was everyone else at that
time. That encouraged people to actually make the photos and films
commercially. That meant we were commercially encouraging the abuse of
children. That couldn't go on.
"In my opinion we shouldn't have
started. That was irresponsible. And we still have problems as a result.
For example, the French customs and police always give us a bad time
because we are down in their files as child pornographers. They don't
listen when we sat that all stopped a long time ago, they don't care."
(Porn Gold, published in London in 1988 by Faber & Faber)
Some magazines publicized as child pornography
contained no sex or "lascivious exhibition of the genitals". Moppets,
for example, was one of the better-known titles which does not qualify
as child pornography despite testimony before Congress by such
mendacious sources as Lloyd Martin of the Los Angeles Police Department.
Bill Margold remembers receiving regular visits from
Martin. "One day I queried him about snuff films and if he'd ever seen
one. 'There are no such things,' was his response. 'We've created that
myth to make you industry look even worse than it is. The only ways we
can get the public to believe that you are really rotten is to make
them believe that you make snuff films and do kiddie porn'."
In 1975, Houston police found a warehouse full of child
porn, including 15,000 slides of boys engaging in gay sex. In 1976, Los
Angeles Police found over 260 magazines in adult bookstores that dealt
with child sex.
In New York City, Father Bruce Ritter, a Franciscan
priest who started Covenant House, reported that "Of the 12,000 kids
under 21 who come to...Covenant House for help, fully 60% have been
involved in prostitution or pornography."
Some of the boys who came to Covenant House for help in
the 1970s featured in magazines such as Lollitots, which showed girls
eight to fourteen and Moppits which supposedly showed children three to
Robin Lloyd, author of the book For Money or Love: Boy
Prostitution in America, claimed in the '70s that there were 300,000
boys, aged eight to sixteen, in the pornography and prostitution
rackets. Dr. Judianne Densen-Gerber, whose efforts helped persuade
Congress in 1977 to pass the first Sexual Exploitation of Minors Act,
noted that Lloyd spoke only of boys, which led her to believe "that if
there are 300,000 boys, there must be a like number of girls, but no
one has bothered to count them. Lloyd postulated but cannot
substantiate that only half the true number of these children is known.
"That would put the figure closer to 1,200,000 nationwide - a figure
that is not improbable... How many ways are there for a twelve-year-old
to support himself?"
LA Police Chief Daryl F. Gates told a Congressional
panel that organized crime ran the child porn business. "Possibly
because of fear of public outrage, they operate through intermediaries,
making it difficult to directly connect them with the sale and
distribution of pornography involving children." Gates said the use of
children in pornography appeared to have initially been the province of
child molesters turned pornographers. "However, given the enormous
potential for profit and any lessening of vigorous enforcement, it can
be predicted that organized crime will become more deeply involved in
Soon after child pornography appeared on the shelves of
adult bookstores around the country in the mid '70s, "self-appointed
moral crusaders and some feminists began storming the country to decry
the shameful exploitation of children by child pornographers and adults
who engage or desire to engage in sexual activity with children.
Articles and editorials appeared in nearly every
newspaper in the United States calling for a stop to child
pornography. Within a year or two, in the face of mounting public
pressure, distributors and retailers of adult pornography had removed
child pornography from their stocks and shelves. The federal government
and state legislatures responded by enacting legislation proscribing
the production and sale of child pornography and by funding law
enforcement efforts to combat it. By the time the first federal child
pornography law took effect in February, 1978, the production and
commercial distribution of child pornography in the United States had
been virtually eliminated." (Law Professor Lawrence A. Stanley in the
Cardoza Arts and Entertainment Law Review, 1989, pg. 295.)
Commercially child pornography was virtually
eliminated by 1978 though the traffic continued on a small scale.
Roland Bouldreault and Larry Nelson ran Le Salon Distributors out of San
Francisco - a major shipper of child pornography along with All
American Studios, also of the Bay Area. Bare Boys was one of Salon's
offerings featuring children as young as eight.
Joseph Jesse Espinoza, who owned distributor J-E
Enterprises as well as several Los Angeles area adult book stores, was
convicted in 1981 (641 F.2d 153) for trafficking in child pornography.
On March 2nd, 1981, the owner of a Manhattan adult
bookstore, Paul Ira Ferber, sold two films devoted to young boy
masturbating to an undercover police officer. The first film shows a
naked boy lying face down on a bed, rubbing against the bed. He then
turns on his back and masturbates twice to ejaculation. Next, lying on
his side, he places a dildo between his buttocks as if to insert it
into his anus. The second film shows other naked boys, some seven and
eight years old, masturbating themselves and each other. At the end of
the second film, the main child performer dresses slowly, then picks up
some money and holds it towards the camera. (NY v Ferber)
Commercial child pornography ceased in Denmark in 1980
when Danish laws against it were passed. The last child pornography
magazines out of Holland appeared in 1982. As in the U.S., videos and
photos showing boys and girls have been made in Europe in recent years,
but not for commercial distribution.
Still, for all intents and purposes, commercial
trafficking in child pornography ceased by 1978 and has played
virtually no role since in the mainstream adult industry. "Despite this,
the child pornography issue continued to be exploited nationwide by
law enforcement officials, moral crusaders and the media. What may have
begun as a legitimate concern for the well-being of children quickly
turned into a "moral panic" which swept the nation. Currently, child
pornography slide shows and "teach-ins" continue to be given by law
enforcement personnel, religious groups, Women Against Pornography, and
other groups professing the danger that child pornography poses to
children and society. Thousands of news articles, exposes, editorials,
books, and television programs still proliferate at an astonishing
rate, warning parents and children about kidnapping or sexual advances
from strangers, neighbors, and, occasionally, relatives.
"School programs aimed at teaching children about "good" touch and
"bad" touch have been developed and implemented. Professionals and
volunteers who work with children, particularly teachers of young
children, day care workers, Big Brothers, and scout leaders, are
literally terrified of touching or being alone with a child, lest they
be accused of abuse. Widespread fear about sexual abuse has led frantic
parents, social workers, and others who work with children to look to
sexual abuse as the cause of any difficulties which a child may have in
"In this climate of acute social paranoia and suspicion, claims of
child sexual abuse have reached epidemic proportions. Many innocent
individuals...have been falsely accused of crimes involving children.
Such alleged crimes include sex rings with dozens of children, animal
sacrifices, satanic rituals, gang rapes, child pornography, child
prostitution and child murder. Many of the accused are convicted on
little or no evidence. Many are acquitted, but are left bankrupt by the
costs of defending the charges against them. Often they are unable to
find jobs and are left socially and emotionally ruined." (Law Professor
Lawrence A. Stanley)
Back in 1983, American Enterprise Institute director
Douglas Besharov reported that up to 65% of all child abuse reports in
the United States "may be unfounded." That percentage has probably
The activities of law enforcement agencies against
"kiddie porn" also grew exponentially during the 1980s. United States
Customs, the United States Postal Inspection Service, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and state and local law enforcement and social
service agencies established special units to combat the child
pornography industry, which hasn't existed since 1978. Two persons
largely caused the explosion of the kiddie porn myth into national
hysteria - Sergeant Lloyd Martin of the LAPD and Judianne
Densen-Gerber, the founder of the multi-national drug rehabilitation
organization Odyssey House. Martin told Congress that child porn was
"worse than homicide." An investigator for the LAPD, Barbara Pruitt,
claimed that "the children who die, they are the lucky ones."
Densen-Gerber mailed child pornography to members of Congress and
toured the country with stories of forced prostitution, drug addiction,
kidnapping and murder. She made numerous unsubstantiated claims, such
as one in 1979 that "by recent count...there were 264 child pornography
magazines being produced monthly and sold in adult bookstores across
In 1977, the Illinois House of Representatives
appointed the Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission (ILIC) to
look into child pornography. There is no evidence...that
300,000 or more children have ever been involved in these exploitative
activities; that very few parents ever have offered their children
to pornographers as models...that there never was a nation-wide
movement of children for sexual purposes...
Martin admitted that he had no firm statistics upon which to base his
estimate and that, further, such statistics simply do not exist...
Our investigator then spoke with Robin Lloyd... He
stated that he had "thrown out" a figure of 300,000 as an estimate to
see how law enforcement officials would react.... Though
Lloyd's book contains numerous factual references, he appends neither
footnotes nor bibliography; thus, it is impossible to check the veracity
of anything he says. Martin's and Densen-Gerber's crusading
ended in 1982, but others swiftly replaced them. A social worker with
Children's Institute International in California, Kee MacFarlane, told
the following to Congress in 1984 without providing any evidence to
support her theories.
"I believe we're dealing with an organized operation of child
predators designed to prevent detection... The preschool, in such a
case, serves as a ruse for a larger, unthinkable network of crimes
against children. If such an operation involves child pornography or
the selling of children, as is frequently alleged, it may have greater
financial, legal and community resources at its disposal than those
attempting to expose it."
Kee McWilliams and Children's Institute International
(CII) drove the hysterical McMartin Preschool molestation case which
turned out to be a fraud. In the last 20 years, far more people have
been hurt by the hysteria generated by such radical feminists as
McWilliams, C.I.I. and Densen-Gerber than by child pornography.
