PDA

View Full Version : Website provides pictures of young girls for pedophiles


Badtz Maru
10-25-2003, 01:33 AM
I read about www.perverted-justice.com, a site where contributors pretend to be children between the ages of 10 and 15 and bait pedophiles into giving out personal information, which is shared on the site.

I used to do some baiting myself, and I quit because of some moral issues with it that were raised on this board when I talked about it - you may make it harder for law enforcement officers to catch the perverts, and by continuing to talk to them after they start getting nasty you may contributing to their behavior. These issues aren't my problem with what www.perverted-justice.com does, though.

They claim to have a pool of photos of young girls that they give the pedophiles when they ask for a photo. They will not disclose the source of these photos, but they just recently stopped including the pictures they send in their 'busts', for reasons they will not explain. They say they do not want to reveal where they get their pictures because if the pedophiles found out, they would be able to tell when they are being baited. I don't buy that last explanation.

I can't think of many situations where using a childs photo for these purposes would be moral - the only way I could see it happening is if they had the permission of the child and their parents after letting them know exactly what they were using their picture for. I suspect that they took down the pictures because someone wasn't happy with finding out their picture was given to a pedophile.

What is the SDMBs opinion on this?

pervert
10-25-2003, 01:38 AM
Well, is ti possible that the pictures are fake or in some other way have a loop hole which makes them legal?

I once heard a DA argue in open court that "No one should look at material like this except for law enforcement personel. "

Of course he added "in the normal course of their duties."

Is it possible that they have some sort of dispensation?

I don't have any idea if such things are possible.

Darkhold
10-25-2003, 01:45 AM
Faked pics are still illegal.

However nudist or art pics are not. (though they can't be 'sexually explicit') my bets are on that.

Badtz Maru
10-25-2003, 01:50 AM
I'm not implying the pics are pornographic, though some of them are apparently of girls in swimsuits, shorts, etc. My problem is that the pics they are sending these guys are those of real girls.

Here's a hypothetical situation - it may be inaccurate, as they aren't saying where they get their pictures, but let's say they are using pictures of child models who have signed photographers releases that they find on the internet as opposed to just random picture of girls. They bait a pedophile in Yahoo Messenger, and send him a picture of some girl. He wants to come see her and they give him the address of a police station (something they do a lot). Pedophile gets very angry after being fooled and mocked online. Then, next week, that pedophile happens to see in person the girl whose photo was used, and attacks her, thinking she was the one who humiliated him.

It would be an unlikely coincedence, but not an impossible one - I have met people at random on the internet who happen to be from the same neighborhood I live in. It doesn't even have to be that unlikely a coincedence for things to end up bad. What if the guy sees a picture of the same girl on the cover of YM magazine, and starts stalking her with the information he obtains?

Even if you completely remove the unfairness of someone using your picture while having a sex chat with a potential child molestor, there's a lot of real danger issues here.

DreadCthulhu
10-25-2003, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by Darkhold
Faked pics are still illegal.


Do you have a cite for that? IIRC, the Supreme Court threw out the law that made fake child porn pictures illegal. (Note, pics made by cutting and pasting a kid's head onto an adult body are still illegal, but wholely computer generated/hand drawn or adult models dressing as children are perfectly legal.)

pervert
10-25-2003, 02:15 AM
I think I mis read your OP. I agree that the only way they can use ANY picture morally, is with the permision of the person in it (or his legal guardian).

Badtz Maru
10-25-2003, 02:20 AM
Please don't hijack this - my thread has nothing to do with child pornography. My problem is these people are pretending to be sexually promiscuous children and using the pictures of real kids to build a believable persona.

Here's an example from one of their logs...

bill_chawner (4:01:31 PM): we could hang out at ur place get some wine and watch a movie
bill_chawner (4:01:40 PM): or we can go out up to u
chrissy2kewl4school (4:02:04 PM): hangin here is kewl. is watching a movie all u want to do? lol\
bill_chawner (4:02:21 PM): could think of some stuff
bill_chawner (4:02:32 PM): why what do u wanna do sexy
bill_chawner (4:02:36 PM): tell me
chrissy2kewl4school (4:03:15 PM): i dunno. i broke up with my bf over 4 months ago so u know...a girl has needs. lol

'chrissy2kewl4school' is an adult trolling chat rooms for pedophiles using the picture of some unknown young girl as his chat pic. What if the picture he was using was of your daughter? In one of the logs another guy says he ended up sending pictures of three different girls to this one guy because he kept requesting pictures (and commented on how he did not seem to notice that it was a different girl in each one).

pervert
10-25-2003, 02:36 AM
OK, but are you only upset that they don't seem to have permision? I'm not sure that using real girls for this purpose would be OK even if they did have permision.

