Canada & US co-operate to smash online child porn ring

[Argus]

There is an element here who are getting defensive about porn. There are very CLEAR laws about porn in Canada and you have no need to worry. But it appears some of you are almost reluctant to condemn child porn out of fear one day adult porn may be taken off the menu. Why are you worrying about this when our porn laws have been going the opposite way since porn has been allowed? It's okay to condemn kiddie porn and hope the guilty get sentences!!

I unhesitantly condemn the molestation, abuse and mistreatment of children. As for kiddy porn - you'll have to tell me what it is. Is it Tracy Lords in Penthouse? Is is it Porkys? How about Blue Lagoon? Is it a webcam image of a sixteen year old girl flaunting her breasts? Is it a thirty year old image from a nudist magazine? How about an eighteen year old dressed up in a schoolgirl outfit with her hair in pigtails? These are all CHILD PORNOGRAPHY under our laws, and I don't believe looking at them should be criminalized.

As for the real child porn, that is, kids (as opposed to older teenagers) involved in sex acts by pervert adults, I certainly agree its exploitive and should be banned. But I don't agree with those who want to lock up the people who download it.

Yes, I'm afraid it's a slippery slope argument, guys. Sorry.

You say regular porn is okay and we don't need to worry. I can just about guarantee that many of the same people who campaign for child porn laws support more sringent porn laws. Let's examine one type of adult porn in particular simply because it's illegal. Bondage. You know, tie-up games. This is illegal in Canada, and to a lesser extent in the US, even though it involves entirely consenting adults. Why? Because some people are disgusted by it, and because campaigners were able to convince the government of the day - entirely without scientific evidence, btw - that it engendered violent attitudes towards women. Even the mildest of bondage erotica or porn is illegal. You don't get arrested for owning it - yet, but you can be arrested for selling or distributing it.

The thing about banning images, videos and words which make many people squirm, is that the shrill minority can get its way because most of the majority either doesn't care, or because they're too uncomfortable with it and don't want to be associated with defending it. So no, I don't think porn or erotica is safe from the ever present big brother attitude out there, and I think that the child porn advocates, if they can convince people that they're arguments are sound - will simply transfer those same arguments over to other things they want banned.

If we ban child porn because it can lead to violence against children then we should certainly ban pornography because it can lead to violence against women. That's an entirely sound, logical argument which works if one accepts the original premise. And there's really no stopping it from there. I've seen some of these people who call the likes of Glamour and Cosmpolitian "pornography" and want them banned.

But this case is not about child porn so much is it is about child RAPE. Anyone who rapes an 18 month old baby needs to be punished severely as a deterent to others who would grab a kid off the street. I can't understand why there is so much concern about the criminal and so little about the victims.

As I said, most child porn is not about child rape. But I certainly agree that those who rape children should be castrated and locked away for a very, very long time - like forever. I believe one should be punished for harming others, but not for having a psychological disorder which causes one to be attracted to children - or sheep. That's a matter for doctors.

[Montgomery Burns]

I'm not sure if I follow the 'greedy oppressive capitalist' comment. Do you mean Bill Gates? Developing software that will help track down sexual preditors is a great contribution. and I'm proud that it was the result of a Canadian initiative.

It's a shot at liberals and non-rightwingers. He's making the false argument that people left of center are against capitalism.

The dumb thing about Montys cheap shot is that Bill Gates is very socially conscious. He's over in Africa helping fight AIDS and involved in all kinds of lefty-type activities.

Silly me thought this would be a non-political post, but of course Monty can't post without taking a shot at his imagined enemies.

Actually it was President Bush who anted up $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa.

As for the child porn thing, I cannot, under no circumstances, find any reason to justify raping 18 month old children.

As for getting the search records of people checking out porn, I really doubt that the US or Canadian govt gives a damn that I check out sites like Big Butt Booty Babes on the internet.

I've got nothing to hide. Btw, these weren't people accidentally stumbling across a website. I once clicked a link that took me to a site (German site if I remember correctly) of a 14 y/o girl riding a horse in a black latex catsuit. I didn't think it was child porn, but it was still kinda creepy.

Besides, 14 year olds in Canada are legal--thanks to the Liberal Party.

I wish it was 16 like the rest of the civilized world.

[FTA Lawyer]

There is an element here who are getting defensive about porn. There are very CLEAR laws about porn in Canada and you have no need to worry. But it appears some of you are almost reluctant to condemn child porn out of fear one day adult porn may be taken off the menu. Why are you worrying about this when our porn laws have been going the opposite way since porn has been allowed? It's okay to condemn kiddie porn and hope the guilty get sentences!!

I unhesitantly condemn the molestation, abuse and mistreatment of children. As for kiddy porn - you'll have to tell me what it is. Is it Tracy Lords in Penthouse? Is is it Porkys? How about Blue Lagoon? Is it a webcam image of a sixteen year old girl flaunting her breasts? Is it a thirty year old image from a nudist magazine? How about an eighteen year old dressed up in a schoolgirl outfit with her hair in pigtails? These are all CHILD PORNOGRAPHY under our laws, and I don't believe looking at them should be criminalized.

As for the real child porn, that is, kids (as opposed to older teenagers) involved in sex acts by pervert adults, I certainly agree its exploitive and should be banned. But I don't agree with those who want to lock up the people who download it.

Yes, I'm afraid it's a slippery slope argument, guys. Sorry.

You say regular porn is okay and we don't need to worry. I can just about guarantee that many of the same people who campaign for child porn laws support more sringent porn laws. Let's examine one type of adult porn in particular simply because it's illegal. Bondage. You know, tie-up games. This is illegal in Canada, and to a lesser extent in the US, even though it involves entirely consenting adults. Why? Because some people are disgusted by it, and because campaigners were able to convince the government of the day - entirely without scientific evidence, btw - that it engendered violent attitudes towards women. Even the mildest of bondage erotica or porn is illegal. You don't get arrested for owning it - yet, but you can be arrested for selling or distributing it.

The thing about banning images, videos and words which make many people squirm, is that the shrill minority can get its way because most of the majority either doesn't care, or because they're too uncomfortable with it and don't want to be associated with defending it. So no, I don't think porn or erotica is safe from the ever present big brother attitude out there, and I think that the child porn advocates, if they can convince people that they're arguments are sound - will simply transfer those same arguments over to other things they want banned.

If we ban child porn because it can lead to violence against children then we should certainly ban pornography because it can lead to violence against women. That's an entirely sound, logical argument which works if one accepts the original premise. And there's really no stopping it from there. I've seen some of these people who call the likes of Glamour and Cosmpolitian "pornography" and want them banned.

But this case is not about child porn so much is it is about child RAPE. Anyone who rapes an 18 month old baby needs to be punished severely as a deterent to others who would grab a kid off the street. I can't understand why there is so much concern about the criminal and so little about the victims.

As I said, most child porn is not about child rape. But I certainly agree that those who rape children should be castrated and locked away for a very, very long time - like forever. I believe one should be punished for harming others, but not for having a psychological disorder which causes one to be attracted to children - or sheep. That's a matter for doctors.

Argus,

I have implored many people on this site a number of times to read the SCC decision in R. v. Sharpe...and I would suggest to you the same.

The SCC thoroughly examined many of the issues being tossed around here, and in many ways answers your comments about making it legal to download true child porn (i.e. sex acts with pre-pubescent children).

For you to say that most people are simply downloading old images from 30 years ago is a pathetic demonstration of your lack of knowledge of this industry. An entire illegal economy has developed with the currency being images and videos of children as young as 6 months old in sexual acts with adults.

The web-sites operate such that you need "credits" to download material, and in order to get credits you must contribute to the site...not just download. And, if you just contribute old stuff that everyone has seen you get no credits...adding new content is how you feed your deviant desires to "merely" download child porn.

The "slippery slope" argument is simply an unintelligent one. Believe me, I understand full well the dangers of eroding rights and concepts slowly over time...but my response to that is we remain vigilant any time we are looking at restricting the right to ensure we are not going too far. To say we should not hold downloaders of child porn criminally responsible because it could, possibly make it easier for religious prudes to restrict adult porn is ridiculous. Once again, the Sharpe case is a perfect example of how our system works to prevent overbreadth in criminal law while still protecting those who need protection.

Consumption (i.e. downloading) of child porn necessarily causes harm to children because it allows paedophiles to normalize or rationalize their deviance and makes them more likely to actually commit a "real" offence. Add to that the fact that at least some of the pictures and videos are created simply to feed the on-line demand, and it is not hard to see how "mere downloading" is directly linked to harming actual children.

As a criminal defence lawyer you won't see me giving the slightest second thought to locking up people who download videos of babies being raped by grown men. Our society ought not to be ashamed to say that is a line in the sand we are prepared to draw...regardless of those warning us about a "slippery slope".

FTA

[Argus]

I have implored many people on this site a number of times to read the SCC decision in R. v. Sharpe...and I would suggest to you the same.

The SCC thoroughly examined many of the issues being tossed around here, and in many ways answers your comments about making it legal to download true child porn (i.e. sex acts with pre-pubescent children).

For you to say that most people are simply downloading old images from 30 years ago is a pathetic demonstration of your lack of knowledge of this industry. An entire illegal economy has developed with the currency being images and videos of children as young as 6 months old in sexual acts with adults.

Sorry, won't wash. I've heard this argument many times, this boogeyman of a massive "industry" in kiddy porn. It does NOT exist and you will not show me any evidence in support of your statement except, perhaps, similar "scary" statements by anti porn activists, who themselves have no evidence.

You're a lawyer, aren't you? Show me some evidence.

There are a few web sites, mostly using 30 year old images, which operate for a little while before being shut down. There are a few paedophiles exchanging dirty pictures through chat rooms. There are even a few perverts molesting children who take pictures of that molestation as souvenirs and then show it to like-minded individuals. There is NO industry, or anything which passes for an "industry".