"...Frantic parents, an overeager social worker, an overzealous
prosecutorial force and a gullible and complicitous news media combined
to make life a living hell for innocent little children and the entire
staff of the McMartin school. In the end - after two trials based on
the most lurid, heinous charges imaginable - not one person was
convicted. But the frenzy ignited by McMartin triggered similar
child-molestation scares across the country." (David Shaw)
In January 1982, New York State Attorney General Robert
Abrams accused Densen-Gerber of using public monies targeted to
Odyssey House for her personal use. Other charges against the crusader
included that she forced an inmate to kneel and wash her feet; that
she forced a black man to sit in a chair while white
women spat on him; and that once when an inmate died at Odyssey House,
she ordered other inmates to dance around the deceased while singing
Jinging Bells. A federal team analyzed Densen-Gerber's Odyssey
operation and cited her program for its "punitive and coercive
orientation" and "misuse" of children. The crusader against child abuse
turned out to be an abuser.
According to journalist Lucy Komisar, "a member of New
York City's police runaway unit said he stopped taking young
prostitutes to Odyssey. 'I'm afraid I would have only negative things to
say,'...said Detective Warren McGinniss of the Youth Aid division.
'Every kid we put in there walked right back out'."
Densen-Gerber used humiliation as a
treatment tactic. Residents who committed infractions were forced to
wear costumes with paper ears and tails. "If you act like a jackass,
you might as well look like a jackass," they were told.
Judianne's husband is the former Chief Medical Officer of
New York - Dr. Michael Baden. He testified at the O.J. trial. Both are
friends with political extremist Lyndon LaRouche.
One of America's most popular magazines, the Ladies Home
Journal, claimed in its April 1983 issue that child pornography
generates between 500 million dollars and one billion dollars annually,
exploiting several million children. The Albany Times Union
reported that child pornography is a "$46 billion
national industry - a loose network involving 2.4 million youngsters,
according to federal statistics." In 1988, Senator Dennis De Concini
told Congress that "child pornography has become a highly organized
multimillion-dollar industry..." These sources offered no evidence to
back up their sensational claims.
In the 1980s, as fear over child pornography merged with
the "missing children" scare, public hysteria reached new heights.
Child pornography and the deeds of "pedophiles" were claimed to be
directly responsible for the disappearance of hundreds of thousands, if
not millions of children, despite the fact that the FBI, in 1985,
reported that there were a total of 67 cases of children abducted by
An August 1984 NBC documentary The Silent Shame repeated
many of the lies listed above, and added their own, such as the
existence of extensive child pornography exports from Denmark. After
the documentary aired, Danish officials conducted a thorough
investigation. Berl Kutchinsky, Professor of Criminology at the
University of Copenhagen, and Denmark's leading expert on porn,
reported in 1985 that: "allegations of a large export of child
pornography from Denmark to the United States caused great alarm in
Denmark... When the two NBC reporters came back to Denmark to give
evidence about their under-cover sessions with Danish porn dealers, they
also handed over specimens of what they claimed to be Danish produced
child pornography. Examination of these specimens showed, however, that
no children were involved..."
Kurchinsky also noted that none of the addresses supplied
by American law enforcement personnel to Danish investigators belonged
to businesses engaged in child pornography. But as with the coming
scare over heterosexual AIDS, facts proved irrelevant through the 1980s
and 1990s to those with ideological agendas greater than truth.
The biggest domestic trafficker in child pornography is
federal government sting operations, which encourage suspects to place
ads seeking child porn. These government-created publications are the
only publications in the U.S. today which solicit, advertise, sell or
offer to purchase or exchange child porn. Government agents also
operate "confidential" film laboratories which claim to provide
confidential developing services. The Postal Inspection Service and
Customs have solicited thousands of people who've bought from them
child pornography videos, magazines and photos. These activities have
resulted in few arrests. Four targets of a 1987 sting - Thomas
Cleasby, Roger Brase, Dale Riva and Gary Benson - committed suicide.
A person seeking child sex through magazines will
probably only find a vast network of postal inspectors and police.
There are no sexually oriented publications in the U.S. today which
contain ads for child porn. There are no toll-free numbers to order
child prostitutes. There are no large networks of individuals, other
than public authorities, exchanging child pornography.
A world expert on pedophilia and incest, Dr. Ron
Langevin, has been researching sex offenders for 20 years. He says the
rate of association between consumption of pornography of any type
child pornography and the commission of sex offenses is low.
"I have recently tabulated the frequency of pornography
use among sex offenders seen in our clinic... We did so a few years ago
and decided to abandon the question because of the low incidence of
such behavior, i.e. it seemed unimportant. In light of the current
popular debate on the role of pornography in sexual offenses we started
to collect the data again. The results are essentially the same... To
predict a predisposition to pedophilia or to the commission of child
abuse based on the possession of pornography would be a futile effort."
Many of the politicians, law enforcement officials, and
anti-pornography groups who have myths about child pornography found
the 1986 Attorney General's Commmission on Pornography receptive to
their goals of suppressing sexually oriented materials. The Commission
said that "The sexual exploitation of children is the basis for the
production and distribution of child pornography... The U.S. is the
largest consumer of internationally produced child pornography."
Commissioner, anti-porn activist and Franciscan friar
Bruce Ritter received laudatory press coverage for years, including
this 11/27/85 article in the Chicago Tribune, headlined "Haven From The
Hell Of New York Streets."
In more innocent times, the worst of the furies that
awaited a youngster abandoned to cruel big-city streets were hunger,
loneliness, crime, and freezing weather…
Now, a deadlier predator is abroad, one that Father Bruce
Ritter, founder of New York City`s Covenant House, says is growing fat
upon ready prey. The predator is the pimp with the videotape camera,
and his prey are the 500,000 children a year who have run or been
driven from their homes.
Ritter`s Covenant House is a fortress island in the
polluted sea of sleaze that is New York`s Times Square, where hookers
hawk their wares to visiting businessmen and Triple-X theaters compete
with ``adult`` video outlets to excite and titillate the jaded. As many
as 13,000 youngsters seek asylum from that urban hell every year at
Covenant House, and Ritter said many of them, already conditioned to
the lure of sex for cash, have been its ready victims.
``In the last 20 years,`` Ritter said. ``we`ve seen the
development of an enormous multi-multi-multi-billion-dollar sex
industry. We live in a sex-for-sale society that shows kids it`s okay
to become sexual objects; it`s okay to become the merchandise in the
sex industry, of which we are the patrons.
``Everybody who watches a hardcore porno film has to know
that they`re part of the problem,`` he said. ``They are just as
responsible for the moral murder of the people who make that film… If
you`re buying these hardcore porno films, you`re part of that chain of
corruption and violence and lust and prostitution..."
During the late '80s and early '90s, numerous boys
testified that the good father had loved them too deeply. After a
flurry of embarrassing revelations about his molestations, Father Ritter
resigned from Covenant House and disappeared from public view.
Sorting out the truth of recent reports about child porn
is difficult. Child porn activists, like many anti-porn activists,
routinely exaggerate and lie to induce people to follow their hatred of
sexual entertainment in general and male sexuality in particular. Law
enforcement has a mixed record telling the truth about porn.
But this can be relied upon - At the end of the 20th
century there is no commercial child pornography industry in America
and probably the world - if children are defined as being under the age
of 13. Japan and other countries do traffic in explicit materials
The increasing use of the internet has
made it easier for consumers of child porn to swap material. While the
industry was stamped out in America by 1978, pictures from that era are
being scanned or digitized and re-released via the net.
"The ability to mass market child pornography with little
or no overhead to huge populations has created an environment where
pressures for new material exist," Kevin V. Di Gregory, deputy
assistant attorney general in the United States Justice Department,
testified before Congress in June, 1996. "This demand is being met by
new material from sources which include the Pacific Rim countries..."
A popular practice on the net is to splice children's
pictures (or pictures of famous people) into a pornographic image to
create a fictional scene.
Under President Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno has
frequently fought against tougher prosecution of child porn. In the
case of Knox v. the United States, the Justice Department argued that
tapes of girls clothed in bathing suits and panties, spreading their
legs in lascivious ways, were not pornographic. Reno tried to narrow
and weaken interpretation of the 1984 Child Protection Act but the
federal appeals court in Philadelphia, in the Knox case, disagreed,
ruling that "the child is treated as a sexual object, and the permanent
record of this embarrassing and humiliating experiences produces the
same detrimental effects to the mental health of the child as a nude
Disturbing trends about child porn include the following:
According to a 1991 study done by the frequently mendacious Los
Angeles Police Department, child molestors used pornography to seduce
their victims in two-thirds of the Department's child molestation cases
over a ten-year period.
London, Ontario has been called the "kiddie porn capital"
of Canada. In June 1994, 30 men were charged with more than 1300
counts of sexual crimes against 50 boys. The pedophiles include social
workers, school teachers and a politician. Some of the victims were as
young as eight years old. Police confiscated more than 1200 homemade
videos and hundreds of Polaroid photos and child-porn magazines.
In the summer of 1996, San Bernadino County Sheriff's
deputies arrested two convicted sex offenders for molesting as many as
100 children. Investigators said they seized "hundreds of thousands" of
pornographic photographs and about 800 pornographic videos and films,
many of which show the two men, Don Stephenson, 52, and Donald Collins,
48, have sex with kids.
Sergeant R. P. Tyler is one of five investigators who
track child porn for the San Bernadino County Sheriff's department. He
says that the Japanese child pornography market is the largest in the
world. The quantity of teen porn available in Japan far exceeds the
amount produced by Europeans during their peak years in the 1970s.
Made-in-Japan schoolgirl material is available internationally on the
Internet. Tyler says that most on-line discussion of where to get such
porn focuses on Japan. The country has no laws against child porn.