Darkhold
10-25-2003, 02:46 AM
When I refered to 'fake' pictures I was indeed refering to ones of kids faces pasted on.

I tried to google up a site but needless to say I didn't find anything of value. I did find nearly every hentai site that came up had a huge disclaimer about everyone depicted is 18 or older (yeah right) though that info hardly holds up in GD.

carry on nothing of value here.

Daisy Cutter
10-25-2003, 02:50 AM
The site linked in the OP did not work. Perhaps the http:// is missing.

I got to the site, when manually typing it in.

I don't know about these people. It seems like they're having a bit too much fun in posing as little girls/boys. And what pictures exactly are they sending out ? I doubt they're using their own children.

After reading around that site for a few minutes, it's apparently easy for anybody to pose as a minor.

all u have 2 do is type like dis, isnt it kewl ?

I wouldn't exactly call what these people are doing as baiting, but they're certainly not playing hard to get, and the picture thing is fishy. Better left for law enforcement.

Daisy Cutter
10-25-2003, 02:52 AM
Correction: The first link does not work - - - - -extra "," added
The second link works

PatriotX
10-25-2003, 03:20 AM
creepy

even sven
10-25-2003, 04:37 AM
They could easily get pictures donated. I'd donate a picture of myself as a kid to help the cause. There are plenty of legitimate ways they could get pictures.

And I buy the idea that they have a limited stock of images, and don't want them to be instantly recognizable to would-bes.

Dogface
10-25-2003, 08:24 AM
Ah, yes, these guys. Salon magazine thinks they're evil. Salon also considers pedophelia to be a "thought crime", with the implication that only some sort of Orwellian totalitarian would ever oppose it.

Badtz Maru
10-25-2003, 09:22 AM
If they are using pictures with permission, I don't have a problem with that in and of itself, but they really should offer an explanation of where they get their pictures, and I don't see how it would hurt if it is one of the few legitimate sources described above - if they have a pool of donated pictures, how would knowing that help pedophiles avoid them? There would be no reason to make the pictures available on the internet, they have a limited list of contributors to the site (they don't accept baits from just any old person who signs up) so the pictures could be provided to the couple of dozen people who actually do the baiting.

Their story doesn't add up. Here's what can be gleaned from their site.

1. They have a pool of pictures of young girls they use for baiting

2. The pictures are somehow available to the general public (which is why they won't tell where they get them)

3. They used to post the pictures of the girls they use for their baiting personas on their site, but changed the policy, and will not explain why they stopped

Here's my thread regarding it on their forums - you have to register, but it's free.

http://www.superpatriot.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2019

If you don't want to register, here's the last couple of posts

Been thinking, about the only acceptable source of pictures of young girls for this purpose would be if they were old photographs of contributors - but in that case, they would not be coming from some readily accessible pool that pedophiles could use to screen their victims...

Me - If you are using pics of people who don't know what they are using their pics for, I strongly suggest you stop doing so. You don't need to provide pics to a pedophile to get them interested, trust me. If you are somehow using pictures with the permission of those in the pictures and their parents (if they are still minors), then it's all good.

Angry German - We do not publicize what we do in regards to that as a matter of site integrity. And not "integrity" as "we have integrity", but the integrity and stability of what we do when we go into a room.

Discussion closed.


My guess? They are using pictures without the permission of the children or their guardians. They have probably found a site with lots of pics of children, and the link is provided to their contributors.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but if they have a legit source of pics, they should make that clear on their site. There are a lot of people who try to do what their contributors do, and you can bet not all of them care about the girl whose picture they use as they say 'i love to give bjs' to random sickos in chat rooms.

