After The Pink Goat

Today, another terrorist attack in Moscow. I must admit I really liked that city and particularly the subway - it's so efficient and fast and deep. It's one of the things I enjoyed the most in Moscow - the spaces above ground combined with the speed underground. And the stations were all so pretty. It made me very sad to see the news today - the smoke and the victims.

I wanted to take a little time off from blogging, because I'm quite exhausted right now, but I had to express my condolences to the people in Moscow. If I lived there, I'd find it very upsetting to not be able to feel like I'm in a normal, big city in a developed country. Because Moscow is BIG. And so diverse and interesting and exciting. But this is not the first explosion there. It's not the first terrorist attack, there or in Russia as a whole. It's sad not to be able to feel safe in your own country. Not that I feel particularly safe in mine - safety is an illusion anyway, but when such events happen every now and then, the feeling is quite different. It's a feeling of helplessness. You just forget about the threat, because you don't have any other choice. But the fear cannot be so easily forgotten. Of course, I'm sure people are quite happy there, it's not the point. The point is that Russia is big country with so much to offer. Yet, it is unsafe. You can't just go and have fun. There's always something on the back of your mind that warns you. And this is not the way it should be.

And the worst is that the only thing that the deaths and pains of all those people will serve, will be for another increase in the security measures and another decrease in the personal rights of people. And maybe some slaughtering to "wipe out terrorism". Is this what those terrorists are fighting for? Isn't it strange? I mean,  that's all terrorists in Russia (or most places on the planet) have ever achieved! People die, but nothing changes for their "cause". It's pretty clear this isn't a way to do whatever they want to do. But they continue to do it nonetheless. It's like they do it not to provoke a change, but quite the contrary - to stop the change. 

Of course, you could ask the question why they do it, you could ask also, how come the victims in a rush hour in a subway that transports million of people each day, are not more, is it luck or something else, but who cares. It doesn't matter for their families.  It doesn't matter for all those people who we saw in the news injured and scared. What actually matters is why, in 21st century, we still think that killing can be called politics. That killing "the others" is better than killing "our own". I spent some time thinking on this. In the Cold War, USA and Russia were READY to destroy the whole planet in case of attack by the other country. Why? If the rockets are flying to your country and you can't stop them and you know it's over for you, but you have the choice to decide whether to send your rockets too and put an end to our civillisation, or to accept your destiny and give a chance to the world, why you would think it's justified to take the first option. It is not! It's not fair or right for any country to wipe out another, and we should fight to avoid such scenarios, but it's not more right to kill billions of people, just because you know you're going down and you want them with you. This is simply wrong. 

Why I'm saying this now? Because terrorists do absolutely the same, they think that they have the right to kill. They don't. Nobody has. Sure, there are situations, when the situation is freedom or death, but those situations are quite few. And even then, there is a choice who to kill - innocent people, or the aggressors. There is a choice how to fight each battle and I'm absolutely sure, that in 90% of the cases, terrorists chose the stupidest and least effective way to fight their battles (not meaning less effective in killing, but in achieving their goal). Because it's easy to die for a cause, it's hard to live for it. It's easy to pull the trigger and blow yourself up, taking people with you. It's hard to work all your life, for what you believe in, whether an idea or freedom, and to stay hidden and unappreciated and to give each moment of your life for that cause. It's easy to spill blood and cause panic, it's harder to create and to make people happy and to give them a reason to live and to believe that life can and will be better. 

I hope the souls of the ones that died today find peace. I hope whoever payed for those attacks get what they deserve. But most importantly, I hope people understand there is no "them" and "us". "They" are just like "us". And if they suffer, we all suffer. 

I'm not so naive to believe war is entirely in our past. But I'm smart enough to know that people change and with everything else, the wars also change. In 90% of the times, there is no real need for physical aggression or killing of people or in the worst case, of killing of civil people. And I can only hope that people will also understand that sooner rather than later. And that news as those of today, would become a rarity. 

For a second time, recently, I get into discussions, trying to convince people why pedophilia is something bad. And I can't stop wondering what's wrong with those people. Interestingly enough, women tend to understand the problem more easily than men. Which is probably not very surprising. So, the first time I stumbled on this, I thought it's just peculiarity of the people I was talking to. But then, I had this unbelievable discussion in physorg. And I simply couldn't believe my eyes. Some of those people even told me that pedophiles are just like gays few decades ago - misunderstood and hurt and we have to find a way to provide them child porn, so that they can feel satisfied and not hurt anyone. Because otherwise, if they molest a child, IT'S OUR FAULT!!!