Japanese police say there are about 1,200 commercial child pornography
Internet sites in Japan.
In April 1997, the Christian Science Monitor printed its
latest investigation into the worldwide sexual exploitation of
children. It said that Japanese convenience stores and bookshops sell
pornographic magazines, comic books and novels featuring teenagers. Porn
shops sell picture books, videos and novels featuring children of all
ages. Girls are depicted more often than boys.
Alice Club, a bimonthly magazine whose title refers to
the works of Lewis Carroll who enjoyed shooting pictures of naked
girls, devotes itself to the sexual appreciation of prepubescent girls.
Alice Club sells about 50,000 copies of each issue.
The Monitor says that child porn in Japan was initially
imported from the West and did not gain popularity until the early
1980s. At the time Japanese police enforced obscenity laws by banning
all displays of pubic hair, but pornography publishers discovered that
explicit pictures of prepubescent children could be sold without
Like most pioneering visual pornography, child porn in Japan first appeared in art books.
Japanese sex shops frequently devote space to "Lolita"
videos, a label inspired by Vladimir Nabokov's book of the same name.
Japanese law does not prohibit individuals from owning or buying child
porn. One popular video, Teenage Story, features a man raping a ten
year old girl.
History helps explain Japan's lack of specific laws
against child porn. The militarists who ruled the country through the
Second World War strictly controlled expression, so freedom of speech
today is prized.
The Japanese generally don't object to the publishing of
nude pictures of foreign girls. Because the Asian country lacks
religious notions of sexual sin, it has a free attitude about physical
The Japanese feel comfortable with child sexuality. Until
the end of WWII, girls were given or sold into marriage at the age of
12 and 13. Japan's penal code, passed into law in 1908, puts the age of
sexual consent at 13, even though Japanese must be 20 to vote and 18 to
drive a car.
In 1988 and 1989, a printing plant employee, Tsutomo
Miyazaki, raped and killed four girls aged between four and seven. In
his apartment, police and reporters found thousands of videotape, many
of which included child porn.
Hong Kong's 1997 campaign against child porn brought
about 100 arrests and seizures of about 10,000 obscene articles
including videotapes and CD ROMs.
Many child porn videos and photographs that circulate on
the internet come from Mexico City and Guadalajara. Two U.S.
pornographers who ran the "International Male" group recruited 300
Mexican children from 7-11 to appear in their explicit productions.
Some of the children are still missing.
Russia remains on the fringes of the electronic child
pornography trade because the Internet is not accessible to most
Russians. Fewer than 1% of the country's 150 million person population
can go on line. Still, the Interior Ministry has a child porn
investigation squad that works with the FBI.
A British TV documentary, "The Boy Business" says a
British pedophile ring in Hoofddorp, Holland, made a series of child
snuff movies in the early 1990s. The ring supposedly abducted homeless
teenage boys from Britain and Eastern Europe and literally fucked them
to death on videotape. Dutch police can't confirm the allegations.
"From the steamy brothels of Bangkok and Bombay to the
beaches of Cartagena, the sidewalks of Manila and the dingy train
stations of Moscow, the world is teaming with children who have been
kidnapped, sold, lured or forced to become the sex objects of
unscrupulous adults," said Time International 9/2/96.
"The child-sex trade has traditionally been identified
with underdeveloped countries, particularly in Southeast Asia, where
cheap prices, the ready availability of underage prostitutes and the
lax law enforcement have attracted Western sex tourists. Not that local
customers are lacking: many men in Thailand, for example, are
accustomed to visiting prostitutes, including anywhere from 20,000 to
200,000 young ones.
"Along with Thailand, other popular Asian destinations
for sex tourists are Cambodia, Sri Lanka and the Philippines -
countries where widespread poverty pushes youths to sell their bodies,
often at their parents prodding, to help support their families."
According to an official with the group Save the
Children, "Europe is the heart of the problem. The fall of the Berlin
Wall and the end of communism have brought the development of a market
in Eastern Europe, but also in Russian and in the Baltic republics."
In Moscow alone there are about 1000 child prostitutes.
Hundreds more ply the trade in Warsaw, Prague, Bucharest, Budapest and
the Baltic capitals. The child sex trade booms in Eastern Europe
because of severe poverty, the power of organized crime and the death of
"Pedophiles are generally not violent aggressors," says a
specialist for Interpol, the international police organization. "They
are charmers, good fathers, people above all suspicion. They are more
likely to be consumers of child pornography than rapists."
The Belgium monster Marc Dutroux shocked the world in mid
1996 when his rape, torture and murder of several young children
became known. Marc videotaped his captives.
Dutroux financed the construction of secret prisons for
his captives through the sale of guns and pornography. Marc owned a
huge porn collection.
According to the Berlin daily Bild, a video showing the
mass rape of young girls during the war in Bosnia has become the most
expensive tape on the German market, with a price tag of $10,000.
Possession of child porn is legal in such countries as
Sweden, Mexico, Japan and Hungary. Advertising that borders on child
porn pervades America and much of the world.
In 1988, fashion designer Calvin Klein told Vogue
magazine that "I've done everything [in my ads] I could do in a
provocative sense without being arrested."
One of Calvin's favorite models is Kate Moss, born about
1974. The emaciated girl's vacant stare, unsmiling lips and nude
105-pound body appear in dozens of magazines and billboards. Flirting
with themes of bestiality, incest and violence, her photos suggest a
compliant child, stripped for sexual use. One Obsession Ad shows her
bare-breasted, with bruised eyes, holding her hand over her mouth and
In response to concern about child porn, the U.S. Congress since 1978 has passed four separate bills banning it.
Pat Riley writes on RAME about the 1996 Child Protection
Bill that passed Congress: "…Overall, the only change to the mainstream
porno industry seems to be the necessity for some discretion in the
advertising and box [see more about this in (2)], which may be annoying
but by no means the end of the world as we know it."
Bob Martin: "Unfortunately, overzealous FBI agents always
will be with us. And the Supreme Court isn't in the business of taking
up an issue without a
test case. For the sake of those poor beleaguered
producers, let's hope some computer idiot (the law is, after all,
primarily aimed at computer transmissions of those pictures) offers
questionable snaps or videos first to some law enforcement official and
the judicial process rolls on its merry way.
"…This language will cause problems for porn magazines,
videos, and (particularly) adult stories where "kids," "boys," "sons,"
"daughters," "girls," etc., are mentioned and (particularly in stories)
where there is frequently an outright statement that sex involves a
"…In the past… this has been more a matter of truth in
advertising than of child pornography, and I agree with his assessment
that this law (at least while it's on the books) ought to scare the
jerks away from
their silly tricks (Catholic "high school girls" who've
been around the block a number of times acting naughty,
long-in-the-tooth "cub scouts" on overnight hikes discovering the joys
of gay sex, and the
"The porn industry -- het and gay -- has benefited
substantially from the First Amendment, as it should. But whether we
want to admit it or not, the First Amendment has its limitations; it's
all a balancing act. We can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I hope
no one would argue that "snuff" films should enjoy the Constitution's
"Safeguarding innocent children from sexual and other
abuse strikes me as more important than some character's "right" to put
McCauley Culkin's (or Alicia Silverstone's pre-18-year-old) head on
one of the of-legal-age bodies engaged in a sexually explicit act.
"And if that's really your thing, while the new law makes
it illegal in all likelihood if you choose to do it in the privacy of
your own home, on your own computer (or VHS player), and you don't
share it, sell it, or trade it, more than likely you can enjoy it
without a jail term.
"I take issue with Patrick's comment that "any move which
tries to censor anything is wrong and calls out for condemnation...."
I'll accept, grudgingly, opposing views on WHETHER child pornography is
that bad because everyone has the right to his own
opinion. But a society built on laws has to "censor" some things --
murder, rape, grand theft auto, what have you. How those items are
determined is sometimes fuzzy, and sometimes politically motivated, but
IMHO the Supreme Court has done a fairly good job separating worthwhile
laws from those that infringe on individual rights (which are not,
arguments to the contrary, limitless).
"From a purely practical standpoint, now that it has been
ruled constitutional when the porno industry starts taking stands it
ought to do so where (1) it can do some good, and (2) where there might
more mainstream support likely to develop.
"Regardless of orientation or political affiliation,
you're going to have trouble getting people (certainly a majority of
the people) to sign a petition to ease child pornography laws.
"And while it is appropriately high-toned, please spare
me the "They came for communists and I stood by silently" argument,
unless you care to make the case that communists and child
pornographers are one and
the same. We've all got to draw our own lines in the
sand; for me (and for most people), child pornographers aren't going to
get across that line, while Lenin and Stalin probably will.
"We've all seen as nasty pedophiles trying to lure
prepubescent teens into our beds, cars, tents, etc. So
the more the video industry -- mainstream, het, or gay -- shies away
from picturing gays as going after "kids," the better off we are.
"Patrick indicates that "merging a child into the picture
of two adults copulating ... doesn't appear to affect the porno
industry at all." Patrick, have you forgotten that computer graphics
allow us to do some amazing things these days. While most porn
producers won't pay the price to do it, soon enough the technology will
become cheap enough (it all does, and it may be there now for all I
know) that Forest Gump shaking hands with any number of presidents
could become Shirley Temple performing nasty acts on Richard Nixon.