Larry Borgia
10-25-2003, 09:41 AM
It seems like a creepy and wierd form of vigilantism. More like they're having a grand old time rather than actually fighting child abuse and kiddie porn. What the hell are they trying to accomplish?

Look I despise pedophiles and have aquaintances who are recovering victims. If any of you beat the crap out of one I'm not going to turn you in. But it seems like this internet baiting is much better left to the authorities, who know the law and know what they're doing. (hopefully). You'd be better off donating to the center for missing and exploited children. (They do good work)

And using pictures like that is just...so very wrong. No matter if its with permission or not.

Scientologist
10-25-2003, 10:45 AM
I was hanging around on another forum when they busted this one guy. They got him on a Friday and had him begging for mercy all weekend. He confessed, talked to his wife, signed up for counseling, and asked them to take his pic off their site. They just recorded everything he said and made an archive of it.

Monday morning, they emailed the local news, his job, his wife, his coworkers, and everybody else they could think of.

It was on the Detroit news that day, with his picture up and the whole thing.

By Monday night he had a shotgun in his mouth, and I can't remember why he didn't blow his own head off. Did the gun jam? I can't remember.

He's fired, his wife is done with him, he'll never work again in his profession (he's a teacher), and he's completely suicidal.

And, he didn't do anything illegal.

Our justice system probably would have been much more merciful than these vigilantes.

We have a justice system in this country. I hope the assorted whack-jobs who are out to punish would-be pedos would keep that in mind, and maybe try to work with law enforcement.

t-keela
10-25-2003, 11:15 AM
Are you assuming these photos are of females who are still children?

or

Are they photos of females when they were children?

If the latter, then I see no problem. Adult women donate photos with their consent. Maybe female police officers, agents, etc.

Even though...sounds a little close to entrapment, if the law is initiating these "relationships".

Badtz Maru
10-25-2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by pervert
OK, but are you only upset that they don't seem to have permision? I'm not sure that using real girls for this purpose would be OK even if they did have permision.

Sorry I missed this earlier.

I am still not sure how I feel about pedophile baiting by amateurs in general, aside from the picture aspect. It seems to have several pros and cons.

**NOTE** I'm going to keep using the word 'pedophiles' to refer to adults who want sex with young girls, even though most of the baiters are not pretending to be pre-pubescent and it's not quite clinically accurate.

Pros

Every minute one of these guys is chatting with a fake 13 year old is a minute he's not chatting with a real one.

Some guys are probably scared away from actually meeting a child they chat to after being 'busted' by amateur baiters.

Sites like these publicize how common internet pedophiles, and may make some people more cautious. This kind of stuff is terrifyingly common, back when my AIM profile said I was a 13 year old female I would get dozens of IMs from strangers a night, most of them wanting to talk about sex, most of them 18 or over. If a site like this convinces their parents to restrict their children's internet use, it may do some good.

Sites like this may educate children as to the tactics of these guys, and make them less likely to get involved in conversation with them.

Cons

Every minute one of these guys is chatting with an amateur baiter is a minute he's not chatting with an actual police officer who could actually put them in jail.

These pranks they play on the guys may make them more cautious and less likely to get caught - 'Ha ha, we had him drive by the police station!' - the pedophile may get a big enough scare that he learns not to give out real information about himself, to double-check information given to them by girls, and to take more steps to make sure they are actually talking to a real girl. This may be making these guys more effective predators, and probably makes them harder to get caught by the police.

On the forums they try to find out as much personal information as possible about the people they bait, and provide names, addresses, phone numbers, and other contact information about the person they bait - AND suspected family members, local churches and businesses, etc. Not only does this encourage vigilantism, I saw a thread where they were doing this to a person that many people on the board suspected was lying about being an adult. What if your teenage kid chats up some 14 year old, says he's 18 to impress her, and gives her his phone number - and next thing you know everybody with the same last name in your town are getting phone calls and emails from random strangers telling them a pedophile lives there?

A couple of guys on the board seem to be real psychos themselves. Several have given me the impression that they may be pedophiles themselves. One has posted repeatedly about a 14 year old that's a real good friend whose parents don't want her talking with them.