The "slippery slope" argument is simply an unintelligent one.

Oh really? Fancy that. A lawyer who's never heard of precedent. Where did you get your law degree from again?

Believe me, I understand full well the dangers of eroding rights and concepts slowly over time...but my response to that is we remain vigilant any time we are looking at restricting the right to ensure we are not going too far.

Which was never done in this case. The original unneccessary child porn law was invented by the last tory government in its dying days as an election gambit. Its purpose was not to protect children but to get the NDP, who generally oppose censorship of pornography, to vote against it so the Tories could portray them as defenders of child porn. The NDP caved and supported the bill. The Ontario and Quebec Bar associations strenuously opposed the law as unnecessary and far too sweeping. Maybe you weren't around back then.

In any event, the original law was modified to make it tougher twice, I believe, and the new Tory government will almost certainly modify it again to remove what defence of artistic merit still exists - even though it's reverse onus.

To say we should not hold downloaders of child porn criminally responsible because it could, possibly make it easier for religious prudes to restrict adult porn is ridiculous.

I didn't say that. I said that criminally punishing people for looking at pictures was a violation of their basic human rights, served no useful purpose, helped to protect no children, and was a dangerous precedent which could be used to restrict and criminalize other access to other material.

Consumption (i.e. downloading) of child porn necessarily causes harm to children because it allows paedophiles to normalize or rationalize their deviance and makes them more likely to actually commit a "real" offence.

Yeah, that's what the anti-porn types have been saying about porn for literally decades, and it has been adopted by the anti child-porn advocates. Only problem is that darned lack of evidence again. There is none. NONE. In fact, what legitimate scientific studies have been done have suggested the opposite, that the use of pornography has a tendency to act as an outlet for devient sexual desires which can lessen the need to act out such behaviour in real life. That's not to mention the fact that most of what Canada's criminal code terms "Child pornography" is nothing of the sort, as I mentioned earlier. And I believe it brings the law into disrepute when you can legally have sex with a 14 year old then go to prison if you're caught looking at a naked picture of her.

Add to that the fact that at least some of the pictures and videos are created simply to feed the on-line demand, and it is not hard to see how "mere downloading" is directly linked to harming actual children.

Some? If any, a miniscule amount. Modern child porn, what there is of it, is created as a byproduct of criminal behaviour. It is not the point or purpose of child molesting but a souvenir taken by the molester. Absent any camera the molestation would still take place. The pictures are EVIDENCE of a crime, and it is the crime we should be focusing on, not who might have downloaded the evidence.

As a criminal defence lawyer you won't see me giving the slightest second thought to locking up people who download videos of babies being raped by grown men.

That's a rather stunning admission of unprofessionalism on your part, you know. And another example of the hysteria over this. You'll proudly defend a mass-murderer, but not a guy who downloads dirty pictures. That's amazing, when you think about it. And the idea that a person who looks at a picture or image is as guilty as the person who commits the crime is patently ludicrous by any logical judgement.

Again, this law never was intended to serve any useful function beyond electoral campaigning. Child molestation was already illegal. Child pornography was already obscene and banned under the criminal code obscenity provisions. This law is the equivilent of the long gun registry, only not so expensive.

I can remember when the government was arguing in favour of this bill by talking about the immense "industry" of child porn, and the massive waves of filth threatening people. They couldn't find any, though. Seriously. They wanted to shock opponents, like the Canadian Civil Liberties Asociation, into submission by showing them how awful the stuff was. But they weren't able to get any. The RCMP had none. Customs had none. Somewhat frantically, they put out the word to all police agencies to get them some child porn, and Ontario's "project P" came through with some seventies era child porn magainzes from that brief period when it was legal in the US.

Our society ought not to be ashamed to say that is a line in the sand we are prepared to draw...regardless of those warning us about a "slippery slope".

You might look up David Goldberger one day. He was the Jewish lawyer for the ACLU who defended Nazis wanting to march in Skokie Illinois to show the "flag" to the concentration camp survivors who lived there. His point, the point of the ACLU and the CCLA, is that you don't draw a line which exempts nasty people. You draw a line around everyone. It's sad they never taught you that at law school.

[FTA Lawyer]

Sorry, won't wash. I've heard this argument many times, this boogeyman of a massive "industry" in kiddy porn. It does NOT exist and you will not show me any evidence in support of your statement except, perhaps, similar "scary" statements by anti porn activists, who themselves have no evidence.

You're a lawyer, aren't you? Show me some evidence.

There are a few web sites, mostly using 30 year old images, which operate for a little while before being shut down. There are a few paedophiles exchanging dirty pictures through chat rooms. There are even a few perverts molesting children who take pictures of that molestation as souvenirs and then show it to like-minded individuals. There is NO industry, or anything which passes for an "industry".

Well, I thought you might be able to do educate yourself a bit Argus, but it appears I will have to do it for you. And my apologies to the others on the forum for the length of this, but Argus demands evidence and refuses to look at cases like R. v. Sharpe so I guess I have to quote at length to keep him up to speed.

As if the dismantling of the international porn ring that is the starting subject of this thread were not enough...In a recent case in Alberta called R. v. Anderson, 2005 ABPC 99 (Alberta cases can be found in full text on the Alberta Courts Website) the defendant admitted the following statement of Crown allegations (such admissions being proper formal evidence pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada):

Her Majesty the Queen alleges, and the accused Walter Roy ANDERSON admits, the following facts:

1. The Internet is a worldwide computer network that connects computers and allows communications and the transfer of data and information across geographical and political boundaries. A user accesses the Internet from a computer network or Internet Service Provider (ISP) that connects to the Internet. The ISP assigns each user an Internet Protocol (IP) address. Each IP address is unique in that no two computers connected to the Internet may have the same IP address at any given time.

2. On Monday, May 17, 2004, Detective Krawczyk was at his work at Toronto Police Headquarters in Toronto, Canada. At 12:55 hours EST Detective Krawczyk accessed the Internet Relay Chat (IRC). Detective Krawczyk was working in an undercover capacity and his nickname was `lill luver'. Detective Krawczyk joined the IRC channel entitled `#100%PreTeenGirlsSexPics'I, as he knew this to be an IRC channel where people trade Child Pornography images.

3. While in this channel an unknown person using the nickname `prehunter' indicated that they were operating an f-serve. They indicated that the `trigger' for this f-server was `!Pre-me', that the ratio was 1:2, and that the starting credit was 5000 bytes. At 13:05:26 hours EST Detective Krawczyk connected to this f-server by typing the `trigger' command. When connected to the f-server Detective Krawczyk was connected directly to that user's computer and the Internet Protocol (IP) address for that user was displayed. The IP address for this f-server was 24.64.125.141. The Detective was able to trace this IP address using a computer software program that reveals the registrant of an IP address. Shaw Communications was determined to be the registrant of this address.

4. Upon entering the f-server, the following was given as a description of the f-server (spelling errors are by operator of the f-server)

''''Fast hardcore preteen server. - only rule - pics/movies must be hardcore preteen action ie. Having sex with adults or each other''''

no exceptions

Located in Alberta Canada. Local or active families welcome to contact me.

Double credits for boys taking mens cocks or dildos deep.''''

The f-server was organized into four main directories. These were named:

1) Animals

2) Anime-Toon

3) Boys

4.) Girls

Detective Krawczyk entered the directory entitled Girls. It was further organized into two directories

1) Movies

2) Pics

Detective Krawczyk had a credit of 5000 bytes and attempted to locate image files that were less than 5000 bytes so that he would be able to download files but could not locate any. The Detective attempted to upload a corrupt file in order to gain credits but was unable to do so. He exited the f-server at 13:11:41.

5. Detective Krawczyk entered the same f-server again at 13:11:52 hours. This f-server was still operating from IP address 24.62.125.141. In order to obtain credit the detective uploaded a corrupt movie file entitled `8yo.mpg'. This movie file does not display anything when opened by a user and is used to obtain credits in Child Pornography trading investigations.

6. Detective Krawczyk was informed by the f-server that the file was uploaded successfully and this his credit was 2165640 bytes. Detective Krawczyk was able to download the following images;

i. !!!!!!!!!!kidsux preteen girl sucks dads dick sex porn(2).jpg. This image is a girl who appears to be approximately 12 years old performing felatio on a male.

ii. #goodgirl23.jpg: This image is of a prepubescent girl performing felatio on a male.

iii. !rapegan.jpg: This image is of a naked young girl being pinned down by 4 naked males. The girl appears to be screaming.

iv. pedo kiddy boy tastes 1st cockxxx.jpg: This image is of a young prepubescent boy performing felatio on a male.

These 4 downloaded images are all child pornography as defined by the Criminal Code.

Detective Krawczyk exited the f-server and IRC at 13:15:36 EST.

7. On Monday, May 17, 2004, Detective Krawczyk spoke with a representative from Shaw Communications Inc. and asked that the subscriber information for the IP address 24.64.125.141 for May 17, 2004, between the hours of 13:05:26 EST and 13:16:36 EST be saved in anticipation of a warrant. The representative advised that they have the information for the unknown person(s) using the IP address and time period noted and that the records would be available at 630 Third Avenue S.W., Suite 800, Calgary, Alberta.

8. On May 19, 2004 Detective Krawczyk forwarded a copy of his investigation to Detective Martin.

9. On May 18, 2004, Detective Martin contacted Shaw Communications Inc and pursuant to the Personal Information Protection and Electronics Act (PIPEDA) made the request for the users name of the IP address 24.64.125.141 for May 17, 2004 between the hours of 13:05:26 EST and 13:16:36 EST.

10. On May 19, 2004 Detective Martin received a reply back from Shaw advising that the use of the above IP address at that above noted times is Walter Anderson of 16 Hunter's Crescent in Okotoks, Alberta.