"And while I may risk some groans here, the simple fact
is that small children are very impressionable (as the bill points out
in its findings). Showing Little Johnny a computer-morphed picture (or
video) of Little Ray across the street having sex with a
big girl, a big guy, or a big dog gives Little Johnny an idea he might
not have had yet. It's the old, "Just because your friends want to jump
the Brooklyn Bridge, do you want to, too?" question.
Sorry folks, but frequently the answer is "Yes." I am also aware of
cases where children were lured into porno rings (for pictures and
flicks) by being shown fake pictures of other children "performing"
similar acts (can't you hear it now; "Doesn't that look like fun?!")."
Brad Williams: "You described exactly why the porno
industry is always getting beat up by the law. Certain companies and
powers-that-be long ago decided to FUCK OVER THEIR CUSTOMERS BY LYING
"So and so is in this movie" NOT! "So and so's first
X-rated performance" NOT! "Hot new release" Hmm-a comp tape NOT!
"Full-length feature" 40 minutes...NOT. Gee, why don't these customers
come rushing to defend the porn industry's "rights"?
"It ISN'T something I'm going to get bent out of shape
over, because you can only raise hell and support so many causes at one
time. If the new law is as inconsequential as it appears, I'll sit
this one out. If it's inconvenient to some distributors operating in
the "gray area" that Patrick mentioned, tough! That's the cost of doing
business in the porn-world when you try to screw people out of their
money. I can see the industry now: "Gee, we may only be able to release
7,000 new titles this year now due to this new law.....by the way, why
are our wholesale prices so low I wonder?"
"Here's the exception, The Evil Angel Empire. Seen their
wholesale prices? They are HIGH, and always have been higher than most.
Could it be because they put out a QUALITY product more often than
people who buy that product will buy more, and they don't
release several hundred new titles a year? Could it be because they
know what they are doing?
"While we're on the censorship issue, Nick's right that
the people have to stand up and condemn censorship. This is especially
true with the porn industry because they are too STUPID to help
themselves at all. What's the lobbying arm of porn, the Free Speech
Coalition? That's a pathetic joke. They are more worried about covering
up a positive HIV test than they are about influencing politics. Seen
their *fund raisers*? A bunch of performers who raise a whopping $2,000
or so, and get busted in the process because they take an "in your
face" approach. How about Bill Margold? He fancies himself as some sort
of spokesman for porn, and he likes getting busted too. This really
helps influence the average Joe and Jane a lot, it makes me want to dig
into that paycheck and contribute NOW!
"Let's sum it up why the porn industry gets beat up on
and doesn't have an out-pouring of support from the very people who buy
"1) There's several thousand titles in the US alone made
every year. Most suck. Some are outright fraudulent in advertising and
boxcovers. People don't like to support people who swindle them, even
"2) Who's the torch-bearer for porn and a positive
portrayal? Let's see, we've got John Holmes dead of AIDS-related
causes, known junkie, and convicted felon. Linda Lovelace swears she
was abused and coerced into porn. Larry Flynt and his "guarantee to
offend everybody at least once" approach. Brandy Alexandre getting
shredded on the Gordon Elliot talk-show. Annabel Chong on the
talk-circuit unable to form a coherent thought as she rambles like a
stoned Valley Girl about having 250 men attempt to fuck her. VCA's
tiresome opener that is pure fast-forward material. Nina Hartley has to
carry the load all by herself. Anton LaVey, the founder and head
boogeyman of the Church of Satan did the talk-show circuit several
times because he was rational, intelligent, and articulate and hence
disarmed the audiences that naturally wanted to hate his guts. He
provided interesting material, so all the talk shows wanted him back.
Porn can't even manage that.
"3) The political climate. You want to fight futile
battles against redundant child-porno laws? GO waste your time, money,
and efforts so that when REAL battles start you have nothing left.
People in the USA
freak-out about child porn, and if the labeling hassles,
the numerous statutes, and the harassment are some kind of surprise to
folks, get with it! What politician is going to vote against
"toughening up the
laws on child porn?" Who's going to work to get that
politician defeated under the slogan "He voted to strengthen the child
porn laws excessively and unfairly, and the bill might be shaky
"Wake up and smell the coffee. Porn will destroy itself
long before the politicians and religious-right kooks get a chance."
Pat Riley: "Brad, you confuse "doing" in real life with
the fictional "doing" we see in the movies. Although many of the items
one sees in the movies may lead to an increase in actual real-life
doing (the seventeen year old screwing the fifteen year old for
example) others are prevented by other laws and/or the internal
understanding that these things are non-desirable. I reject any and all
externally imposed moral codes but I won't kill you because:
1) Something might go wrong and you'll kill me
2) It won't really benefit me enough to overcome the cost in time and effort.
3) I don't want to constantly watch my back so I pay
society to do it for me but society won't do it for me and not you
"Most legal prohibitions fall into a similar scenario,
thus "morals" are not necessary (I prefer to call them
"practicalities") to prevent society's ills from becoming the norm.
Most people who tout "morals" as a reason do so from either an
imprinted belief usually acquired in childhood or from a desire to
control others. The way to deal with the imprinting is to constantly
ask the question "Why shouldn't I do this?" and if you can't come up
with a good rational reason you're probably just marching in lockstep
to an imprint you received (usually) as a child and you should reject
"Your response to the necrophilia question is a good
example of imprinting. At some time you have accepted a prohibition
against sex with the dead and although you swing wildly against it even
bringing in the complications of incest and an orgy which were never
mentioned in the original, you bring up no real reason against it, just a
uneasy feeling of "It's wrong" (this is not your words but my
interpretation of your response). Regardless of your feelings however on
necrophilia, there are people who get off on the idea and who would
presumably like to see movies depicting such activity. One party does
not have to be dead to create a fictional scene to satisfy this desire
so in such a movie there is no actual transgression of your imprinted
code nor of any practical code I can envisage. We are left with just a
desire to control what other people think, a right you don't (or
shouldn't) have in any reasonably free society.
"I don't agree with your contention that there aren't any
snuff movies in existence but I can't prove it. But that's beside the
point. If one gets off on watching someone being killed while having
sex, is there some reason you have the right to say "You can't think
like that". If someone is actually killed in making a movie on this
subject we have more than adequate laws to deal with the murder
(probably a copy of the videotape would be good evidence). And so on
with your other "Ooops, pull back from this" because you don't approve
of (conflicts with your imprinting) or it doesn't correspond with your
"The difference between males and females is precisely
that: sex. Any remarks about the difference between males and females
can always be labeled "sexist" but to do so is not an argument against
the issues raised which I notice you don't address (perhaps correctly
since they dwell on the reason for censorship rather than censorship
"Dr. Otto's argument for maintaining censorship (in some
form) was that it was necessary to preserve a civilized society. We
have plenty of uncivilized activities presented in mainstream movies
without a notable decrease (difficult to decide where one should draw
the baseline however) in civilization and also that some activities
that appear uncivilized to some and at certain times become part of the
general mantle of civilization provided free speech is allowed. It's
depressing to see such a lack of vigorous defense of free speech in a
group that presumably likes watching something the mainstream majority
regards as dirty and would quickly eliminate if they could.
"It may be that in the real world we have to settle for
something less than a perfect censor-free environment but to accept up
front that such a result is ideal is simply to play into the hands of
the other side. As an aside, if you look at the beliefs of NAMBLA (not
that I'm in agreement) as presented by them, you will (or at least I
do) come to the conclusion that the organization bears little
resemblance to the demonized mob of perverts that is portrayed by the
Child Sex: Anne Rice's position on the matter: "Today, by
not acknowledging that teenagers have reached full physical maturity
long before they reach legal maturity, we have created a class of young
women of childbearing age who are encouraged to play at sex with young
males of the same age who are by no stretch of the imagination ready to
become fathers or husbands. This is a travesty. We must recognize that
sexual maturity comes much earlier than in ages past and stand up for
the rights of young people and reexamine outlaws..."
Pat Riley: "I wrote:>>Sure she's your daughter but
as we know from experience girls don't die because of sex--it really
doesn't harm them in any way and some might actually enjoy it. I'm not
referring to some pre-puberty activities or getting laid with every
junkie in town."
Roger:>I think his point is that he has a very young
child, and he was referring to child molesters, not the boys she will
date later in life. Or did you get that point are willing to say that
if you had a six year old and some guy started diddling her, that you
would NOT take the sharpest object you could find and start removing
Pat: "Was that really his point? When questioned further
Stern emphasized that he would beat up (or words to that effect)
anybody who laid hands on his daughter ever. Robin pointed out that
most girls eventually do get laid which caused Stern to lapse into
silence and then change the subject.
"As to your second part Roger, we live in a rules-based
society. Short of a breakdown in law and order of the nature of a riot
where the police refused to do their duty (we've had a few of those) I
don't believe individuals are EVER right in taking the law into their
own hands or are EVER right in extracting vengeance. Certainly you have
the right to defend yourself or another person with as much force as is
necessary to stop the assault or whatever but when you seem to take
such great pleasure in "start[ing] removing anatomical parts" that it
seems you have allowed your emotions to overcome your undoubtedly
normally civilized behavior.
"Every time Clinton opens his mouth these days he seems
to mention the word "children". We have a whole slew of women's groups
devoted to "save the children" and an attitude from them (females and
various supporters) that not only borders on the paranoid but is
specifically anti-male. Take a look at alt.true-crime on the Jon Benet
killing. It seems every female on the net sees all men as child
molesters--it's sufficient to be male to be guilty. Even when the
autopsy and other disclosures by the Boulder Police Department seem to
have ruled out any molestation around the time of death these women are
not saying they're wrong but "The father must have molested her
earlier". This attitude worries me.