I can hardly express my indignation on such idiot claim. But because I tend to believe the people I talk to are sane, I'll try to convince anyone reading at least my blog, why this is something bad. For the ones that are already convinced, I'll be happy to read your additional comments, because I'm really really amazed someone could doubt that.

First of all, what are pedophiles? Obviously, people who want to have sex with children. And we of course recall Lolita and the story of the good-hearted yet pervert Humbert Humbert who takes care of her, love her and have sex with her, even though she's what... 12?
He ends up in jail, she ends up as spoiled bitch. It's a nice book, a nice movie. But this is fiction.

In reality children are not protected by the good heart of the writer, who makes sure they are not harmed. In reality, a child is helpless and easy to be convinced to do whatever, depending of the age of the child. Candies, toys, money, care - it's easy to lie a child about what s/he really wants and to abuse his/her lack of experience and judgment. That is why, sex with children is illegal. That is why underage children are not responsible for their actions. Because the society judged them too young to bear the burden of that responsibility. Sure enough, a 16 years old person can marry and have children, s/he can work and live normally. A 15 years will be able to survive as well. Even a little kid can eventually survive without proper care. But is this a question of survival? Should a child be put into that position? What kind of citizen such a child will make?

Unfortunately, there are many abused children. Some of them grow up to be normal and happy. Most of them don't. But the very fact that some of them survive ok, doesn't mean abuse on children is ok. That we have to push everyone to the extremes of misery by default. If we want our society to become better and happier, that's hardly a good idea. Most children victims of abuse, grow up just like the people who hurt them. Do we need more abusers? And sexual abuses are quite nasty, because they leave you confused. The child may know it's wrong, but still to love his/her father (or other abuser), just because the abuser is the one (or one of the people) who takes case or him/her. You can't hate someone who provide your needs. Yet, you'll hate him(or maybe her), because you know it's wrong and that you have to. In the end, you'll end up pretty messed up, even if generally alive.

Second point - the question of when a person should be legally free to participate in sex (age of consent). The law in most countries sets this age between 14 and 16, meaning any sex under that age is RAPE! Nothing more and nothing less. That doesn't mean young people don't have sexual desires - they do. The important point is that they are not responsible for their desires, the adults are. In which case a person under 14 cannot seduce an adult (even if/when s/he wants to), because it's the adult who's in charge. You have sex with a person under 14 - you go in jail. No exceptions! (of course, there can be exceptions under certain circumstances, but it's not the point - it's still a rape!) I spent some time talking to a person arguing that if the child wanted it, it's not rape. It was about a 11 years old gypsy girl in Bulgaria who got pregnant and gave birth. The father was 26. And that person claimed that a 11 years old child can desire sexual intercourse and can be responsible for that. Which is crazy. Even if that girl knew what sex is (which she by the way didn't know - because she said "we went to sleep and then I got pregnant", she didn't even know what a condom is or how not to get pregnant), even if she had the idea she may want to try it, that doesn't mean that someone should show her what it is. If she's desperate about sex, she can get it without involving other people. Because according to law, anyone who has sex with her will be a criminal and a rapist. And again, should go to jail and spend some happy time with his inmates.

Now - let's move on to child pornography. As defined by law: "

Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where

• the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
  
  
• the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
  
  
• the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct. "

The age of "minors" is 18! First why should it be 18? Because on that age, one will be sued like adult in court. People under that age are not supposed to be in filmed having sex at least because they will require a parent permission to do so, and the law cannot distinguish between the will of the person or his/her parents which may lead to violations. Note, such pornography is illegal not only for filming, it's also illegal for watching or distributing. Why? Because the very filming is a crime. That crime is filmed for profit, thus if you watch it, you're an accomplice (you're paying for it). And you're heading for jail as well.

Now, I absolutely agree with that law, with the slight comment that when we're talking for the age 16-18, it's hard for the viewer to be sure about the age of the porno stars. So in these cases, maybe watching the movies shouldn't be illegal (as long as the actors look above 18 and the movie claims they are above 18) , only producing it. But this is just an opinion, the law is preventive and that's not bad in that case. However, when we're speaking of obviously minor participants, for me it's more than obvious why people who watch this and don't report it, should head for jail too. I'm sure you all know what kind of perversions exist - there are all over the news, I don't intend to repeat them here. Any such act of violation should lead to a lot of years in prison for the one who did it and for everyone who paid for it.