11. On May 20, 2004, Cst. Wattie received the same information as noted above from a Detective Wickins of the Edmonton Police Service. Detective Wickins did not obtain any photos as he did not send a corrupt file.

12. On May 26 a warrant was executed at Anderson's residence in Okotoks, Alberta. Four computers, Zip disks and CR-R disks were seized at the residence. There were a large number of adult pornography and dildoes [sic] not seized. The RCMP Technical Crime Unit on scene completed a preview of two of the computers and numerous images of child pornography were found. Two of the four pictures that were sent to Detective Krawczyk were also found on the computer.

13. Walter Anderson resided in the house with his wife and 2 daughters, Chelsea (6 years old) and Aeryn (3 years old). Neither the wife nor daughters had any knowledge of the child pornography. The accused had changed the password on his computer a week prior to his arrest and his wife was not able to access his files.

14. Analysis of the seized items was performed by Cst. Jackson and Cpl. LaFontaine. Child pornography was located on 2 of the computers. With respect to all of the computers an image of the hard disk was created using the Encase forensic software and the hard drive's integrity was protected using a hardware write blocker.

15. On the first computer a search of the hard drive revealed 9 images depicting child pornography. These images were stored in one of four different locations on the hard drive. The locations are areas that one would store files that they wished to save for an indefinite period of time e.g. `My Pictures' and `My Documents'. Five of these images had been deleted from the computer five days prior to seizure but were recovered with the names and associated dates.

16. The above computer contained two different peer-to-peer sharing programs - Kazaa and Imesh. Both the Kazaa and DBB files were extracted. DBB files contain the names of files that users downloaded using these two programs. Large numbers of files had been downloaded that depicted child pornography.

17. 59 entries for movies, which depicted child pornography, were found. There were 14 movie files depicting child pornography. More entries were recovered as the user had moved the movie around from one folder to another. When this is done repeated entries are made in the Master File Table. The significance of multiple entries is that the user was aware of the files on the computer. The 14 digital movie files were created between 20th and 23rd of May 2004.

18. There were a further 18 digital movies in video format called WMV of Windows Media Video. These are named with file names descriptive of child pornography and were not viewable as the WMV format allows them to be copyrighted and protected unless a license is purchased.

19. Link files were examined. These are created automatically by the system without been known to the user. There were three link files of interest indicating that the user used the program Real Player to play the video files with names descriptive to child pornography. The files were first played at the beginning of May 2004. One of the link files points to one of the copyrighted files, which indicates that the user had obtained a license to view the WMV

20. The second computer was also analyzed and shown to contain child pornography. There was one hard disk within the computer that was 10 GB in size. This hard drive contained 91 images of child pornography and the images were stored in one of the five different locations on the hard drive. Two of the areas are not areas where images would have been downloaded by any program. There were images that were found in areas that are receptacles for downloaded files. This included the default destination folder for Kazaa and MIRC, which are programs that facilitate the sharing of files.

21. The source of the child pornography was the peer-to-peer sharing program Kazaa and MIRC. Anderson had been using the MIRC to operate the server that the Toronto Police Service Member had connected to and downloaded child pornography from. The user was using Kazaa to download child pornography. When it arrived on his computer it went to the Kazaa/My Shared Folder. The MIRC program then utilized the contents of that folder to distribute the child pornography to other users on the Internet.

22. Two of the four images downloaded by the Toronto Police Service member were located. A MD5 binary comparison indicated that the downloading images came from Anderson's computer.

23. There were a further 10 digital files depicting child pornography found. The movies ranged in length from several seconds to 7 minutes and 38 seconds in length. These movies were stored in folders that Anderson had created to specifically store the images.

24. No child pornography was found on any of the other seized items.

25. Item 1 computer contained both child pornography images and digital movies. There were 9 images and 14 movies. The source of the movies and images were the peer-to-peer sharing program Kazaa.

26. Item 2 computer contained both images and movies - 91 images and 10 movies. The source of the movies and images were the peer-to-peer sharing program Kazaa. These images and movies were shared or distributed to other users of the Internet using MIRC (F Serve)

27. Examination of the DBB files associated with Kazaa and Imesh indicated that Anderson had extensively downloaded hundred of files, which are named in the fashion indicating child pornography.

28. The RCMP Encase computer Analysis Report of names of files/movies seized from 1 and 2 will be exhibited.

29. The images were extremely graphic and an example of these will be filed as an exhibit. The images include children performing sex acts on children, (boy-boy, girl-girl, girl-boy), children performing sex acts on adults, and vice versa (boy/women, girl/man, woman/girl, man/girl, man/boy). Also included is an adult male attempting to penetrate baby. Page 1 and page 10 depict the two recovered pictures sent to Toronto.

30. A list of the movies will be filed as an exhibit. The titles of these movies are self-explanatory.

31. On May 26, 2004 a written statement was obtained from Walter Anderson who admitted that he has had a problem with pornography since he was 11 years old and that it has been getting progressively worse over the years and that child pornography is one of the types of pornography that he views. The f-serve was set up so that he could access the images faster and obtain a larger variety of photos to satisfy his need to view them at a moment's notice."

Anderson was a minor player, and so was actually in contention for a community sentence (but was denied due to the societal harm his behaviour caused).

Examples of more "industrious" participants include R. v. Larocque, 2004 ABPC 114, whose Admissions included:

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

¶ 4 Counsel filed an Agreed Statement of Facts. Part 1 of the Agreed Statement of Facts sets out the background relating to the Internet. Part 11 of the Agreed Statement of Facts, sets out the facts relating to the offence.

PART 11: FACTS RELATING TO THE OFFENCE

"7. The "roundtable" chatroom was a private IRC chatroom that was password controlled. Members were registered by nicknames and by IP addresses. Members had to be reconfirmed time and time again by offering fresh material. This chatroom was known to the law enforcement as being one that was used for the dissemination of child pornography. An international police operation known as "Project Artus" was coordinated through Interpol to infiltrate this chatroom. On November 27, 2001 German police arrested Rolf KRAUSEL, the channel operator, while he was actually connected and online. This provided police the opportunity to infiltrate the group posing as KRAUSEL. While investigators were online with the other roundtable members, they logged the chats. The accused, James LAROCQUE, was one of those members. When KRAUSEL was arrested, LAROCQUE stepped up to run the group as "Super Operator" ("SOP"). At this level, he had the most control over what happened in the group as far as membership and participation. Ultimately, a total of 12 people in 10 countries, including this accused, were arrested in a coordinated effort by police around the world.

8. All of the members of the group circulated child pornography amongst themselves; that was the very reason for the group's existence. The logs show many instances where the accused, using various nicknames, provided files to other members of the group. The logs also provide proof that the accused downloaded child pornography from other members of the group. When his two computers were seized by R.C.M.P. in Red Water, Alberta they were sent for forensic analysis. This analysis revealed well over a thousand child pornography images and approximately 250 child pornography video clips. There were also images which, though not "child pornography" within the definition of the Criminal Code, depict children in sexually suggestive poses, various stages of undress, and/or are part of a series of photos which culminate in child pornography. All of these materials--images and videos--are being submitted separately as Exhibits.

9. KRAUSEL's statement to German police describes the involvement of members of the roundtable group, including the accused. In it he notes:

* the SOP had the ability to allow entry to the chatroom or to ban;

* members were allowed entry only after KRAUSEL had received child pornography video from the applicant or they had been given a reference by one specific member of the group nicknamed "sunrhone";

* the applicant's video files had to be "up-to-date and relatively new recordings of sexual exploitation of children" (KRAUSEL's words, translated from German);

* the roundtable group eventually comprised about 15 persons;

* for "confidence-building" measures, everybody had to offer something every now and then;

* the members were afraid of police informers, so they only welcomed as members people who had dealt with quality child pornography previously;

* without exception, all roundtable members were required to set up their computers as file servers so that every member could access each other's computer; the password was either well known or could be asked for.

10. The logs make it clear that the accused was a frequent participant in the group.

11. The accused was cooperative with investigators. The accused was also cooperative with the police from Victoria, B.C. who were investigating a member of the roundtable group from that city, Larry Keith SMITH. LAROCQUE provided a sworn K.B.G. statement wherein he detailed how the group was set up and SMITH's participation in the group. SMITH was charged and prosecuted. LAROCQUE had been subpoenaed as a witness for the prosecution, however SMITH pleaded guilty before the accused was required to travel to B.C. for court.

12. There is no evidence to suggest that LAROCQUE was involved in manufacturing any child pornography."

Another example from a couple of years earlier is R. v. Hewlett, 2002, ABCA 179, some of the facts of which were as follows:

¶ 7 We begin with the facts before this Court. It is clear that Hewlett and Turnbull incorporated a company for the purposes of setting up a triple-x Internet website. Hewlett placed an ad in the paper soliciting models 18 and over. Three young persons (two girls, aged 15 and 16, and a young man, aged 17, all of whom were roommates and in a difficult financial position) responded to the ad. Before meeting Hewlett, the three planned to lie to him about their ages and say that they were over 18. However, at no time did Hewlett ever ask for any ID, nor did the three ever give him any. While release forms had been prepared for execution by the three young persons, these were never completed by any of them.

¶ 8 Hewlett arranged for Hunt to photograph the three young persons. A number of the resulting photographs showed the three young persons engaged in explicit sexual activity. In addition, the dominant characteristic of many of the representations is a depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ of a person under 18 years of age. Photographs in either or both categories clearly fall within the definition of child pornography under s. 163.1(1) of the Code. While not an issue before this Court, we wish to confirm that we did view all of the photographs. Since the offence here is making and possessing child pornography, the photographs, being part of the actus reus, are relevant to sentence.