"Your response (and Jeff's original) is not
proportionate. If someone smashed your child's face in with a baseball
bat requiring major reconstructive surgery and never getting the face
back to its pre-assault condition, would you have the same reaction? The
baseball bat would cause the child immense physical pain whereas some
flasher exposing himself or even fondling your child's genitals causes
little physical harm.
"Oh but it's the emotional pain, you argue. Except for
this type of activity as a society we don't protect people against
emotional harm--all those women who rejected me as a teenager should
pay!--precisely because it's very difficult to assess what harm
occurred. The reaction you evince here seems predicated on the notion
that sex is an enormous horrible thing to be avoided at all costs, not
just a normal part of life for most people and for the pre-puberty
child, perhaps an unpleasant experience. Don't get me wrong, I'm not
advocating screwing six-year-olds, just that we need to take a more
balanced view and asking why you (or Jeff) can't.
"First the boys. Apart from the issue of working in porno
movies which I would say should be the same as for the girls, any boy
of any age who physically can, should get laid whenever and however and
with whomever he can, subject only to the normal precautions of
disease, birth control etc applicable at any age. Fourteen-year-old boys
screwing their 30-year-old female teacher is fine by me. Good luck to
him. Wish I'd have had half his luck at that age. I regard with horror a
few recent cases of females being prosecuted for "raping" a high
school boy; an unfortunate example of the law gone wrong. The rest of
this only concerns girls.
"As far as working in porno movies, the age of 18 seems
about right especially as it's the age at which most non-college bound
people start their working life. I could be persuaded that 16 or 17 was
OK too (but I'm not advocating it) and I could be persuaded that there
was an exception for "emancipated children". [The concept of
emancipated children currently exists and is particularly applied in the
case of under 18 year-olds who work in the mainstream film business.
Being declared an emancipated child allows them to enter into contracts
and the like as though they were of age without having to get approval
of parents etc. As I understand it, the court will take into
consideration their ability to support themselves, where they live
"At the time of the Traci Lords problem, I believe one of
the defenses for the producers that was touted was this question of
emancipation and if you look at the early tapes of Traci, you'll see
that maybe she was 15-16 chronologically but looked and acted like a 25
year old. The reasoning for support of 18 as the porno age of consent
is that as a society we don't want children working--I'm also against
the proliferation of part time jobs for teenagers outside of the porn
industry--and performing in a porno movie is a step with far-reaching
consequences, in time well beyond the day of the shoot or the initial
sale of the tape, and in impact far more serious than just getting laid
for money. Even turning a trick on the street or working in the local
nudie bar have less importance. Videotape is forever. Look at the
questions on this group about WEHT. Well, someone knows. That guy down
the block who has just watched a twenty year old tape is going to start
thinking "Isn't that woman next door?" Same ear. Same nose. Same way
of tossing her head to make a point. Once a porno star, always a porno
star. Forget about elective office. Forget about any job which would put
you in contact with children or in the public limelight. And what
about your relations with a later husband? Most guys don't expect their
wives to be virgins these days but there's a big difference between
private screwing and taking on the team in "The Gangbang Girl #99".
Frankly, with all those negatives, I don't see why anyone at any age
would want to become a porno star. There's also the issue of
exploitation, meaning, in this case, the ability of the producer to
rely on the ignorance (notice I'm not saying immaturity) of the girl of
those factors (and probably others) I just listed. He waves a wad of
money in her face and just talks about the current and obvious things.
It's the same reason we make 18 a cut off for entering into contracts
and it's reasonable to assume that below a certain age a person simply
doesn't have sufficient knowledge to make a rational decision about
these matters. When they can show they do we call them emancipated
children (see above).
"So far I don't think I deviate much from the current
system. Where I do have problems is with the penalties and with the
current attempt to restrict dramatic license. Even though I waxed on
above about the horrible things that would happen to a porno star in
later life, let's also be realistic. Many porno stars are not exactly
leading lives (other than porno) which would get them elected
president. The impact on these girls of just that one thing (porno) is
unlikely to make a horrendous difference hence the harm they suffer is
fairly low and is balanced by (in most cases) a
better-than-they-could-achieve-otherwise income. But it's still nothing
we want to encourage. We also have to balance the "blame" to the
producer. Did he know? How far below 18 was she? How emancipated was
she? How exploitative was the deal? In the recent Ranz-disclosed Ali
Moore question, presuming she was paid normal rate and the producer
didn't know, Judge Riley would fine him a be-more-careful-next-time
$100 plus court costs. The punishment should be proportionate to the
damage caused (not much in most cases) and the likelihood of repetition
by the person or others who might be tempted. What about the tape?
Paying $100 for a gold mine; any producer would risk that. So you have
to do something extra and here I have a real problem: you're punishing
the use of an underage performer not the sale of a videotape but if you
let the tape continue to make money the punishment becomes inadequate.
I don't have an answer here but I do know that the current system of
making possession illegal is offensive. Perhaps the answer is to make
sale illegal and remove profit but giving it away or possessing it is
fine. Of course you would have to confiscate any profits made to date
by the producer. "The new law doesn't actually say you can't use an
adult, portray them as underage, and have them engage in sex. It says
you can't advertise, promote etc the movie as having underage sex and
you must be able to prove that the performers are of age. (Sex in this
case includes simulated Hollywood style sex but where the mainstream
gets into trouble is that they're often using underage performers--Fast
Times At Ridgemont High is an example.) The promotion part is where
movies such as Cherry Poppers have a problem. But now we come to the
more emotional question of real underage sex and that word "emotion" is
probably a good place to start.
"Never have I seen such emotion as on this subject. Mug
your grandmother for her social security and you'll see a far more
balanced reaction even if grandma is languishing in hospital with
broken bones and other injuries that will probably cripple her for the
rest of her life. You're not rushing out to kill the perpetrator, whack
off his arms, or stick a gun in his mouth. And yet on this subject you
seek to outdo each other--IRA's imagery of frying the perpetrator's
balls for his dog, for example. And this without even considering the
physical damage to the girl--probably none. Definitely the Al Bundy
syndrome and something you probably can't explain. Deep wired into your
brains, I suppose, and the reason why we can't get any rational
thought on this matter. Ah but you say it's not the physical injury but
the emotional damage to the girl. Well, fathers of daughters (FOD), if
there's any emotional damage that's your fault; you and this society.
"Sex is a short term physical activity, like eating. It's
not love, it's not commitment, and above all, it's not for the purpose
of making money in whatever shape or form. Like eating, after a good
meal [screw] you lean back and say "Wow, that was great, let's eat here
[do it] again sometime". What "emotional maturity" is necessary for a
good meal? You FOD's and we society make far too much of sex; it's a
recreational pleasure. [Disclaimer for the really pedantic: Sex should
be loving, caring, and romantic as I've said in numerous posts in the
past, not "take that, bitch" wham bam thank you ma'am. This doesn't
deny its short term nature.] Moreover in what other area do we deal
with protecting people from emotional damage? If we applied this to
males, shouldn't we be punishing the females for the emotional harm
they cause when theyreject them--often brutally? We've got some very
twisted males on this NG who've doubtless been brutalized by their
parents or their peers in their youth. Shouldn't someone be paying the
price for that? Oh, no; they're males (not your darling little
daughters) and undeserving of protection; they should just get over it.
In practice it's nearly impossible to assess any emotional pain. In
the case of the mugged grandmother some will get their house covered
with bars, get an expensive security system, be terrified of leaving the
house, and sleep (if they sleep) with a loaded gun; others will just
shrug it off and go about their business. Is it the mugger's fault he
chose the sensitive grandmother?
"Consent. Jeez, I thought I was a nitpicker. "He meant
the dictionary definition;" "No, it was the legal definition;" or in
Taylor's case, whether the guy said he'd call her in the morning and
never did (I'm exaggerating). Or even "a girl under 18 can't give
consent period"--i.e. no discussion is possible. Wrong. Not only is
discussion possible, society's rules should continually be examined,
discussed, dissected, and challenged. We should never take an attitude
"It's the law and it can't be changed" and talking about it does serve
the useful purpose of making people rethink their position even on such a
touchy subject. Somewhere I seem to remember reading about the right
of the people to petition the government. And how do they get to make
those petitions? They assemble. And how do they know or want to
assemble? They discuss the matter. Would that have something to do with
free speech? But I do agree with IRA that there's no point in
deliberately breaking the law unless you're prepared to pay the
consequences and in this area disobedience is unlikely to result in
anything other than a long prison term. Ineffectual way to cause change.
So in my view, is a girl under 18 able to consent to sex? Of course,
just as she can consent to a whole lot of other things: getting a punk
hairdo, getting her ears pierced, going out with that yahoo with the
motorcycle, chillin' at the mall instead of doing her homework. You
(FOD's) might not like her doing these things but that's YOUR problem
with HER. What constitutes consent (regardless of age)? [This is my
opinion, not some legal definition; it's what I'd use if I was sitting
on a jury hearing a rape case--screw the judge's instructions.]
Basically that before the act, the girl agreed to have sex. Note, not
after; whether the guy said she was a bitch and booted her out of bed
afterwards is immaterial. It just indicates she made the wrong choice
of male. Things that would make me think she didn't consent: - There
was force applied or threat of force or someone in her position could
reasonably anticipate she had no choice and would face physical
compulsion or punishment if she refused to agree. She was covertly
drugged or covertly made drunk or she couldn't reasonably be expected
to understand the physical effects of a drug or alcohol and the guy was
aware of her non-understanding. She couldn't reasonably be expected to
understand the nature of what she was doing.