I also worry that by indulging their fantasies they may be making them worse, even if they give them a scare at the end. I find it hard to believe that there would be that many 13 year old girls who would be willing to talk about sex with a stranger within minutes of meeting them online, but these baiters will. Just read through some of the logs.

Anyway, that's what I think about what they are doing. There is another kind of baiting that I have read about some groups doing which I don't see any problem with - they pretend to be young girls, but they avoid talking about anything sexual, and don't try to scare or report the pedophiles - they just try to waste their time by keeping them talking with fake teens as much as possible. It's probably not fun to turn down the advances of some horny guy for hours on end, but it's for a good cause.

All this is aside from the use of pictures of real girls. Yes, I would have problems with it even if they were given permission to use the pictures for that purpose. I'm not sure why exactly, but it gives me a creepy feeling.

Ricki
10-25-2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Scientologist
I was hanging around on another forum when they busted this one guy. They got him on a Friday and had him begging for mercy all weekend. He confessed, talked to his wife, signed up for counseling, and asked them to take his pic off their site. They just recorded everything he said and made an archive of it.

Monday morning, they emailed the local news, his job, his wife, his coworkers, and everybody else they could think of.

It was on the Detroit news that day, with his picture up and the whole thing.

By Monday night he had a shotgun in his mouth, and I can't remember why he didn't blow his own head off. Did the gun jam? I can't remember.

He's fired, his wife is done with him, he'll never work again in his profession (he's a teacher), and he's completely suicidal.

And, he didn't do anything illegal.

Our justice system probably would have been much more merciful than these vigilantes.

We have a justice system in this country. I hope the assorted whack-jobs who are out to punish would-be pedos would keep that in mind, and maybe try to work with law enforcement.


Was that Brian Graves from perverted-justice.com? He was a teacher too.

Scientologist
10-25-2003, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Ricki
Was that Brian Graves from perverted-justice.com? He was a teacher too.

That's the guy. He's DONE.

Ricki
10-25-2003, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Scientologist
That's the guy. He's DONE.

It wasn't perverted-justice.com that did all that. It was trolls from another board.

Badtz Maru
10-26-2003, 02:56 PM
I've been checking into these guys, and some of these 'busts' are pretty ridiculous. If you have the time, check this one out.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/index.php?archive=ClassRide&voted=no

I could go over the problems with this one, but they are pretty obvious. I would like to point people towards the bottom section, after the baiter has revealed that he is not a 14 year old boy (which ClassRide apparently already figured out). Lots of nice hate speech, this one is more of an online gay-bashing than a true ped baiting.

Badtz Maru
10-26-2003, 04:39 PM
Hah, I'm on ban warning for this post...they claim the guy who did the 'bust' is gay, so that makes it alright.

Badtz Maru
10-26-2003, 04:41 PM
Just wanted to make a clarification - I am being threatened with banning on the Perverted Justice board, not this one.

Badtz Maru
10-26-2003, 04:45 PM
Heh, and by 'This Post' I meant one I made on their boards about the bust. They don't take to criticism or the suggestion that their methods and motives are improper very well.

even sven
10-26-2003, 05:42 PM
Wow, Batz, I didn't notice that one.

I would agree to their aims if they:

A: Stick to non-sex related chat rooms. You are less likely to find fantasy situations and the like in a chat room where children are realistically going to be. They do this.
B. Post only people who take realistic measures to engage in a real-life meeting. Talking dirty is one thing, making arrangments to meet an eleven year old at a gas station bathroom in twenty minutes is another. They apparently don't do this.
C. Never make the first messege, and never be the first and/or most enthusiastic person to talk about sex. We're looking for child molesters here, not people who get caught up in someone that is begging them to talk dirty. They don't always stick to this.
D. Allow replies, and consider removing people from the site when it's called for. They do this for the most part, although it seems to take an act of God to be removed.
E. Lay off the baiting of 20 year old with 15 year olds. Sure, thats a little creepy and likely a bad scene, but it's not the sort of thing that you deserve to have your life ruined over. It's really not even in the same catagory as 11 and 13 year olds who a 20 year old would never realisitically date.