¶ 9 The first photo shoot took place at Turnbull's home where food, alcohol and marijuana were offered to the young persons. The marijuana was declined. The shoots were all directed by Hunt; Hewlett was there for the first. In total, 31 photos were taken of the young man alone, 55 of the 15-year old alone, 150 of the 16-year old alone, 23 of explicit sexual activity between the 15-year old and the 16-year old and approximately 215 depicting explicit and graphic sexual activity between the 15-year old and an adult female, including graphic depictions of oral genital contact and the vaginal insertion of an object.

¶ 10 Prior to the last shoot involving the 15-year old and the adult female, the trial judge concluded that Hewlett was put on express notice that the three young persons were all under 18. During a telephone conversation with the 15-year old, Hewlett assured her: "If you're not 18, we can work around it." Thereafter, she confirmed that she was only 15 and her two friends were only 16 and 17 respectively.

¶ 11 Hewlett took possession of the photographs from Hunt for the purpose of creating the triple-x Internet website through which the photos were to be distributed and profits realized.

¶ 12 Turnbull's involvement was considerably less than either Hewlett or Hunt. While he was a joint owner of the company, his direct involvement was apparently limited to providing his property for the taking of the photos and being present at one of the shoots. Counsel also advised that Turnbull had no actual knowledge that the young persons were under 18.

¶ 13 While Hunt was the photographer, he had been assured by Hewlett that Hewlett had checked the ID of all three young persons and that age was not a concern. This is obvious from the agreed statement of facts entered at Hunt's trial which was provided to the Court during oral argument on this appeal.

¶ 14 By contrast, the trial judge in this case expressly found that Hewlett had actual knowledge of the young persons' ages, certainly from the time of the subject phone call, and that prior to that, he had taken no steps to confirm their age. The trial judge also found Hewlett to be a liar, with no remorse for what had occurred. During the course of the sentencing, Hewlett expressed his disdain for the young persons, stating at p. 11 of the Sentencing Appeal Digest: "I didn't tell them to answer the newspaper ad. Where are the fuckin' parents in all this? Nowhere, cause they don't give a shit."

¶ 15 Further, the trial judge effectively found Hewlett to be the primary actor in this scheme. It was Hewlett who arranged and ordered the taking, printing and reproduction of pornographic photographs of the three young people. He advertised for the models; he met and interviewed the three young persons; he retained Hunt; he attended at the time of one of the photo shoots; he assured both Turnbull and Hunt that he had taken ID from all three of the young persons when this was not so; he spoke to the 15-year old girl before the shoot involving her and the adult female at which time he was expressly advised that she was only 15 and her two friends 16 and 17; he said nothing about this to Hunt before the final shoot; and he said nothing on this subject before he attempted to upload the photographs onto the triple-x Internet website through his Internet service provider.

I could go on and on and on in Alberta alone, and repeat the same for many cases in every jurisdiction across Canada...but it's not necessary...Argus will either accept that the evidence CLEARLY exists or will remain in his own little world rambling about religious conspiracies against pornography. (But hey, we all know how often an INTERPOL investigation leads to double-digit arrests when there is NO EVIDENCE of any child-porn industry, right Argus?!?!?)

Ask any of the numerous judges in Canada who have had to view this repulsive material in ruling on these increasingly common cases and they will tell you that your assertions of the odd 30 year-old picture floating around cyberspace are nothing short of complete ignorance.

I didn't say that. I said that criminally punishing people for looking at pictures was a violation of their basic human rights, served no useful purpose, helped to protect no children, and was a dangerous precedent which could be used to restrict and criminalize other access to other material.

Well, if you would have read Sharpe, you'd see some of these choice bits of what the SCC found:

¶ 28 This brings us to the countervailing interest at stake in this appeal: society's interest in protecting children from the evils associated with the possession of child pornography. Just as no one denies the importance of free expression, so no one denies that child pornography involves the exploitation of children. The links between possession of child pornography and harm to children are arguably more attenuated than are the links between the manufacture and distribution of child pornography and harm to children. However, possession of child pornography contributes to the market for child pornography, a market which in turn drives production involving the exploitation of children. Possession of child pornography may facilitate the seduction and grooming of victims and may break down inhibitions or incite potential offences. Some of these links are disputed and must be considered in greater detail in the course of the s. 1 justification analysis. The point at this stage is simply to describe the concerns that, according to the government, justify limiting free expression by banning the possession of child pornography.

¶ 78 Crown counsel has conceded that criminalizing possession of child pornography limits the right of free expression. The question we must answer is whether that limitation is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. To justify the intrusion on free expression, the government must demonstrate, through evidence supplemented by common sense and inferential reasoning, that the law meets the test set out in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, and refined in Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835, and Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877. The goal must be pressing and substantial, and the law enacted to achieve that goal must be proportionate in the sense of furthering the goal, being carefully tailored to avoid excessive impairment of the right, and productive of benefits that outweigh the detriment to freedom of expression.

¶ 94

I conclude that the social science evidence adduced in this case, buttressed by experience and common sense, amply meets the Oakes requirement of a rational connection between the purpose of the law and the means adopted to effect this purpose. Possession of child pornography increases the risk of child abuse. It introduces risk, moreover, that cannot be entirely targeted by laws prohibiting the manufacture, publication and distribution [page101] of child pornography. Laws against publication and distribution of child pornography cannot catch the private viewing of child pornography, yet private viewing may induce attitudes and arousals that increase the risk of offence. Nor do such laws catch the use of pornography to groom and seduce children. Only by extending the law to private possession can these harms be squarely attacked.

As a criminal defence lawyer you won't see me giving the slightest second thought to locking up people who download videos of babies being raped by grown men.

That's a rather stunning admission of unprofessionalism on your part, you know. And another example of the hysteria over this. You'll proudly defend a mass-murderer, but not a guy who downloads dirty pictures. That's amazing, when you think about it. And the idea that a person who looks at a picture or image is as guilty as the person who commits the crime is patently ludicrous by any logical judgement.

Again, your ignorance abounds...No criminal lawyer can be forced nor is he or she ethically obligated to accept any case that he or she does not feel comfortable defending. I'm not sure where you get your "facts" from, but I'm quite certain that I have never professed to "proudly defend a mass murderer".

Take all of the "lawyer cheap shots" at me that you like, but I've argued possession of child pornography law in front of the Alberta Court of Appeal and I know a bit more about the subject than what you think you know.

FTA

[geoffrey]

Your right FTA. Destroying the demand side of the industry will put it out of business. Let's lock them up.

No one is impeding on anyone's rights to express their sexuality in any non-exploitive method. That's really none of anyone's business.

The fact is that as long as there is a demand for this disgusting material, it will continuously be produced by the exploitation of children. That can't be allowed. This is current right now exploitation, not relics of the 70's as Argus put it.

In that evidence that FTA showed above, it clearly stated that the Police were inticed to download images while on the chatroom, prior to finding out any information about the criminal. No one is monitoring everything on the internet or everything you do. It would be simply impossible, not to mention illegal in Canada. People are going to be caught if they actively participate in the distribution of child pornography, no one would know if you looking at general pornographic images.

No big brother fear here.

I certainly hope your not arguing this on the basis of a 'victimless' crime Argus.

[Argus]

Sorry, won't wash. I've heard this argument many times, this boogeyman of a massive "industry" in kiddy porn. It does NOT exist and you will not show me any evidence in support of your statement except, perhaps, similar "scary" statements by anti porn activists, who themselves have no evidence.

You're a lawyer, aren't you? Show me some evidence.

There are a few web sites, mostly using 30 year old images, which operate for a little while before being shut down. There are a few paedophiles exchanging dirty pictures through chat rooms. There are even a few perverts molesting children who take pictures of that molestation as souvenirs and then show it to like-minded individuals. There is NO industry, or anything which passes for an "industry".

Well, I thought you might be able to do educate yourself a bit Argus, but it appears I will have to do it for you. And my apologies to the others on the forum for the length of this, but Argus demands evidence and refuses to look at cases like R. v. Sharpe so I guess I have to quote at length to keep him up to speed.

First let me say how familiar I am with this type of response. I am both surprised and not surprised. It is typical of the kind of crude emotionalism which passes for argument I see from the censorship crowd. Based on some of your other posts I had expected somewhat more rationality of you. Instead what I see is the same sort of self righteous, contemptuous dismissal of any sort of argument against your innate beliefs with again, no evidence to support your beliefs.

What you said was that there was an "entire industry" of child porn. I challenged this, and also stated most of the images came form 30 year old magazines. Your response was to post two long-winded cases from Alberta about small file sharing groups of a dozen or so people. As it was never in dispute by anyone that child porn exists and that paedophiles share their porn over the internet, all you did was waste time and bandwidth while never addressing any of my points.

Nor did you go on to address any of my other key points, those being the unjustly broad nature of this law, which catches many other types of material, the opposition to it by the Ontario and Quebec bars, and by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the pointlessness of the law given that it already addresses issues covered under other laws, or its political purpose. Your response was indeed sad, and I will delete most without bothering to discuss it further.

I could go on and on and on in Alberta alone, and repeat the same for many cases in every jurisdiction across Canada...but it's not necessary...Argus will either accept that the evidence CLEARLY exists or will remain in his own little world rambling about religious conspiracies against pornography. (But hey, we all know how often an INTERPOL investigation leads to double-digit arrests when there is NO EVIDENCE of any child-porn industry, right Argus?!?!?)

Again this absurd emotional rant. Is this what you try in court when you have no defence? Does it work there? Because I'm sorely unimpressed by your lack of evidence or anything approaching a coherent argument. Or in your world do you define a dozen guys exchanging porn over the IRC as an "industry"?

Ask any of the numerous judges in Canada who have had to view this repulsive material in ruling on these increasingly common cases and they will tell you that your assertions of the odd 30 year-old picture floating around cyberspace are nothing short of complete ignorance.

So I'm to go out and find judges to support your case because you're incapable of offering up any evidence? I think not.

I didn't say that. I said that criminally punishing people for looking at pictures was a violation of their basic human rights, served no useful purpose, helped to protect no children, and was a dangerous precedent which could be used to restrict and criminalize other access to other material.