"This concerns the physical biology involved and the
question of pain/pleasure--more than just a classroom lecture on the
mechanics but not some touchie-feelie rubbish. Most post-puberty
teenagers can be presumptively assumed to understand this but not so
pre-puberty persons. The nature, place and circumstances of the act
itself were such that it would be unlikely that any similarly situated
and experienced female would agree. This has to do with the three guys
and the doberman pinscher taking their turns, the gang bang by the
football team, or anyone screwing Ron Jeremy. That she had no
reasonable motive to have sex. I would like to say "she could not
reasonably be expected to gain pleasure from the act" but sadly there
are far too many females having sex for money, dates, prestige, or some
other premium. Whether they collect the premium has no bearing on
consent. They might have an action for theft of service though
<g>. Her past history indicates she had not done this sort of
thing before. Yeah, I know I wouldn't hear evidence on this due to the
feminist pressure (and I'm sure they hate me for even raising it) but
especially in the case of rape where consent hinges on the female's
state of mind, it seems an important issue. The guy with the gun to the
hooker's head still isn't going to get away with it. End of consent
"Some of the posts (particularly those from FOD's) seem
to imply or state outright that they don't have a problem with a girl
of sixteen or seventeen screwing some guy around the girl's own age but
they do have a problem if the guy's over 18. I think the Director was
most honest about this when he said that he might have a problem if the
guy was Ron Jeremy. So let's take this slowly. These people have no
problem with their (presuming age of consent is 18) underage daughter
screwing in general; they just want to choose the male. Sorry guys, you
can't. That went out with arranged marriages. But couldn't sex with
the football jock be just as emotionally damaging as sex with
Ron--let's stop using Ron as an example--an ugly 40ish fat male? Even
more so because she expects more from the jock? Ah, but what about the
exploitation angle? That forty year-old could get her for a candy cane?
(Highly unlikely based on my albeit limited knowledge of 16 year-olds;
they'd require at least a fur coat <g>.)Well, if he could get
your daughter for anything--i.e. any material payment--you've raised a
hooker, not very well if she'd sell herself so cheaply, and you want
the state to step in and allow you to fix the price. But this is not
real world. It's like letting the tail wag the dog to set public policy
based on such exceptional circumstances. A more normal situation goes
like the case a couple of years ago in NY State. A 24 year-old
unmarried teacher was screwing a 15/16 year-old girl and her mother
found out about it and objected, first I believe to the girl who said
that no way was she giving up the relationship; she was in love with him
<Riley raises eyes skyward>. The mother persisted and threatened
to call the cops so the couple fled to Missouri (somewhere out there).
The mother eventually did call the cops and complained of statutory
rape of her daughter so the cops got in touch with the police in
Missouri who located the couple who returned voluntarily (sure) to NY
where the guy was thrown in jail. The girl, however, refused to testify
and some feminist group took up her case. The last I heard the DA had
refused to prosecute and the guy was released. Happy ending except for
the mother who can fry in hell for all I care.
"I was trolling one of the police NG's about a year ago
and I came across a police chief from some little town in (I think)
Virginia talking about this very subject. His view was that most of
these statutory rape arrests are sad cases and he hates dealing with
them. According to him they are instigated by the father who finds out
that some still young but over 18 guy has been screwing his daughter.
There's no 40 year old dirty old man, no coercion, no candy cane, and
no "emotional damage" other than that which must surely occur when
these cases are brought to trial, not to mention the ruin of at least
one person's life.
"So what should be the age of consent? I don't think
there should be one. It's a lazy prosecutor's way of avoiding having to
prove the lack of consent and the FOD's way of controlling their
daughter's sexual activities without actually controlling the daughter.
The sicko who can only get it up for the five year old--if he does
anything about it--is going to get caught by lack of knowledge on the
part of the girl, not to mention physical coercion. Every case should
be treated individually; there's even a place for the old guy, young
girl. I wouldn't convict a (must be) 60 year-old Bernie Confeld for
screwing a then 17 year-old Heidi Fleiss--all that's allegedly of
course. Nor Buttafucko (whatever the guy's name is) for poking 16 (I
believe) year old Amy Fisher--another allegedly. In both these cases
the girls knew what they were doing.
"No one says the girls should be getting pregnant and
producing babies. In fact put me back on my proverbial jury and I'd say
the absence of contraception was an indication that the girl didn't
know what she was doing. I hope your 14 year-old is all contracepted-up
"And some factual information from the Merck Manual (15th
Ed pg. 1681) as to puberty in females (mean age in parentheses):
Breast bud (11) Onset of pubic hair (12) Growth spurt peak (12.25)
Female body habitus (12.25)--I presume that's the .70 rule. Menarche
(first menstruation) (12.5) Auxillary hair (12.5) Adult breast (14.25)."
(RAME) Washington Post, 1/20/77: THEY ARE in the usual explicit
pornographic poses. And they are young - 11.9 years of age. Some appear
These pre-pubescent girls, sometimes photographed with
Teddy bears and other playthings of the young, appear in a magazine
called Lollitots which can be purchased openly for $7.50 at "adult"
book stores in the [Washington] District and across the country.
While Lollitots shocks the uninitiated, the magazine is,
in fact, mild compared to the films projected in "adult" book store
peep shows and to magazines which display children as young as 7
engaged in sex acts with other children and adults.
"Child molestation and exploitation, including
prostitution, pornography, sex perversion and the furnishing of
narcotics, are extensive in this city," a recent Los Angeles Police
Department study concluded. "Children have become commodities and are
bought, sold and traded for the financial gain of the involved adults.
Every conceivable sexual act is committed upon these young people,
including acts of sado-masochism."
During the investigation, pornographic materials - more
than 3,000 photographs, 30 magazines and 120 amateur and commercial
films - were seized. From information volunteered by suspects, victims
and witnesses, the study concluded that more than 3,000 children under
age 14 were being exploited sexually in and around Los Angeles. More
than 25,000 juveniles 14 through 17 were being used sexually by
approximately 15,000 adult males, the report stated.
Child pornography is not new, but the use of children -
and at younger, pre-teen ages - has developed, with little controversy,
in part because the public has been ignorant on the subject of child
pornography and prostitution. Public outrage, often an effective
exralegal weapon, has only recently begun to grow. Few of those citizens
who would object are in the habit of frequenting "adult" book stores,
and many newspapers still bury stories on the subject or are reluctant
to run them at all.
"The distributor should be put in jail, along with those
producing the material," says Rep. Edward Koch (D-N.Y.) "This is simply
a whole separate category - consenting adults can do whatever they
want to do as long as it doesn't involve children."
Koch toured a Times Square bookstore and recalls an
automat-like experience in pornography. "Out of 50 of these peep show
machines, 17 showed films of sexual acts between children, children and
adults, children and animals. They describe what you are seeing
alongside the machine: 'sex between brother and sister,' 'sex between
adult and juvenile.' There were two boys about 10 and a girl about 12
in explicit acts of fellatio. People who want to see pornography, their
taste escalates. What satisfied before no longer does."
For example, Kent Master, a New York distributor of
"chicken films" - the vernacular for porn films involving children -
advertises 10 films in its "Lollypops" series. The ads show cartoons of
two nude, very young boys licking lollipops, the slogan "Chicken Films
Come of Age" and graphic descriptions of sex acts, including "Ronnie,
Bobby and Eddie - three pre-teens on a bed." The movies are 8 mm, in
color, 200 feet and $20 apiece. There is an address, but directory
assistance has no phone listed. Undercover agents last week arrested
the firm's owner, charging him with the misdemeanor of promoting
EVEN if such charges are brought against distributors or
bookstores, a labyrinth of fake publishers, fake addresses, murky
juvenile and obscenity laws, porno dealers taking the Fifth Amendment -
all protect the photographers, the recruiters of children and the
people who make "chicken films" and magazines.
Take the case of Lollitots magazine.The masthead leads
one to believe the magazine is a coast-to-coast operation - published
by Delta Publishing Co. Inc. in Wilmington, Del., and distributed
solely by Parliament News in Sun Valley, Calif., just outside Los
Angeles. But according to Delaware authorities, Delta Publishing is a
fictitious front. Parliament News, however, is for real.
The city of Los Angeles is prosecuting Parliament News
and its president, Paul Wisner, 52, charging them with possession with
intent to commercially disseminate obscene material.
This month, a number of District book sellers were picked
up in a raid and charged with the misdemeanor of selling obscene
material, Lollitots included. The case is pending trial.
"Under the D.C. obscenity code we could move on Lollitots
- because a section prohibits the lewd exhibition of genitals of
minors," says Robert Kendall, special assistant U.S. attorney for
But enforcement officials trying to get a tougher federal
case against Parliament or the still unknown publishers face problems.
Phil Wilens, chief of the Justice Department criminal
division's government regulations and labor department, said he "almost
retched" when he saw Lollitots. "But the only federal statute involved
is in interstate transportation of the magazine. Posing, recruiting
the girls, is all a state offense and how do you get back to the
source? I haven't any idea."