So what pissed me off in the discussion in physorg? That some people think it's ok to show such pornography to pedophiles, just to keep them away from children! That it's ok to sacrifice someone's pictures of abuses, to keep those perverts satisfied! I can't even imagine how sick you have to be to say this. Their argument "the molestation is already a fact, anyway, thus we can use it to prevent another one from happening". NO! A child may not have all the rights of an adult, but s/he still owns his/her body and the rights over his/her images. Recently a victim of abuse who now is adult sued everyone who watched her abuse for very good money. Is this what should happen for such sick people to understand this is wrong? You can't show the images of someone without an explicit consent, and since a child cannot give that consent, it's forbidden. Period. And the way to deal with pedophiles is to put them in jail if they have harmed anyone or under treatment and observation if they still haven't. You don't feed their desires with visual stimulation - that's not going to sooth them, but it will make them even more hungry. You don't sacrifice one child for another! You pay the police to protect each and everyone of us. They are the ones that have to protect the children, this is their duty.

The very fact I'm writing this makes me feel dirty. This should be obvious to everyone. Yet, people fail to understand why child pornography is wrong. They fail to understand why watching it and distributing it is wrong. They say - "it's not a crime to watch a crime". No, it's not, when there's nothing you can do to stop it. But when you pay to watch it, then you're an accomplice. And even if you downloaded it for free, it's still a crime. Because you're being a part of the network.

Finally, the ultimate argument that made me stop participating in that discussion was the comparison of pedophiles with gays. No, it's not the same. Gays have sex with each other, being adults and thus having the right to consent. Nobody gets hurt, nobody get abused. It's not the same like the SM-guys too. As long as you have the right of consent and you give it, it's ok. But a child is helpless. S/he cannot protect him/herself. The only option children have is the society to make sure no one abuses them. And that's why the laws are so severe. There is NO comparison with any other forms of sex. The key word is consent - voluntary sex is ok, abuse is wrong. And pedophiles are not a minority that the majority abuses - if we didn't leave in democracy and a society, the moment they touch a child, his/her parents will make very sure that guy would never EVER lay a finger on another child. But since we live in a society and we don't encourage physical justice, then we have to be sure our laws are just as strict. Sure, there always will be abused people, the key moment is what we do with the offenders. And that's send them to jail. I won't sorry for them. I may sorry only people who voluntarily go to treatment, because they know their desires are wrong and they want to fight them. Those are the real people who deserve respect for their honesty and their willingness not to harm other people. Anyone else - in jail.

Below are few points of my futile attempt to convince some people they are VERY wrong.

"While normal porn is showing consenting adults, there is no such thing like a consenting child in porn (at least not legally). Every child filmed into porn is molested and thus, there is no thing like "harmless child pornography". That's why even watching it without reporting it should be a crime. Because even if the pedophile isn't molesting his nephew, a child is being molested to film the porn"
.PinkElephant - 20 hours ago

By the time pornographic images or videos are being distributed, the child in question already has been molested. Whether or not anyone is watching the record of that crime, doesn't change that fact: the crime has already long since occurred. Therefore, watching child porn is NOT equivalent to commission of child abuse: not any more so, than watching a film of murder is equivalent to actually committing the murder.

But here's the main point: perhaps widely available recordings of past crimes, could help reduce the incidence of future crimes, by preventive fulfillment of pedophiles' sexual fantasies.

denijane:
As for "preventive fulfillment of pedophiles' sexual fantasies", the only fulfillment they should have should be by their mates in prison.

Because this isn't a harmless fantasy, this is something that HARMS people, just like a fantasy of a murder can't be harmless. You don't kill people, YET. But there's no guarantee you won't do it, if you feel ok to imagine it with details.

@denijane,

• Pedophiles are in the closet, analogous to how gays used to be. They keep it inside, and they keep it secret. How do you propose to offer them therapy, or put surveillance on them, when you don't know who they are? The sad reality is, you only discover them after they boil over and actually start committing crimes.

  ...how would you feel if your daughter(or son) or husband/wife are being showed on this past crimes thing

  If it could prevent the same from happening to someone else, then maybe some good can come of it.
• denijane:
  
• What is WRONG wit you!!! You cannot compare this with gays! Gays WANT to have sex with each other, they are consenting adults, they have right to have sex with each other! While the only way for an adult to have sex with a child is to rape him/her. Is this so hard for you to get it?!
  