Well, if you would have read Sharpe, you'd see some of these choice bits of what the SCC found:

¶ 28 This brings us to the countervailing interest at stake in this appeal: society's interest in protecting children from the evils associated with the possession of child pornography. Just as no one denies the importance of free expression, so no one denies that child pornography involves the exploitation of children. The links between possession of child pornography and harm to children are arguably more attenuated than are the links between the manufacture and distribution of child pornography and harm to children. However, possession of child pornography contributes to the market for child pornography, a market which in turn drives production involving the exploitation of children.

Yes, I believe I've made rather clear, from time to time, my opinion on the wisdom and sophisticaton of the courts, particularly this supreme court, which has an unfortunate habit of supporting its findings with evidence which was never introduced. Such was the case in the SC caving in to the vile afront on freedom of speech in the Harper V Canada case, where in a rambling, disjointed decision, the liberal court upheld the law based on its apparent absolute terror that some day some evil rich man might use his mighty power of advertising to sway us all from the true and righteous path to salvation. This, in their opinion, met the "pressing and substantial)" need enough to justify allowing a law which fundamentally violated the Charter.

So too in the Sharpe case did the SC justify this law, which they again admitted was unconstitutional, on the basis of "common sense" and "inferential reasoning" as opposed to actual evidence. Child porn is a byproduct of molestation, not the cause of it, and no evidence was ever introduced to the contrary. That did not stop the court, of course, from stating that the downloading of child porn "drives the market" which causes children to be molested. What market? What evidence? Likewise, their suggestion that the posession of child porn "may" aid a paedophile in seducing his victim is scant reason to justify a criminal sanction against those who have never harmed or attempted to harm children. Toys might aid a paedophile too, after all, or candy, or money, or any number of other things. Do we lock people up for having them?

Take all of the "lawyer cheap shots" at me that you like, but I've argued possession of child pornography law in front of the Alberta Court of Appeal and I know a bit more about the subject than what you think you know.

It's not evident from the above that you know ANYTHING about child pornography or, for that matter, that you know how to present evidence in support of an argument. It was a sad example of an emotional rant without any substantiating fact.

This is a crude law which carries substantial threats to freedom of speech and expression, and yet no one has been able to present coherent reasoning as to why it ought to be allowed to override Charter protections.

The ultimate test of any law is to show that without it there would be substantial harm.

But if this law disappeared overnight, nothing much would change. Those paedophiles who share their smut over the internet would be safer, but children would not be in any more danger. There is no evidence this law did a single, solitary thing to hinder the molestation of children, nor any reason to think it ever will. Paedophiles sharing mostly old images over the internet are not the problem. Paedophiles molesting children are the problem.

[Argus]

Your right FTA. Destroying the demand side of the industry will put it out of business. Let's lock them up.

Demand for pornography comes from people who have a sex drive. Demand for child pornography comes from people who have a sex drive who also have a diagnosed psychological condition called paedophilia. The only way you are going to "destroy the demand" is to subject everyone over ten to a clinical evaluation and lock up everyone diagnosed with paedophilia.

Actually, you'd need more than that, as "child pornography" in Canada, is a very broad definition of anything which involves sexuality and those under 18. You don't have to be a paedophile, for example, to find Tracy Lords pictures and videos attractive. Do we lock up all adult males who ever saw one and liked it? Or who might?

The fact is that as long as there is a demand for this disgusting material, it will continuously be produced by the exploitation of children. That can't be allowed. This is current right now exploitation, not relics of the 70's as Argus put it.

There is ALWAYS going to be a demand for this "disgusting" material. Paedophilia is not really treatable, and it is not likely to go away. Locking up a few losers who get caught won't affect that. Furthermore, almost all child porn comes from the 70s, and virtually all of that which is produced now is done as a byproduct of child molestation. Paedophiles are notorious for wanting "souvenirs" of their acts and always have been. Read up on things before you write. Canadian Civil Liberties Association

The sex drive is a powerful motivator, and no law is going to defeat it.

[FTA Lawyer]

Seriously Argus, why won't you read the Sharpe decision? It is 75 pages long so I can't post it here, but Sharpe expressly carves out constitutional exceptions to the law as it was drafted...your criticisms about the "crude law" carrying "substantial threats to freedom of speech and expression" with no "coherent reasoning as to why it ought to be allowed to override Charter protections" would all have been completely valid BEFORE SHARPE...(the case is 5 years old now).

I wasn't in Ottawa when they argued Sharpe, so I can't show you the actual evidence relied on, but come on pal...there were countless intervenors, it was a huge hearing with loads of evidence put before the court, and the quote I gave you demonstrated that the SCC was satisfied that the social science evidence it heard led to the conclusion that the law against possession of child porn was necessary to protect children from potential harm.

You may not agree with it, but this is a completely coherent, evidence-based justification of the law.

And, for someone who repeatedly demands "evidence" and criticizes for lack of "substantiating fact" where is your so-called evidence that most child porn images of today come from 30-year-old magazines???????

This is a discussion board, not a court of law...and even though I provided you with actual evidence that was submitted in actual court cases you continue to cry out that no evidence exists (except of course whatever you are apparently relying on in support of your statements).

You seem to profess to be quite knowledgeable, so much so that you have me pegged for writing "emotional rants" in support of my "innate beliefs" of "self-righteous censorship". Well, here is an excerpt from my argument before the Alberta Court of Appeal:

45. A very important distinction exists between pre-pubescent and post-pubescent children in Canadian law such that what is commonly understood to be “child pornography” is material which involves the former but not the latter.

Sharpe, supra, at para. 41 [TAB 6]

46. Indeed, one of the most common quotes from the Sharpe decision is where McLachlin, C.J.C. discusses Parliament’s intent in this legislation:

Parliament’s main purpose in passing the child pornography law was to prevent harm to children by banning the production, distribution and possession of child pornography, and by sending a message to Canadians “that children need to be protected from the harmful effects of child sexual abuse and exploitation and are not appropriate sexual partners”

[Emphasis added]

Sharpe, supra, at para. 34 [TAB 6]

47. By necessary implication, this comment was directed at the “common understanding” of child pornography as involving pre-pubescent children, because in fact, in Canadian law, “children” as defined in s. 163.1 can lawfully be “appropriate sexual partners” if they are 14 years of age or older.

48. The learned Sentencing Judge could not have made this fact any more evident:

Oh, clearly, if it had been a case of sexual intercourse with consent, we wouldn’t be here.

(SAB 50/18 – 19)

49. In excluding private-use recordings of lawful sexual acts where the accused’s partner is over 14 but under 18 from the ambit of s. 163.1, McLachlin C.J.C. states:

…this material poses little risk of harm to children. It is privately created and intended only for personal use. It depicts only lawful sexual activity.

Sharpe, supra, at para. 76 [TAB 6]

If it is not evident from this spliced section, I was arguing to the Court of Appeal that the true intent of the child pornography laws was to punish adults who molest young children as opposed to punishing adults who take or view pictures of teens like your beloved Traci Lords...

What do you know, I'm not a self-righteous censor after all!!!!

My point being Argus, I make arguments on this board for the purpose of furthering debate and discussion...not so I can go home and pat myself on the back for being right about my personal beliefs.

Was I a bit rhetorical or condescending? Maybe. (I didn't really expect you to go out and talk to judges you know) But the credit for the "emotional rant" goes to you my friend.

FTA

[Argus]

Seriously Argus, why won't you read the Sharpe decision? It is 75 pages long

There ya go.

so I can't post it here, but Sharpe expressly carves out constitutional exceptions to the law as it was drafted...your criticisms about the "crude law" carrying "substantial threats to freedom of speech and expression" with no "coherent reasoning as to why it ought to be allowed to override Charter protections" would all have been completely valid BEFORE SHARPE...(the case is 5 years old now).

I have read enough legal analyses of the Sharpe decision (and I tend to trust that better than my own for obvious reason) to note that the Sharpe decision was a two-edged sword. It invalidated some aspects of the law as it was then written, but confirmed others. Furthermore, the Sharpe decision is no longer relavent in many ways since C-2 came into affect last year. The defenses for "child pornography" are greatly weakened, and the definition and terms are broadened. They include a wider scope of written material, for example. And artistic merit is no longer a solid defence.

I wasn't in Ottawa when they argued Sharpe, so I can't show you the actual evidence relied on, but come on pal...there were countless intervenors, it was a huge hearing with loads of evidence put before the court, and the quote I gave you demonstrated that the SCC was satisfied that the social science evidence it heard led to the conclusion that the law against possession of child porn was necessary to protect children from potential harm.

Then they were mistaken. Although I believe their decision was pretty much known in advance due to the political makeup of the court. I don't believe any solid evidence was ever presented as to the harm posed by pornography. If it was, it would be the first time any legitimate social science study ever found a strong link between pornography and real world behaviour.

And, for someone who repeatedly demands "evidence" and criticizes for lack of "substantiating fact" where is your so-called evidence that most child porn images of today come from 30-year-old magazines???????

It's a little late in the day here but I have posted such cites in prior discussions on this issue, if not here, then elsewhere. I'll try and round them up for you.

This is a discussion board, not a court of law...and even though I provided you with actual evidence that was submitted in actual court cases you continue to cry out that no evidence exists (except of course whatever you are apparently relying on in support of your statements).

I asked you to back up the oft heard "great big whopping Porn industry" statement. You replied with a couple of cites involving small groups of men involved in IRC file sharing. I don't think I'm being particularly snarky in saying this doesn't satisfy my request.

You seem to profess to be quite knowledgeable, so much so that you have me pegged for writing "emotional rants" in support of my "innate beliefs" of "self-righteous censorship".