It took a lot of thought to come to these conclusions. Vigilantism is bad, but sometimes it is the only option for sex crimes where the victims never get a chance and the court system can likely never convict. Nobody would complain if these were real little kids posting about the jerks that harrass them and threaten their safety. But kids are really unlikely to do that for a variety of reasons, and this seems like it oculd be the next best thing. It's too bad they let a "thought crime" perspective and hysteria ruin it.

istara
10-26-2003, 05:48 PM
Having gone and read some of the stuff at Perverted Justice - and it is sickening and shocking material - something just does not ring true about the transcripts. I'm not denying they happened, but I am not certain that the paedophile really believes in every case they are talking to a child. Some of the things the "children" say are just unbelievable. Which makes me wonder if the paedos really imagine another paedo, for example, is roleplaying as a child.

Also - it's clear the paedos are actually getting off on the conversations alone. Doubtless more so when they have these pics. So it's not just entrapping them, it's encouraging the behaviour in the first place.

Badtz Maru
10-26-2003, 05:48 PM
Yeah, 2 out of 5 ain't good.

I admit they do get a lot of very guilty guys...maybe even most of them. I read one where the guy brought the supposed 14 year old McDonalds, Kahlua, and condoms...the baiter answered the door with a baseball bat and took the food and booze. It was funny, maybe more so because it was obvious in this case the guy was actually going to go through with it, but it's obvious with most of them that the main reason they are doing it is the thrill of being cruel to someone...really, that was my primary motivation when I did it. I had a lot of anger and frustration in my life, and here's all these guys just beggin to get pranked, and most people would applaud you for ruining their lives. Because of this motivation, I think a lot of them get carried away.

Standup Karmic
10-26-2003, 08:15 PM
A while back, I went and registered, and visited frequently until there was a "bust" going on. I got myself invited to the conference. There were about 15 members berating this guy for over an hour for trying to get a supposed 14-year-old to telephone him. He'd indicated in the "conference" that his plan was to visit her city and take her to a hotel. In the initial "chat", he initiated sexual conversation, initiated the prospect of her calling him.

I'd say that there was some reasonably good indications that he had some ulterior motives, beyond simply role-playing. Does he deserve to have his life destroyed because of it? I'm torn. I certainly don't feel bad for him. He didn't get "set up". He set himself up.

The dubious use of photographs aside, I'm not sure that the people are doing any harm, per se. Sure, they're probably getting their jollies by being in a profound power position. These people have this man's life in their hands. However, are their transgressions greater or lesser than that of the man being berated? I'd suggest lesser; much lesser.

hajario
10-26-2003, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by Badtz Maru
I've been checking into these guys, and some of these 'busts' are pretty ridiculous. If you have the time, check this one out.

<link deleted>



A gentle suggestion: Let's be real careful not to start a board war with these guys. Those things are never fun.

I really like even sven's five point plan. That is a sensible way to do things but it really does seem like some over there go too far. Grown adults who troll for children are dispicable but entrapment is not the way to go.

The potential for abuse is frightening. Someone with a vendetta could very easily concoct a fake set of dialogues and falsely accuse another. Imagine a disguntled co-worker posting your personal information on there. How could you ever live that down?

Haj

lucwarm
10-26-2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by hajario


The potential for abuse is frightening. Someone with a vendetta could very easily concoct a fake set of dialogues and falsely accuse another. Imagine a disguntled co-worker posting your personal information on there. How could you ever live that down?

Haj

That thought occurred to me too. Although I understand what these folks are up to, busting these folks is probably best left to the authorities.

malkavia
10-26-2003, 10:08 PM
Wow. I have no sympathy for these sickos. I read through a few of them and they seem to be well-deserved baitings. The only issue I see is that they're not nearly publicized well enough. If pedophiles see that it's quite easy to be caught and ruined, they may think twice about arranging illegal rondevous in the future.

I do hope that the pictures they use are consenting adults donating photos of themselves when they were younger though.

Standup Karmic
10-26-2003, 10:32 PM
For those "busts" that I've looked at, few could be considered as "entrapment" or "baiting". Certainly some of the "victims" are perhaps a little eager to have sexual discussions, but they never seem to be the initiators of the conversation, the initiators of the sexual talk, nor the initiators of voice or other contact.