  Pedophiles=rapist! There are no Lolitas in reality, this is fiction, the story of a sick man and a stupid girl. In reality Lolita cannot be under 14, at least legally, because the law doesn't accept children can have sexual desires. A child is a child and s/he's not responsible for her/his actions. You're the adult, you're responsible and if you're idiot enough to touch a child, you must be in jail. Gays have nothing to do with it.
  

source

You think censorship is something limited to China and third world countries? Think again!
Censorship is a whole new frontier in the control over the public. The usual excuse is that they want to filter porn, especially child pornography (which is a crime in almost every country on the world) or maybe terrorists sites. Or of course Nazi's sites.
Now, I'm in no way defender of child pornography or Nazis, but I don't buy their explanation. At all!
Child pornography is a crime and sites which offer it should be prosecuted, not filtered. Wherever the sites are located, they are very rarely free, so there is enough reasons to get their owners in jail and the sites themselves - down. But to make search engines watchdogs for sites you don't like, that's avoiding to be in charge. Because you ban the sites for the viewers (or more likely you make them more difficult to be found but after all most people don't find pedophile sites on Google - they find them from friends with similar interests, who give them the url-s), but you're not dealing with their owners. Thus, you're not actually fighting the crime, because you're not prosecuting the criminals, you're merely limiting the effect of this crime! It's ridiculous. Is this what we pay taxes for? I don't know about you, but I want to see the authorities fighting criminals, not limiting my actions, so that I don't stumble on criminals. It's like forbidding you to go outside your house after 8pm, to keep you safe. It's not me who they have to limit, it's the criminals! I must be able to get outside of my house at any time I want and be safe! Otherwise, it's not prevention, it's childcare!
As for terrorists - let's see, if you ask China, information about Tibet should be censored, because that's terrorist state and so on. But for the rest of the world, Tibet is just a country like any other. My point - terrorism is something very subjective. The example I gave on physorg - I don't support any kind of murder, so for me death penalty may be regarded also as a form of terrorism. So what we do - ban sites talking about death penalty and claiming that's terrorism. - that's obviously nonsense. I'm not saying that terrorist propaganda should be online, I'm saying that it's not the search engines who should fight it, but the police!

Thus, it's so easy to to use terrorism and child pornography as an excuse for filtering. The problem is that this excuse is wrong. Yes, there are laws that must be obeyed. But if a site is related to Nazis or child pornography or anything else that is a crime under certain laws, then its owners should be prosecuted, not the content. And the content will be down after the authors are in jail. Otherwise, this isn't justice, it's censorship. Ok, make a safe-search a default on search engines. But still, offer the option for full search for anyone that requests it. This seems the right thing for me.

I simply can't believe that a country like Australia is censoring content! That's so wrong. And I wonder why nobody is protesting! Crimes must be prosecuted, not be hidden.

And the second article is about police wanting the access without warranty to data that will provide your location. I don't even have to comment it. The only thing that I will say - it's high time that people realise that we're all innocent until proven guilty. So you can't have my location, you can't have my internet/phone data, you can't have my DNA! I'm innocent - go find someone else to harass!

Australia defends mandatory Internet filter

March 14, 2010
Australia Sunday defended its plan to block some Internet content, such as that featuring child sex abuse or advocating terrorism, after a media rights watchdog warned it may hurt free speech.

Justice Dept. wants phone locales without warrant

February 12, 2010 By MARYCLAIRE DALE , Associated Press Writer

(AP) -- Should the government be allowed to track a person's movements based on cell phone records, without evidence of criminal wrongdoing?

A showdown on the issue unfolded Friday in a federal appeals court in Philadelphia, as the Justice Department battled electronic-privacy groups.

The privacy groups say the information could reveal when someone goes to a religious service, medical clinic or political rally, or is having an extramarital affair. Third U.S. Circuit Judge Dolores Sloviter seemed to share that concern.

Law enforcement agencies hope to obtain cell phone location data from cellular providers without first showing probable cause of a crime - and without the customer's knowledge. The data comes from cell phone towers, and in densely populated cities can pinpoint a person's location to within a few hundred yards.

The issue is not whether the government can obtain the information, but whether a probable-cause warrant should be required first.

"An individual has no Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interest in business records, such as cell-site usage information, that are kept, maintained and used by a cell phone company," Eckenwiler wrote in his brief.

Sloviter countered by asking Eckenwiler why there was a need to skip a probable-cause showing, saying that she knew no magistrates reluctant to grant search warrant applications.

He replied that the relevant law does not require them. Eckenwiler said probable-cause warrants are only needed to obtain the contents of electronic communications, such as a text or e-mail, or to wiretap a phone. He believes the 1986 Electronics Communications Privacy Act allows police to obtain "non-content" data without a warrant.

After Friday's hearing, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chief author of the 1986 law, said his committee would revisit the legislation this year.

Eckenwiler challenged the notion that government access to location data would turn a person's phone into a "tracking device." He said the ATF was only seeking past cell phone use in the drug case.

However, a professor of cyberspace law called the distinction negligible. Police could ask a cell phone provider for historical data and then ask again a month later - thereby achieving the same end, argued Susan Freiwald, a University of San Francisco law professor. source