I have been arguing against censorship of all kinds for several decades, often about porn, and more lately on child porn. The arguments you presented were the same ones I've seen so often before, and dismissed as without merit so often before. There is no link between porn and real-world behaviour. Believe me, many have tried, including at least two presidents. Every feminist group worthy of the name has tried. There is no legitimate, valid study which concludes that looking at porn alters real world behaviour.

Well, here is an excerpt from my argument before the Alberta Court of Appeal:

45. A very important distinction exists between pre-pubescent and post-pubescent children in Canadian law such that what is commonly understood to be “child pornography” is material which involves the former but not the latter.

Unfortunately, the definition of child pornography in Canada includes any sexually explicit behaviour, or any depiction of the genitals or breasts of a person under the age of 18 or anyone who is being depicted as being under the age of 18 for fiction purposes (even if they are over 18). It also involves writing about such behaviour, even if fictional.

If it is not evident from this spliced section, I was arguing to the Court of Appeal that the true intent of the child pornography laws was to punish adults who molest young children as opposed to punishing adults who take or view pictures of teens like your beloved Traci Lords...

What do you know, I'm not a self-righteous censor after all!!!!

Then why were you previously arguing like one? Look, most of us have little time for what we would call "real child pornography" but I know very well this law is so broad it encompasses far more than that. And you know it as well. BTW, I never really liked Tracy Lords. She was too much of a phony screamer. Even as a teenager I could tell that much. My point in mentioning her should be obvious. I could as easily have used Jane March in The Lover - a film which could now almost certainly draw a child porn conviction since C-2 weakened artistic merit defences, or Nabocov's Lolita, since it also greatly broadened the written definition of child porn.

If posession of actual child pornography were criminalized on the basis of its exploitation of children, and the criminal sanction were appropriate to such a non-violent offence, I'd have no problem with this law.

I do have a problem with an enormously overbroad law which carries as great a sanction as homicide for people caught downloading dirty pictures from the internet.

[geoffrey]

I never though I'd here anyone defend child porn as a victimless crime, one that should just be treated by mental health professionals.

It's truly unbelievable that your ok with people possessing images of children being abused and molested. That's very disturbing. If no one wanted to see them or everyone that does were arrested, no children would be further abused.

Are you arguing in support of someone's right to posses child pornography? Or am I missing something here?

[Argus]

I never though I'd here anyone defend child porn as a victimless crime, one that should just be treated by mental health professionals.

It's truly unbelievable that your ok with people possessing images of children being abused and molested. That's very disturbing. If no one wanted to see them or everyone that does were arrested, no children would be further abused.

Are you arguing in support of someone's right to posses child pornography? Or am I missing something here?

You're missing an awful lot here. So much I have to wonder if you're actually serious or just playing games.

[FTA Lawyer]

I asked you to back up the oft heard "great big whopping Porn industry" statement. You replied with a couple of cites involving small groups of men involved in IRC file sharing. I don't think I'm being particularly snarky in saying this doesn't satisfy my request.

Argus,

I await your criticism of how every person in this article is biased and / or a religious anti-porn crusader, but the Fifth Estate is an acclaimed documentary medium and I'd say the bolded portions of what I have posted pretty much fully back up everything I have said in my last couple of posts. Read the whole article and try to tell me again that "there is NO industry, or anything which passes for an "industry" or that there is no research that indicates a connection between viewing child pornography and "real-world behaviour".

The Fifth Estate

HOW MUCH CHILD PORN IS ON THE INTERNET?

The internet is a sordid playground for people who are interested in accessing, sharing and selling child pornography;

it's estimated that there are more than 100,000 child porn web sites

.

According to Terri Moore, a Texan prosecutor involved in the Landslide case, (see more) it's an international problem. Her

investigation into one child pornography portal revealed the names and credit card numbers of 300,000 subscribers from 37 American states and 60 countries

. "The numbers are huge and the demand is enormous," she says.

PORN FOR PROFIT

The Internet Watch Foundation in the U.K. finds some

80 to 85 new pay sites each month

.

Before Landslide Productions - a popular child porn portal site - was closed down in 1999 (see more) the owner

Thomas Reedy was making approximately $1.4 million U.S. each month

.

And the problem is growing. In 1995, a Manchester police unit found only 12 images of children on the Internet. Now there are millions.

COPINE, a research group at the University of Cork in Ireland, that studies child pornography is seeing an average of three to four new faces of abused children each month. About 40% of the girls and 55% of the boys are between the ages of 9 and 12. The rest are younger.

They estimate that there are 50,000 new child abuse images being posted to newsgroups every month. That doesn't include pictures traded in e-mails or listed on peer-top peer sites commonly used to share music which are other ways to share child porn.

COLLECTORS OF PORNOGRAPHY

COPINE research has shown that collecting has become an obsession for many. Pornographic images are collected in series and labeled by a child's name, like 'the Heather series' or 'the Michael series' and feature children in various stages of abuse.

Some

offenders acquire many images to increase their bartering power so that they can trade with other pornographers

to obtain images of a particular child that they are attracted to. The more rare and complete a collection is, the more highly regarded the offender is by his on-line peers.

Some people have enormous collections. After the Orchid Club bust (see above) the investigation revealed another more sophisticated group, the Wonderland Club, another

internet club, that required 10,000 child porn images as a membership fee

.

One affluent Toronto home contained 13 safes filled with some 500,000 pornographic images.

During Operation Snowball (see more) Toronto Police raided a million dollar home in an upper middle class neighbourhood. Behind a door with four locks they found a vast collection of pornography. Inside the room were 13 safes of every size and description containing some 500,000 images. "I've never seen anything like that. So much in one place," said Ian Lamond, a member of the unit involved in the bust

Yet, the largest collection of child porn ever seized in Canada was much larger - 1 million images were found in one house.

PORNOGRAPHY IS LINKED TO ABUSE

Various studies have shown that between 35 - 50% of child porn collectors have a history of abusing children.

In the last three years 44% of the people arrested in Toronto for possessing child pornography have also been charged with or convicted of sexually abusing children

. "Everybody we arrest says 'I don't do anything other than look. I would never abuse. I just do it for my own personal pleasure.' Well, I know that almost 50% of those people lie," says Detective Sgt. Paul Gillespie.

Texas prosecutor Terri Moore used Landslide's subscription list as a way to track down paedophiles.

When the Landslide investigation broke in the U.S. in 1999 (see more), Texas prosecutor Terri Moore was anxious to find exactly who was buying the pornography. "The Holy Grail on the case was to get the list of subscribers that were buying this...because these are the people that could actually be paedophiles."

USING PHOTOS TO MANIPULATE CHILDREN

According to studies done by the COPINE Project in Ireland, the easy availability of child porn on the internet can fuel a paedophile's fantasies. It can also be used to start the cycle of abuse.

Their

research shows that paedophiles will often manipulate young children by showing them pictures on the internet. It's a way to make them believe that sex with adults is acceptable. They'll also use the photographs to teach the children to do what they want. And finally they may use the images to blackmail victims for their silence

.

Where did I ever get the outlandish idea that there was anything that could even remotely be referred to as a "child porn industry"?

Face it, all of these people are not making these things up...this is an increasingly rampant problem and I stand by my earlier comments that people who download pictures of children being raped by adults ought to spend some time behind bars.

FTA

[Argus]

I asked you to back up the oft heard "great big whopping Porn industry" statement. You replied with a couple of cites involving small groups of men involved in IRC file sharing. I don't think I'm being particularly snarky in saying this doesn't satisfy my request.

I await your criticism of how every person in this article is biased and / or a religious anti-porn crusader,

There's that snarkiness again.

but the Fifth Estate is an acclaimed documentary medium

There are no Canadian media outlets which would not, at best, be termed third rate by most standards.

HOW MUCH CHILD PORN IS ON THE INTERNET?

The internet is a sordid playground for people who are interested in accessing, sharing and selling child pornography;

it's estimated that there are more than 100,000 child porn web sites

.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. "It is estimated". What? By whom? Are you going to tell me you'd let that slide in without challenge in ANY kind of legal proceedings? It is estimated? Really? Bullshit. I've been bouncing around the internet since before there were graphics, and there is no way there is any 100 thousand child porn web sites. Engage your forebrain and try and consider HOW so many sites could possibly exist when the authorities instantly close down and arrest people as soon as they find one.

According to Terri Moore, a Texan prosecutor involved in the Landslide case, (see more) it's an international problem. Her

investigation into one child pornography portal revealed the names and credit card numbers of 300,000 subscribers from 37 American states and 60 countries

. "The numbers are huge and the demand is enormous," she says.

Again, bullshit. But this is a very good example of the hysteria. I know this case. I also know that Landslide was a credit card processing organization which dealt with all manner of porn web sites, not just child porn. However, when I went to find that information I had to read through at least a half dozen media reports on the Landslide case, all of which lazily suggested, if not outright stated, that all 300,000 subscribers were downloading child porn. That's simply not the case.

You might examine the following cite. It not only mentions the Landslide case, it deals with how the UK is heading down exactly the path I said was in the process of being done here. That is, they're moving now to criminalize posession of "violent pornography" of adults.

Computer forensic expert and investigative journalist Duncan Campbell, who acted as an expert witness for several Operation Ore defendants who were subsequently acquitted, has examined the bungled investigation, which has led to at least 33 of the accused to date committing suicide.

In fact, the Landslide Productions website offered an automated payment system for all manner of adult websites. There was no way of telling, from the credit card details that were seized, precisely what type of pornography - if any - the accused had accessed. Campbell notes the irony that the only reason for the existence of the credit card data used in Operation Ore was the use of adult verification systems, whose purpose is to prevent children from accessing pornography.

According to Campbell, even the buttons and links on the Landslide Productions website, that were alleged to have invited the user to access child pornography, were either pop-ups and advertisements outside of the control of the website administrators, or they simply never existed. The authorities cited incriminating data found on suspects' computers, but Campbell argued successfully in court that such data may have derived from pop-ups or other circumstances outside of users' control.