Presumably, since Lollitots is distributed solely by
Parliament News in California and was available over the counter at a
14th and H Streets NW "adult" bookstore, some interstate transportation
took place. But Wilens says, "You have to actually prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Parliament indeed shipped that particular edition
of that magazine - packaged and delivered it to a carrier and in fact
carried and delivered it to an address in a particular state." Records
of such shipments are hard to find. "We can make a case from time to
time," Wilens said, "but it takes a monumental effort, and resources
In the California case, Parliament News' lawyer, Stanley
Fleischman, of the Beverly Hills firm of Fleischman, Brown, Weston
& Rhode, plans to argue that Lollitots is not obscene and therefore
is covered by the First Amendment. "It is simple nudity, nothing more.
For something to be obscene [in California, unlike the District] there
has to be sexual activity."
Parliament News Inc. is no stranger to pornography
indictments. It is part of a conglomerate of printing, publishing and
distributing firms operating out of southern California.
A man named Milton Luros was once described by a Los
Angeles district attorney as "the biggest pornography publisher in
Southern California and operator of a multi-million-dollar
conglomerate." In a 1972 lawsuit, it was alleged that Luros operated
companies under the names of American Art Enterprises (a publishing
company), World News Inc., Seven Towers Inc., Academy Press, Socio
Library, London Press, OxF--d Bindery and (Lollitots') Parliament News
Although Paul Wisner is listed as president of
Parliament, Luros is still active in the organization. Today, if you
call Parliament News and ask to speak to Luros, the operator refers you
to American Art Enterprises, the publishing house. The operator there
informs you that "we go by several names." If you then ask Paul Wisner,
she refers you back to Parliament News.
Helgeson said there is another seperate obscenity case
pending against Parliament News. Asked if there were any convictions
against Wisner, Fleischman replied, "Never one that stuck. The jury
convicted and the trial judge dismissed."
Fleischman says American Art Enterprises is not Lollitots' publisher.
When told that the publisher listed on the masthead was a
fake, Fleischman repeated that Parliament had nothing to do with the
publisher. It was pointed out that any distributor has to pay some
person or company supplying the printed material, who in turn knows the
publisher. "What are you doing, hounding me?" he snapped.
Wisner, out on bail, said he did not know who published
Lollitots. "It comes from overseas. It's published overseas." Reporter:
"But the masthead states that it is published by Delta Publishing in
Wilmington, Del." Wisner: "Yeah, that's who we deal with."
Reporter: "But that company does not and never did exist,
according to Wilmington authorities." Wisner: "That's who we deal
with." "But if it's nonexistent, how can you deal with them?" Wisner:
"We deal with an agent." "In the United States?" Wisner: "Yes." "Then
why do you say it is published overseas?" Wisner: "I'm not interested
in any interpretation of that." He would not give the name of the
Wisner was told that some people find the material in
Lollitots objectionable, that they think the children are being
sexually exploited and that they would like to find the publisher and
photographers to prosecute them.
"That is not of any interest to me. I'm the distributor.
If somebody's interested in that, that's their problem. That's not my
In 1974, for example, federal charges were filed in
California against a magazine called Moppets. The mother of one of the
child subjects testified and identified the publisher and photographer
as a man named Edmund Leja.
Edmund Leja, a nudist and still a Studio City, Calif.,
photographer, complains repeatedly that he is misunderstood.
"Nudists believe there's nothing wrong with the human
body," he says. "We don't believe you should hide the genitalia.
Children will grow up with a better understanding of their bodies and
genitals because of my magazine." The magazine is available only in
Leja contends most of his readers are nudists. "Sure we
get a few perverts. They're all over. Did I invent pedaphilia?" he
asks, throwing up his hands. "Those people were there before I came on
the market and they'll be there after I'm gone."
Leja argues that his magazine is no more graphic than
"Show Me!," a picture book described as an "aid to sexual
enlightenment" and sold in legitimate bookstores across the country.
"Show Me!" contains photographs of masturbation and children fondling
"Show Me!," produced in West Germany, has been praised by
some educators and physicians, decried by others. It defeated three
obscenity charges on the grounds that, as a whole, it was not lacking
in serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. And those
attacking such magazines as Lollitot and Moppets argue that the
content and intent of those magazines are quite different from those of
RECENT YEARS have seen the surfacing of a number of
pornography cases to which law enforcement officials point as evidence
that the problem is growing geometrically:
In 1974 postal authorities in Texas arrested one Roy C.
Ames and found four tons of magazines and films in a Houston warehouse.
Ames was charged with recruiting children off the Houston streets and
paying them $5 for posing for photos and $5 for sex acts. He was
sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment on federal charges of sending
obscene material through the mails.
Ames had supplied 30 to 40 magazines around the country
with pictures of children from age 8 to late teens involved in
homosexual and heterosexual acts. Most of them were poor, and recruited
In 1975, a postal investigator purchased pictures of
"Hard to Find Nymphets" advertised in a Hollywood underground
newspaper. For $2 he received sample shots of "Sandy," aged 11, and a
little doll." A set of 12 color photographs of her in a variety of
"very interesting positions" cost $15. The pictures were mailed from
California to Roswell, N.M. The photographers, Jacob James Dost and
Thomas E. Kilfoyle, were convicted last summer of the federal crime of
mailing obscene matter. The case is on appeal.
From a conversation with porner Lynne Lopatin 10/19/99:
Lynne: "I remember Lollitots. I remember a story on TV...
I thought it [Lollitots] was exclusively sold in Southern California.
"I remember going by Circus of Books in Hollywood and seeing child pornography for sale in the front door.
"I joined Parliament News in 1977. [Milton] Luros was not
active in the sense of coming in and spending an eight hour day there.
But he came in every few days. He looked at the books and picked up
the receipts... He and his wife were in poor health."
Luke: Stanley Fleischman says that Parliament News was not Lollitots publisher.
Lynne: "Untrue. Actually, American Arts Enterprise was
the graphic arts shop that built the magazine but Parliament News was
its distributor. And American Art was owned by the same people who
owned Parliament News even though they may have wives rather than
husbands on the paperwork. That was my first job for Parliament News,
shredding those photos [of child pornography]. Shredding all the 8x10s
that were in the files because we were getting ready to move from
Chatsworth to North Hollywood. And they had me shred thousands of
photos. All the nudist photos [fo kids]. All the Lollitots photos. I
saved a few at the time but I got rid of them by 1979."
Luke: So just in case there's any doubt, here's a small
list of pornographers who created and distributed child pornography:
Paul Wisner, Milton Luros, Reuben Sturman, Parliament News which
morphed into Gourmet Video, Circus of Books and the list goes on and on
and on. And folks like the revered late Stanley Fleischman led the
charge defending child pornography and obfuscating the issue of child
The only reason that pornographers do not create and sell
child pornography today is that they can no longer get away with it.
Lynne: "As far as I remember from the news reports on TV
at the time, it [Lollitots] was all shot here in Southern California
and it was definitely printed on Parliament presses and it was
definitely distributed by Parliament. And today I don't think you will
find anybody to cop to it.
"I was 14 when I started having sex. And if you had told
me then that I shouldn't have sex, I would've been really upset. So 14
is one thing, but Lollitots was people who were five and six [years of
age]. And they cannot give consent. So what was happening was that the
moms were giving consent and back then $500 was a lot of money."
Lynne: "When I was 17, in 1972, I was a runaway hanging
out in Hollywood. And you could buy kiddie porn at any of the
newsstands. And the kiddie porn I am referring to is Lollitots and
Moppets [distributed by Paul Wisner's Parliament News]. And there were
others, and most of them were from Mexico and most of them were from
India. And then a couple of years later, when I went to work for the LA
Star, I got a better handle on what was out there and what was
available and what the attitude was toward it. And the first thing we
noticed was a story on TV that there were five year old being paid to
do these magazines. And it was all over the news.
"So they [Parliament News] were probably told to cease
and desist. We were approached... Mickey Leblovik (Dr. Susan Block's
husband) knows this stuff intimately. He was getting busted. They came
to us and said stop. But I don't remember anybody being threatened or
prosecutions..." CHRONOLOGY of Belgian child murder scandal
BRUSSELS, April 23 (Reuters) - The escape and swift
recapture on Thursday of convicted Belgian child rapist Marc Dutroux
provided the latest twist in a saga dating back to the a child sex
scandal uncovered in 1996.
Dutroux, whom the interior ministry said was rearrested
after escaping from custody, stands accused of murdering four children
and an accomplice in a paedophile ring.
Following is a chronology of the child sex scandal which has rocked Belgium to its core.
August 1992: Nine-year-old Loubna Benaissa disappears on
the way to a shop near her home in Brussels suburb of Ixelles.
June 1995: Eight-year-olds Julie Lejeune and Melissa
Russo disappear while on a short walk by a motorway bridge near their
home in Grace-Hollogne, near Liege in eastern Belgium.
Aug 22, 1995: An Marchal, 17, and Eefje Lambrecks 19,
disappear in Ostend after seeing hypnotist's show while on holiday.
Police visit convicted child rapist Marc Dutroux at house where it is
later discovered that the girls are held.
Dec 1995: Police investigating theft visit Dutroux at
home, hear children's' voices but find nothing. Dutroux later arrested
on car theft and related charges, spends almost four months in jail.
Dutroux was released from jail in 1992 after serving three years of a 13
year sentence for multiple child rape.
Feb/March 1996: Around this time Melissa Russo and Julie
Lejeune, held in one of Dutroux's houses, die of starvation.
May 28: Sabine Dardenne, 12, disappears.
Aug 9: Laetitia Delhez, 14, disappears.