However, given how quickly they post personal information about the "perp", there is certainly opportunity for someone to be maliciously framed by someone with a vendetta to satisfy. That said, near as I can tell, they always get a phone number for the accused and have a member "confirm" that number by engaging in some manner of conversation that confirms that the person chatting online can be reached at that phone number before considering it a "bust".

hajario
10-26-2003, 11:14 PM
I saw one where the guy wouldn't give out his phone number but did give out a picture. They considered this to be a "bust" even without any other information. They went ahead and posted the dialogue and the picture. I sure hope they posted the picture of the correct guy. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that the guy sent out a picture of a better looking guy than himself to get the attention of the "girl."

Haj

catsix
10-26-2003, 11:21 PM
Am I the only person who wonders about the mental status of people who voluntarily spend a very large amount of time pretending to be horny 13 year old children?

pervert
10-26-2003, 11:49 PM
No. My main concern about this site is the possibility that the "baiters" are enjoying too much pretending to be sexually active children. Even if they do not "enjoy" it at first, this is just the sort of thing that can effect you in the long run.

Practicing to think like a 12 year old looking for sex has to affect the way you think.

catsix
10-27-2003, 12:01 AM
Isn't that what I just asked about?

What's going on in the minds of the people who spend their days and nights pretending to be middle schoolers looking for sex?

Of course molesting little kids is bad, but this site seems like it'd attract people as 'baiters' who already have a screw loose and then just remove it completely.

pervert
10-27-2003, 12:48 AM
Yea. That's what I meant. I guess I answered a rhetorical question.:smack:

Dijon Warlock
10-27-2003, 06:33 AM
I think the big problem for me with using the pictures is the thought that they're using these kids as bait, and very possibly endangering them in the gleeful pursuit of their quarry. That positively disgusts me.

Of course, preying on people because of their sexual preference doesn't sit well with me, either, regardless of what it is.

I did, however, get a slight chuckle from seeing a poster named pervert in this thread.

istara
10-27-2003, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by pervert
No. My main concern about this site is the possibility that the "baiters" are enjoying too much pretending to be sexually active children. Even if they do not "enjoy" it at first, this is just the sort of thing that can effect you in the long run.

Practicing to think like a 12 year old looking for sex has to affect the way you think.
Yes - I found the element of "glee" - as another poster mentions - disturbing.

Also, when I first saw the site, I thought it was a good, maybe admirable idea. But reading various articles where police officers etc claim it hinders their work makes me wonder why they continue. It's only admirable if it gets these paedos jailed/treated/removed from children. It's not admirable if it's just about freaking them out and persecuting them.

Eg: it shouldn't be a game, which is what it really seems to be. It should only be a tool to assist law enforcement agencies.

Ludovic
10-27-2003, 09:39 PM
Dogface wrote:
Salon also considers pedophelia to be a "thought crime", with the implication that only some sort of Orwellian totalitarian would ever oppose it.
as opposed to yourself, who would condemn pedophiles to judicial sodomy?

Look I despise pedophiles
what does Larry Borgia mean by this :confused:

Ludovic
10-27-2003, 09:41 PM
ehhhh, attach all standard disclaimers about strawmen, ad hominem, etc :rolleyes:

Dogface
10-28-2003, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by Ludovic
Dogface wrote:

as opposed to yourself, who would condemn pedophiles to judicial sodomy?




Remember, folks, anyone who does not want to just excuse and hand-wave away pedophelia must be on the complete and utter extreme opposite and insist upon lynching and witch hunts.

Rational thought is prohibited, Ludovic says so.

Shodan
10-28-2003, 07:21 AM
3. They used to post the pictures of the girls they use for their baiting personas on their site, but changed the policy, and will not explain why they stopped I can think of explanations besides "they don't have permission". I would imagine they don't want to make the pictures publicly available so that the pedophiles don't get a chance to recognize them, and know when they are being set up.

I don't know that for certain, of course, anymore than anyone else besides the site owners do, but it is a plausible reason.

I am afraid I couldn't offer an informed opinion. I am not going to click on the links provided, either here or at home.

Sorry.

Regards,
Shodan

JRDelirious
10-28-2003, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by DreadCthulhu
Do you have a cite for that? IIRC, the Supreme Court threw out the law that made fake child porn pictures illegal. (Note, pics made by cutting and pasting a kid's head onto an adult body are still illegal, but wholely computer generated/hand drawn or adult models dressing as children are perfectly legal.)