Spiked

A more complete example of how screwed up the Landslide case was can be found here

Landslide Unveiled

COPINE, a research group at the University of Cork in Ireland, that studies child pornography is seeing an average of three to four new faces of abused children each month. About 40% of the girls and 55% of the boys are between the ages of 9 and 12. The rest are younger.

Again - engage your forebrain. Three or four kids per month.... world wide!?!?

And this is an epidemic?! How many kids are murdered each month, world wide?

They estimate that there are 50,000 new child abuse images being posted to newsgroups every month. That doesn't include pictures traded in e-mails or listed on peer-top peer sites commonly used to share music which are other ways to share child porn.

Estimated? How? Using what means? What do they mean by "new" each month? I know something about the binary newsgroups, and there is simply no way in hell that 50,000 "new" child porn images are posted every year, never mind month. The child porn binary groups are fairly low-volume, and most aren't propogated except by indiscriminate or rebel oriented news sites. I can't think of any news site in Canada which hasn't long ago killed all the known kid porn groups.

In fact, most of the adult oriented binary newsgroups are made up of advertisements for adult web sites, which are robotically posted and reposted in some cases, hundreds of times per year. I'm guessing that's what's happening on the child porn binaries - the same images reposted again and again and again and again. You might see 50 "new" postings in a day, but all of them are repostings.

COLLECTORS OF PORNOGRAPHY

COPINE research has shown that collecting has become an obsession for many. Pornographic images are collected in series and labeled by a child's name, like 'the Heather series' or 'the Michael series' and feature children in various stages of abuse.

Since they kept mentioning COPINE I looked them up and found COPINE also had this to say:

-- Much of the core of the sexually explicit child pornography currently available on the internet is 30 or 40 years old, and even older;

-- Of the internet material to which his project had access, an estimated 85 to 90 percent was older than 10 to 15 years, with a large amount of that dating from the 1960s and 70s;

Also noted the following:

The panel referred to the COPINE project (Combating Paedophile Information Networks in Europe) at the University of Cork. This has a reference database of more than 80,000 still pictures and a large number of video sequences, including examples of most of the material publicly available on the internet

Now wait - if their database contains 80,000 images in total --- then how can it be that 50,000 new images are posted each month? This would seem to support my contention that what they're talking about in "new images posted each month" is really "new postings of images each month". Most of which are reposts of reposts of reposts.

During Operation Snowball (see more) Toronto Police raided a million dollar home in an upper middle class neighbourhood. Behind a door with four locks they found a vast collection of pornography. Inside the room were 13 safes of every size and description containing some 500,000 images. "I've never seen anything like that. So much in one place," said Ian Lamond, a member of the unit involved in the bust

Yet, the largest collection of child porn ever seized in Canada was much larger - 1 million images were found in one house.

But the COPINE project says there are only about 80,000 unique images on the internet. Therefore, I suspect this number includes numberous copies of the same image. And really - 1 million seperate images? Unlikely, to say the least.

PORNOGRAPHY IS LINKED TO ABUSE

Various studies have shown that between 35 - 50% of child porn collectors have a history of abusing children.

What "various" studies? Made by whom? Using what scientific basis?

Face it, all of these people are not making these things up...this is an increasingly rampant problem and I stand by my earlier comments that people who download pictures of children being raped by adults ought to spend some time behind bars.

All these people? You've cited a third rate media outlet which carried a grossly distorted and poorly researched story on Landslide - which was itself an example of lousy police work, some quotes from COPINE which mainly don't support your statement, and a cop saying that lots of those he arrests for child porn are also guilty of child molesting. But wait - which came first? Were they arrested for child molesting and the cops found child porn at their place (probably in 100% of such cases) or the other way around?

Perhaps all child molesters consume child porn but that does not mean all who consume child porn molest children.

As I said, I'll look up the cites and information I used in my last big discussion of this, but right now, just investigating COPINE and Landslide has taken up a good hour. So I likely won't have time before the weekend.

You might read the following:

Fetishing images

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus

Perhaps all child molesters consume child porn but that does not mean all who consume child porn molest children.

All child porn involves the molestation of children. Being a part of it, either as producer or consumer, has been deemed 'wrong' and punishable, by society. As a consumer, you are an enabler...you are saying, "Do this again for me".

Even porn scenes of rape can be faked...child porn cannot.

[Argus]

Dear Argus

Perhaps all child molesters consume child porn but that does not mean all who consume child porn molest children.

All child porn involves the molestation of children. Being a part of it, either as producer or consumer, has been deemed 'wrong' and punishable, by society. As a consumer, you are an enabler...you are saying, "Do this again for me".

Even porn scenes of rape can be faked...child porn cannot.

Fleabag, how do you jump in and post something without first reading the earlier material in the thread?

Let me reiterate:

Most of what Canada calls child porn is not what most Canadians would think of in terms of child porn. It includes everything from art works to movies like The Lover, books like Lolita, to private diaries, to seventeen year old girls flashing their breasts at a web cam. It also includes drawings, fictional stories, and actors/actreses who are merely pretending to be under 18.

Furthermore, most "child porn" which actually IS child porn is decades old, and most of that is not terribly serious. The COPINE project which was referred to in FTA's cite classifies child porn according to 10 seperate categories of severity, from 1-10. The first six of these constitute the vast, vast majority of child porn images, and they do not include actual sexual activity. They include anything from fully clothed pictures to nudist beach shots to posed, but non-sexual pictures of nude under-agers.

Now suppose you tell me how someone downloading an image anonymously from the internet is an enabler of some guy who took pictures of a ten year old playing in the sand at a nude beach thirty years ago?

I suggest you read a couple of the cites I've posted, particularly as they relate to the progression of anti-porn laws in the UK which are now criminalizing posession of adult porn as well. Using as justification, that porn is a violation of the individual who is shown in the porn (whether they consented or not) and that merely downloading it makes one an accomplice to that violation.

[sharkman]

Fleabag, how do you jump in and post something without first reading the earlier material in the thread?

Let me reiterate:

Most of what Canada calls child porn is not what most Canadians would think of in terms of child porn. It includes everything from art works to movies like The Lover, books like Lolita, to private diaries, to seventeen year old girls flashing their breasts at a web cam. It also includes drawings, fictional stories, and actors/actreses who are merely pretending to be under 18.

Furthermore, most "child porn" which actually IS child porn is decades old, and most of that is not terribly serious. The COPINE project which was referred to in FTA's cite classifies child porn according to 10 seperate categories of severity, from 1-10. The first six of these constitute the vast, vast majority of child porn images, and they do not include actual sexual activity. They include anything from fully clothed pictures to nudist beach shots to posed, but non-sexual pictures of nude under-agers.

Now suppose you tell me how someone downloading an image anonymously from the internet is an enabler of some guy who took pictures of a ten year old playing in the sand at a nude beach thirty years ago?

I suggest you read a couple of the cites I've posted, particularly as they relate to the progression of anti-porn laws in the UK which are now criminalizing posession of adult porn as well. Using as justification, that porn is a violation of the individual who is shown in the porn (whether they consented or not) and that merely downloading it makes one an accomplice to that violation.

Argus, you have waaay too much knowledge of child porn. Just an observation. And on top of it, you've made yourself a defender of sorts of this wackjob cousin of the porn 'family'.

Most child porn is 30 years old? On what basis can you make that claim? Do you study child porn? At any rate, this thread was about the child porn ring in Edmonton where the nutjob pervert was raping an 18 month old baby for web viewers. This disease needs to be surgically removed from our society. If a few toes have to be stepped on, so be it.

[Montgomery Burns]

Sharkman:

Most child porn is 30 years old? On what basis can you make that claim?

It seems Argus disagrees with the OP:

“At one time, 85 per cent of child porn featured ‘known victims’ shown in recycled images over and over again. That is starting to change, we’re seeing more new material and more new victims,” said Myers. “Tragically and frighteningly, the kids in these images are getting younger and the images are getting more and more violent and graphic.”

Det. Randy Wickens of Edmonton’s Internet Child Exploitation team, who was in Chicago with St. Sgt. Brian Nowlan for the announcement, agreed about the disturbing trend.

“It’s torture and abuse of children,” he said.

With the explosion of the internet and technology in recent years...I'm not surprised. According to the Edmonton Journal article in the OP, there are chat rooms like Kiddypics and Kiddyvids, which are very organized, secure, and use various encryption services to evade police. Some of these are babies (18 mths old)! What kind of a sick *bleep* molests an eighteen mth yr old baby?! :angry:

These people that defend this...I wonder what they would do if that was their child being molested by 49 y/o (like in the OP) men.

[Argus]

Most child porn is 30 years old? On what basis can you make that claim?

It seems Argus disagrees with the OP:

“At one time, 85 per cent of child porn featured ‘known victims’ shown in recycled images over and over again. That is starting to change, we’re seeing more new material and more new victims,” said Myers.

I don't disagree with the op. I disagree with the way the statement is made. He said "at one time 85% of the images were known victims recylced again and again". Certainly true. And "this is starting to change".

I merely disagree with your interpretation that his personal belief that "This is starting to change" is the same as "this has changed". From what I have read this has not changed. Yes, there is some new stuff, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the mass of material from that period in the 70s when child porn was legal.

[Argus]

Argus, you have waaay too much knowledge of child porn. Just an observation. And on top of it, you've made yourself a defender of sorts of this wackjob cousin of the porn 'family'.

I have a reasonably high level of knowledge of everything related to censorship and the incessent demand from the left (feminists and political correct types) and the right (bluenoses and the religious right) that what I see, hear, read, write, and say be punished if they don't like it. The only organization aside from the United Way that I regularly donate money to is the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Moreoever, I have an analytical mind. When someone wants to censor something I have to ask "why"? And if I don't get an answer more logical than "It's disgusting" then I oppose it. No one has been able to make a case for the logic of the Canadian child porn laws, or the reason behind them other than "it's disgusting". Sometimes they try to make a case, blustering about this or that, but that bluster, in the end, turns out to be so much dross.

