Soliciting A Minor
Accurate thinking. How many people are able to examine a statement and logically deduce the likelyhood of its truth? I'm talking about more than being a "lie detector", rather I'm talking about evaluating statements to determine if what was said logically makes sense.
Here's an annoying example. Apparently the Chief Privacy Officer from Facebook, a teen site, claims that a recent incident is the first time Facebook has been used to contact a minor for predatory reasons.
Really? (another reference) Somehow I doubt that this first person who was caught was also the first to use this site. Facebook has been around since February of 2004 and has amassed over 8 million members.
One of the requirements for Facebook membership (it's not open to everyone) is that "users must be members of one of the 30,000+ recognized schools, colleges, universities, organizations, and companies within the U.S, Canada, and other English-speaking nations. This generally involves having a valid e-mail ID with the associated institution." (Note: quoted from the mashable.com article referenced in the link above).
Wow, I sure am glad pedophiles don't gravitate towards educational institutes. It's not like we ever hear of teachers molesting students or anything like that.
I love the concept that "if it's the first time I've seen it, it must be the first time it has happened." It's like the 4-year old who says "look, Daddy, the moon is following us!" It disgusts me that the "Chief Privacy Officer" has sold his soul and made such a lame statement. Okay, okay. I'll be fair. I'm looking for more information just in case he actually has grounds to say this. Still, I cannot imagine how he can justify making it, save because his job demands that he do so.
I suppose one reason I'm particularly hot on this topic is that fact that recently a local radio personality, Scott Cortelyou, was picked up not once but twice on soliciting a minor online. This one fascinates me because I used to work with Scott's wife (a wonderful lady) and I just cannot imagine him A) thinking he can get away with it (his wife is in IT! You know he can't hide it forever!) and B) needing to look beyond his lovely wife for gratification. Sorry to be so crude, yes, but it's a crude topic. Lastly, of course, is the fact that I've actually met this person. I've got to admit that having worked with his wife (albeit 8 years ago) this still haunts me. More than any case I've come across (and I've been directly involved in some cases) this one haunts me because of the human angle. When it's someone you've met and shook hands with, it's kinda creepy. When you worked side-by-side with the spouse for a few years and had some insight into their lives, it's very creepy.
My prayers go out to her. And him.
This brings up my question. It appears we have approached the time when "virtual kiddy porn" is becoming a reality. So, if there's no true exploitation of a minor (it's a computer construct), should it be illegal? What if we were to provide Scott with a near photorealistic, interactive tool would that reduce his "predatory" instincts?
You will be hearing this argument soon, so I'd get ready for it. Reality doesn't matter to proponents of virtual kiddie porn, so if they can just make you *think* that it will save some children by providing their potential attackers with, um, "distraction" then they will use that argument.
I'm no expert in addictive behaviour (heck, I don't even know if that's the right term) but I'll venture that this kind of outlet may actually help some, but will probably make it "too easy" for others and they will continue to obsess over it, eventually to the point of breaking.
I would venture that if you searched Scott's computer, you would find porn. I would venture that if you searched every computer for every child molester (or potential child molester), those who had the ability had some kind of pornography. This does not, to me, speak well of the role pornography plays in the minds of those who eventually commit crimes. I don't see a pedophile going "you know, I never look at porn". Yet the flip side, someone who doesn't look at porn (but who has access to it) is obviously far less likely to become a sex predator.
So, what is the answer? Do we need to break these people of multiple habits (kiddy porn and porn-porn) or can they function having only given up one (child porn) and keeping the other ("regular" porn)?
I've got a feeling that like with AA, the answer will be complete abstinence from solo exploitive sex (i.e. pornography of any kind).
Here's an annoying example. Apparently the Chief Privacy Officer from Facebook, a teen site, claims that a recent incident is the first time Facebook has been used to contact a minor for predatory reasons.
Really? (another reference) Somehow I doubt that this first person who was caught was also the first to use this site. Facebook has been around since February of 2004 and has amassed over 8 million members.
One of the requirements for Facebook membership (it's not open to everyone) is that "users must be members of one of the 30,000+ recognized schools, colleges, universities, organizations, and companies within the U.S, Canada, and other English-speaking nations. This generally involves having a valid e-mail ID with the associated institution." (Note: quoted from the mashable.com article referenced in the link above).
Wow, I sure am glad pedophiles don't gravitate towards educational institutes. It's not like we ever hear of teachers molesting students or anything like that.
I love the concept that "if it's the first time I've seen it, it must be the first time it has happened." It's like the 4-year old who says "look, Daddy, the moon is following us!" It disgusts me that the "Chief Privacy Officer" has sold his soul and made such a lame statement. Okay, okay. I'll be fair. I'm looking for more information just in case he actually has grounds to say this. Still, I cannot imagine how he can justify making it, save because his job demands that he do so.
I suppose one reason I'm particularly hot on this topic is that fact that recently a local radio personality, Scott Cortelyou, was picked up not once but twice on soliciting a minor online. This one fascinates me because I used to work with Scott's wife (a wonderful lady) and I just cannot imagine him A) thinking he can get away with it (his wife is in IT! You know he can't hide it forever!) and B) needing to look beyond his lovely wife for gratification. Sorry to be so crude, yes, but it's a crude topic. Lastly, of course, is the fact that I've actually met this person. I've got to admit that having worked with his wife (albeit 8 years ago) this still haunts me. More than any case I've come across (and I've been directly involved in some cases) this one haunts me because of the human angle. When it's someone you've met and shook hands with, it's kinda creepy. When you worked side-by-side with the spouse for a few years and had some insight into their lives, it's very creepy.
My prayers go out to her. And him.
This brings up my question. It appears we have approached the time when "virtual kiddy porn" is becoming a reality. So, if there's no true exploitation of a minor (it's a computer construct), should it be illegal? What if we were to provide Scott with a near photorealistic, interactive tool would that reduce his "predatory" instincts?
You will be hearing this argument soon, so I'd get ready for it. Reality doesn't matter to proponents of virtual kiddie porn, so if they can just make you *think* that it will save some children by providing their potential attackers with, um, "distraction" then they will use that argument.
I'm no expert in addictive behaviour (heck, I don't even know if that's the right term) but I'll venture that this kind of outlet may actually help some, but will probably make it "too easy" for others and they will continue to obsess over it, eventually to the point of breaking.
I would venture that if you searched Scott's computer, you would find porn. I would venture that if you searched every computer for every child molester (or potential child molester), those who had the ability had some kind of pornography. This does not, to me, speak well of the role pornography plays in the minds of those who eventually commit crimes. I don't see a pedophile going "you know, I never look at porn". Yet the flip side, someone who doesn't look at porn (but who has access to it) is obviously far less likely to become a sex predator.
So, what is the answer? Do we need to break these people of multiple habits (kiddy porn and porn-porn) or can they function having only given up one (child porn) and keeping the other ("regular" porn)?
I've got a feeling that like with AA, the answer will be complete abstinence from solo exploitive sex (i.e. pornography of any kind).
Comments