Aug 13: Dutroux, accomplice Michel Lelievre, and
Dutroux's second wife Michelle Martin held as police search for
Aug 15: Dutroux leads police to makeshift dungeon in
terraced house in Marcinelles, a suburb of Charleroi and one of six
houses he owns in and around the city where they find Laetitia and
Sabine. Both have been drugged and sexually abused.
Aug 16: Dutroux and Lelievre charged with abduction and illegal imprisonment of children.
Aug 17: Dutroux takes police to bodies of Julie and
Melissa, buried in garden of his house in Sars-La-Buissiere along with
body of accomplice Bernard Weinstein. Dutroux admits killing Weinstein
and kidnapping An and Eefje. Police start searches at Dutroux's five
other houses, uncover 300 child porn videos, magazines, children's'
clothes, gun and soporific drugs.
Aug 19: Martin charged as an accomplice in kidnappings.
Aug 20: Police find more cells in a Dutroux house in
Charleroi suburb Marchienne-au-Pont. Brussels businessman Jean-Michel
Nihoul charged with criminal association.
Aug 22: Julie and Melissa buried in virtually state
funeral in Liege. Michael Diakostavrianos, of Greek origin, arrested
and charged with criminal association.
Sept 3: Police find remains of An Marchal and Eefje
Lambrecks under shed in garden of house in Charleroi suburb of Jumet
formerly occupied by Weinstein.
Sept 7: An and Eefje buried separately in Hasselt.
Sept 24: Dutroux charged with Weinstein murder.
Sept 13: Nihoul charged with abduction.
Oct 20: More than 250,000 people stage ``White March
through Brussels in support of parents of abused and dead children and
to show disgust at political and legal system. Prime Minister Dehaene
Dec 13: Police start excavating at abandoned mining complex in Jumet suburb of Charleroi.
Dec 22: Police raid headquarters of Abrasax Satanic sect on suspicion of link to Dutroux through Weinstein.
January 1997: Dutroux charged with murder of Julie, Melissa, An and Eefje.
March 5: Police find rotting corpse of Loubna Benaissa in
steel trunk under garage in Ixelles. Suspect Patrick Derochette,
convicted in 1984 of child molesting and attempted rape, questioned. No
link has been established between Dutroux and Derochette.
March 8 - Estimated 15,000 people attend Loubna memorial
service in Brussels. A further 30,000 attend her funeral in Tangier on
March 14 - Belgian government proposes amending parole rules in reforms to legal system.
April 9 - Parliamentary report into child murders says
police were ``inhumane, inept, inefficient and ill-equipped.
Sept 26 - Psychiatrist's report says Derochette ``may not have been responsible for his actions.
Oct 7 - Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene outlines plans to
streamline Belgian police system which is divided into three separate
Oct 12 - Thousands of police and magistrates march to protest proposed reforms.
Nov 7 - Pope John Paul urges Belgian bishops to help nation stamp out paedophilia.
Nov 21 - Dutroux protests his innocence in letter to La Derniere Heure newspaper.
Dec 24 - Paul Marchal, father of one of the murdered
girls, founds new political party -- the Party for New Politics (PNP)
to contest general elections due in mid-1999.
Feb 15, 1998 - 25,000 march in Brussels to protest ``blanket of silence on investigations into child murders.
Feb 17 - All-party parliamentary report blames bungling
for Dutroux failures but says no evidence of high-level protection.
Feb 18 - Government announces sweeping police reforms.
March 13 - Lawyer for two of the dead girls' families resigns citing unspecified pressure.
April 23 - Dutroux escapes custody and is swiftly recaptured.
Dutch porn company Video Art Holland (VAH) uses girls
16-20 in their production, and hence their product is banned in most
countries. The films of the Seventeen label like Teeners From Holland,
Seventeen Special or Schoolgirl frequently appear on the black market.
The age of consent in Holland is 16. Thus while foreigner
producers promise teenie girls but deliver much older women, VAH
delivers the real thing. While most American, German and French
pornographers dress up their women in two hair-braids, white socks and a
pout, often combined with a childish voice and a red lollipop, girls
of VAH's Seventeen label retire before 20. (Journalist Clifford Cremer)
VAH director Arthur Martin, 48, told Cremer: "The idea
behind 17 is that we want to show women who are at their most
beautiful. And when is a woman at her prettiest? When she's young of
course, when she's a girl."
Martin began his porn career in the early '70s, operating
a chain of sex shops in Amsterdam. He began working for VAH in 1979.
Martin told Cremer in 1997:
"Eighteen years ago we started with Seventeen, a sex
magazine which featured only teenagers. That way we not only catered to
the traditional porn consumer, but to teenagers as well. Because young
people buy sex magazines too, if only out of curiosity. Our magazines
for example circulate a lot around high schools. The perception that
porn only caters to dirty old men is not true.
"Video Art doesn't have foreign competitors. All foreign
producers of teenersex come to us, for we're the largest name in that
field. We buy everything from them and they know it."
As far as the models, "Reality, that's important. No
plastic. We don't work with expensive glamour models. We don't even
have our own make-up girls; the models can do that for themselves. We
produce playful rather than professional sex films.
"To recruit models is easy. Hundreds of girls want to
join. Mainly out of curiosity. The girls who do this work were raised
very liberal-minded, and most of the time even their parents know what
they do in our studios. You can't say they're from a certain
background, because we get girls from all walks of life. High school or
university, the runaway kid of the daughter of the dentist…
"Most of the girls like the idea that later on thousands
of boys and men will see their naked bodies. It's a kick for them to
undress in our studios. Sometimes they do it out of a spontaneous
impulse, just to undergo the experience.
"Biologically, women are exhibitionistic and men are
voyeuristic. Look at girls and young women: they like to dress
provocatively, to show their bodies.
"Maybe once in ten years a girl regrets what she did. If
possible, we try not to use her pictures or films again. But in the
last 25 years, that has only happened three times.
"It's unimagineable how sexual freedom changed among
young people. In my time you were fast when you bedded a girl when you
were 18. Now it's completely normal for a 14-year old to have sex. Last
month, I was on a house party with my friend, who is over 30. I've
never been to such a party. Some of the girls walked around only wearing
slips. Once, a 16-year old girl gave us a big smile while she stuck
three fingers at us. I didn't know what she meant. My friend explained:
she wanted to have threeway sex with us.
"But most of the girls in our films only have sex with
their partners. They don't want anyone else, partly out of fear of
Clifford Cremer says that the Seventeen films distinguish
themselves by their realism. There's virtually no acting and no story
line. Harder material is available with such titles as Teenage
Perversions and Extreme. VAH's newest series, Shocking Teens, was
exclusively shot in the former Eastern block, in countries like
Yugoslavia, Hungary and Poland. Slavic girls will shed all taboos for
hard cash, says Cremer.
Over 100 antiporn cybercops patrol the internet looking
for child porn, frequently entrapping each other. An internet web page
secretly set up by U.S. Customs received over 70,000 hits in its first
The explosion of the net and the proliferation of
inexpensive scanners has allowed a proliferation in intimate photos of
children between collectors. "Almost all the work we did was undone
within two years," the head of the Justice Department's anti-childporn
section told the 5/26/97 US NEWS. "The internet is the new distribution
Cops frequently pose as a young girls in internet chat
rooms, to lure suspects. The typical offenders are middle-aged white
males who live alone.
Many men charged with distributing child porn across the
internet have also been arrested for sexually abusing children. An
ongoing pan-European investigation into internet porn has produced
several arrests in the last few months, including more than 30 in France
in mid-March. French TV reports the group organized "sexual
encounters" between adults and children.
Michael Moore, head of information technology at Little
Hulton community school in Manchester, said sixth-formers at one school
in the North-west had been targeted by paedophiles soon after the
introduction of e-mail.
He said: "A paedophile ring in Sheffield discovered the
system and invited students to take part. They suggested friendships
with other males. When schools get involved in the Internet they seek
publicity because it's good for the school and people with the wrong
intentions certainly can easily identify students at the school and use
Los Angeles Times Saturday April 25, 1998
A 44-year-old Sun Valley man was arrested Friday for allegedly downloading child pornography via the Internet.
David Luera, who is currently in custody in lieu of
$30,000 bail at the LAPD's Sexually Exploited Child Unit, could face up
to six years in prison if convicted.
It is the second time Luera has been arrested for
allegedly possessing child pornography videos and still photographs. In
1995, Luera became the first person in Los Angeles charged with
possessing child pornography obtained via the Internet, said Det. Lina
Pirro, an investigator on the case.
He pleaded no contest in June 1995 to a misdemeanor in
the first case and was sentenced to three years of probation, fined
$1,350 and ordered to perform 240 hours of community service.
In addition, the judge ordered Luera to register as a sex offender and forfeit his home computer equipment.
The fact that Luera is being charged with a second offense makes it a felony case, Pirro said.
"Pedophiles are always repeat offenders," she said.
"They'll always brag about their acts with other pedophiles."
Pirro said the unit was notified by a citizen informant
that Luera had downloaded the material. Pirro said that Luera had
corresponded extensively with other pedophiles describing his
"It was more than enough probable cause to write a search warrant," Pirro said.
Since Luera made Los Angeles criminal history with the
first Internet-child pornography case in 1995, there have been several
hundred similar cases in the city, Pirro said.
Along with those cases, the unit investigates child
prostitution rings and other cases involving sexually exploited
Retrieved from "http://www.xyclopedia.net/Child_Pornography"