Think about the law in Canada. You can have sex with a 14 year old girl all day and night without any problem. But if you take a picture while doing it you can go to jail for 10 years. Worse, if you don't touch her, but look at a video of someone else having sex with her, you can go to jail for 10 years. This is, quite frankly, absurd, and a ludicrous miscarriage of justice. You can beat someone to death and get far less of a sentence than that.

Most child porn is 30 years old? On what basis can you make that claim?

I've already posted the statement by an anti-porn group to that affect. I've come across such information before. Why have I come across such information before? Because when arguing on a subject I like to actually know what I'm talking about. I actually research claims made by others in order to properly dispute them. Strange, eh? You'd be amazed what you find sometimes. In arguing regular porn, for example, the claim is often made that it is a "two trillion dollar industry" or something similar. Tracking down the source of that claim, which one finds many, many places, it turned out to be one lone anti-porn crusader who simply pulled the figure out of his arse and was then quoted incesently until people forgot where the quote came from.

At any rate, this thread was about the child porn ring in Edmonton where the nutjob pervert was raping an 18 month old baby for web viewers.

Threads evolve. That's life.

This disease needs to be surgically removed from our society. If a few toes have to be stepped on, so be it.

You cannot remove it. It's here to stay. That's all there is to it. You want to launch another war on drugs and put people in prison for a thousand years because you don't like their fantasies? Unless you can come up with a way to eliminate the human sex drive you can forget about removing anything like this from society.

Generally speaking, from my observation of news stories, it appears that people arrested for downloading child porn get similar or even lengthier sentences than people who molest children or rape women. Do you think that makes sense?

[FTA Lawyer]

Think about the law in Canada. You can have sex with a 14 year old girl all day and night without any problem. But if you take a picture while doing it you can go to jail for 10 years.

...

Because when arguing on a subject I like to actually know what I'm talking about. I actually research claims made by others in order to properly dispute them. Strange, eh? You'd be amazed what you find sometimes.

One thing we will agree on Argus, we've both spent too much time arguing this one back and forth, but oh well, I suppose the debate is worth it...

As for your comments above, I hate to sound like a broken record, but you need to read the Sharpe decision if you want to proclaim that you actually research things to properly dispute them...

Probably the most significant factor of the Sharpe decision was to declare that the child porn laws were unconstitutional to the extent that they made it illegal for someone to take photographs of themselves and their consensual partners participating in lawful sex.

To be clear, after Sharpe, it was no longer an offence to photograph yourself having sex with a 14 year old (assuming the sex was consensual and otherwise lawful). Your statement is simply wrong.

Since you have said you won't read Sharpe because it is too long, here is a blurb from a Department of Justice article on the point:

The child pornography law that was upheld by the court, prohibits not only the possession of pornographic material involving children but also written material that depicts unlawful sexual activity with a child, excepting material for «the public good» or other defensible artistic, educational, medical or scientific reasons.

To those exceptions, a majority of the court, led by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, added two more. The first includes written materials or visual representations created and held by the accused alone, exclusively for personal use. The other covers visual recordings, created by or depicting the accused, that do not depict unlawful sexual activity and that are held by the accused, exclusively for private use.

FTA

[Argus]

Think about the law in Canada. You can have sex with a 14 year old girl all day and night without any problem. But if you take a picture while doing it you can go to jail for 10 years.

...

Because when arguing on a subject I like to actually know what I'm talking about. I actually research claims made by others in order to properly dispute them. Strange, eh? You'd be amazed what you find sometimes.

One thing we will agree on Argus, we've both spent too much time arguing this one back and forth, but oh well, I suppose the debate is worth it...

As for your comments above, I hate to sound like a broken record, but you need to read the Sharpe decision if you want to proclaim that you actually research things to properly dispute them...

Probably the most significant factor of the Sharpe decision was to declare that the child porn laws were unconstitutional to the extent that they made it illegal for someone to take photographs of themselves and their consensual partners participating in lawful sex.

To be clear, after Sharpe, it was no longer an offence to photograph yourself having sex with a 14 year old (assuming the sex was consensual and otherwise lawful). Your statement is simply wrong.

Okay, fine, but this is really picking at nits. If you show that picture around (like sending it to your cousin Bob by email) you can still go to jail. You can also still go to prison for watching a video of a lawful act. How does that make sense? You can still go to jail for writing a fictitious story about having sex with a non-existent 15 year old - if you give it to others, but you're allowed to have sex with one in real life and then tell them all about it!

You just can't write them a letter about it!

So it's all right to tell everyone you know, in great detail, about your sex session with the 14 year old, but if you write it down and send it by email you'll go to jail.

[geoffrey]

Okay, fine, but this is really picking at nits. If you show that picture around (like sending it to your cousin Bob by email) you can still go to jail. You can also still go to prison for watching a video of a lawful act. How does that make sense? You can still go to jail for writing a fictitious story about having sex with a non-existent 15 year old - if you give it to others, but you're allowed to have sex with one in real life and then tell them all about it!

You just can't write them a letter about it!

So it's all right to tell everyone you know, in great detail, about your sex session with the 14 year old, but if you write it down and send it by email you'll go to jail.

Now that is a very interesting point Argus. Now I can kind of see where your coming from.

Why not just make it illegal for adults to have sex with 14 and 15 year olds and solve both problems? Like it is in most of the world.

[Argus]

Okay, fine, but this is really picking at nits. If you show that picture around (like sending it to your cousin Bob by email) you can still go to jail. You can also still go to prison for watching a video of a lawful act. How does that make sense? You can still go to jail for writing a fictitious story about having sex with a non-existent 15 year old - if you give it to others, but you're allowed to have sex with one in real life and then tell them all about it!

You just can't write them a letter about it!

So it's all right to tell everyone you know, in great detail, about your sex session with the 14 year old, but if you write it down and send it by email you'll go to jail.

Now that is a very interesting point Argus. Now I can kind of see where your coming from.

Why not just make it illegal for adults to have sex with 14 and 15 year olds and solve both problems? Like it is in most of the world.

I have actually said I am in favour of raising the age of consent. However, I still don't like anything which puts people in prison for writing or reading fiction, no matter what the fiction is about. I also don't like the idea of putting people in prison for looking at videos or pictures.

FTA - you want a fun read? This is probably too long for most, but the most relevent portion, and it's actually quite amusing, is a little way down from the top and titled "The Origin of the Myths".

The Origin of the Myths

In 1976 Robin Lloyd, correspondent for NBC, published For Money or Love: Boy Prostitution in America ()().18 In the book, for which a U.S. senator had written an introduction, Lloyd claimed that a huge network of prostitution involving 300,000 boys existed. The notion that child pornography trade is big business was initiated in this book. Yet, nowhere in the book is there any empirical basis for the number 300,000. Indeed, Lloyd admitted that it was a working hypothesis which he had suggested to a number of experts to test their reactions.19 This didn't prevent Judianne Densen-Gerber, director of Odyssey House, a chain of residential treatment clinics for drug addicts, from taking over the figure as if it represented a reliable statistic. She set about to mobilize public opinion against child pornography to which, she said, Lloyd had alerted her.

The media followed the stories of child exploitation in detail. In the national periodicals during 1977 nine articles appeared.20 The New York Times, a paper known to avoid sensationalism, printed 27 articles that year compared to one in the two years before. When in May, 1977 the highly popular television series Sixty Minutes devoted a program to child pornography, a tidal wave of letters to politicians resulted.21 That spring a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives held a series of hearings on the subject which lasted until autumn, keeping child pornography in the news in the U.S.A. A platform was established by crusaders against child pornography, and in the prevailing climate of moral panic their cries for stronger measures received wide political support.

The chairman of the committee was Representative John Conyers Jr., who had organized the hearings to pass judgment on the proposal of Representatives Kildee and Murphy for a first Federal law against child pornography. It was this series of hearings that would make the question of child pornography a national issue. The first hearing was dominated by the appearance of Judianne Densen-Gerber. Equipped. with some child pornography magazines, she shocked congressional representatives with her claim that she had, together with Robin Lloyd, counted 264 comparable publications that, according to her, appeared monthly (an exaggeration by a factor of several orders of magnitude as we shall see). The figures which Robin Lloyd had mentioned as a working hypothesis were repeated by Densen-Gerber as fact:

Lloyd's book documented the involvement of 300,000 boys, aged 8 to 16, in activities revolving around sex for sale.22

She then multiplied the number by two, because her intuition told her that 300,000 girls were also involved in such activities. She then multiplied it again by two since, according to Lloyd, the real figure was "twice what he (could) statistically validate,"23 and this lead to something like a million children. The chairman Conyers multiplied this again by two since, he reasoned, America had not only one million runaways but another one million school drop outs. In this way the contours of a national disaster were drawn. According to Conyers:

"So we have somewhere possibly in the neighbourhood of 2 million kids who form a ready market for sexual exploitation from pornographers and the like."24

Densen-Gerber could not agree more. The Kildee-Murphy proposal was made law without any opposition: 401 for, 0 against.

The Myth of Child Pornography

There's also this:

"There appears to be consensus in the literature that the majority of child

pornography is produced by pedophiles for their own use (Badgley, 1984;

Gough, 1993; Hames, 1993; Howitt, 1995; Lanning, 1992; Tate, 1992). Child

pornography is produced in a "cottage industry" by abusers. While some of

this "home-made" pornography may be sold to commercial producers, most is

either traded or is kept by individual collectors (Hartman, Burgess, and

Lanning, 1985; Lanning, 1985)." Canada department of Justice

[geoffrey]

Just because there aren't many pornographers or paedophiles watching it, doesn't mean it should be less illegal...

Why can't we simply draw the line at nude photos of minors being traded = illegal?