Well, the "PROTECT Act" (which in all the media was publicised as making the "Amber Alert" child-abduction alarm system a nationwide operation) signed last April 30 by the Prez does include deep in the text yet another attempt at an end-run around this, illegalizing CG images that are indistinguishable from an actual photograph of a child.

Ludovic
10-28-2003, 10:44 PM
What's there to excuse and hand-wave away? I, for one, refuse to apologize for my heterosexuality, even though it obviously makes me a rapist.

Short
10-29-2003, 12:35 AM
First, leave law enforcement to professionals. The enforcement of laws needs to be done by people who are accountable to the public.

Second, we must ask what differentiates child porn from ordinary adult porn. The latter is, at least in my view, protected as free speech, the former is not. We can't ban something because it is repugnant or offensive. My argument (really lifted from NY v. Ferber (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/458/747.html)) is that actual child porn represents an actual case of child abuse, and can be restricted on that grounds. This does not, however, justify the use of child porn to catch offenders, as child abuse is not justified to catch child abusers. Yes, I extend that to include police.

Note, however, that if the above arguement is the basis of our ban of child porn, we can not ban CG porn (no matter how child-like) nor photos of adults modified to look like children. Such is the price of free speech. This being GD, I'll note I don't agree fully with the present or past law.

Badtz Maru
10-29-2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by Shodan
I can think of explanations besides "they don't have permission". I would imagine they don't want to make the pictures publicly available so that the pedophiles don't get a chance to recognize them, and know when they are being set up.

I don't know that for certain, of course, anymore than anyone else besides the site owners do, but it is a plausible reason.

I am afraid I couldn't offer an informed opinion. I am not going to click on the links provided, either here or at home.

Sorry.

Regards,
Shodan

I'm not suspicious because they refuse to provide the pictures - I can agree with that. What's suspicious is that they refuse to give any information on how the pictures are obtained - if they said simply 'Yes, they are old pictures of people who donated them for our cause' then that would be that. But they aren't saying that.

They ARE saying on their boards now that I must be someone they busted in the past because I say that what they are doing is doing more harm than good by scaring these pedophiles into being more cautious when approaching children.

http://www.superpatriot.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=23402#23402

This is not the first time C A T has posted shit on these forums. WTF, dude...when did PeeJ first bust you? Did you learn your lesson or are you more sneaky?

Disgusting, and obvious where these guys are coming from. It's just a socially acceptable way for them to get their aggressions out on the world.

NajaNivea
10-30-2003, 01:29 PM
I have to say that the whole site sort of frightens me. When I clicked over to the site, I thought it might certainly be a worth-wile cause (having never heard of this group before), and it wasn't until after I'd read several of the transcripts and visited the forums before realizing that they are not in any way connected to the criminal justice system.

I have sort of mixed feelings about this vigilate justice thing, on one hand I certainly believe that criminal punishment should be left to the courts to decide, and that criminals should be legally prosecuted, but another part of me thinks that pedophiles should be publically persecuted to the extent that the people around them should know of their perversion, specifically because this particular crime has such a high rate of recidivism. Perhaps a high rate of social harassment, for lack of a better word, would terrify or shame them into keeping the physical manifestations of their perversion under wraps. That is the crime, correct? I have a very difficult time considering thought-crime to be worthy of this kind of social torture.

However, the people they are targeting are being baited for sexual interest in teenagers--not actually for having commited any sort of criminal action, such as statutory rape, and some of the kids (yes, kids) that they are persecuting are nineteen or twenty years old, and are having their lives torn apart for showing sexual interest in a fourteen or fifteen years old. While this is questionable in our society, there is no comparison between that situation, a person in their late teens showing sexual interest in a person in their mid-teens who may very easily be sexually mature, and a fifty year old man who likes to fondle four year old little girls or boys. The aggression and utter joy that some of those "baiters" express, particularly in the follow-up forums, is downright disturbing. Especially in light of the fact that they cannot even comprehend taking a mildly critical look at the efficacy of what they're doing, without accusing any critics of being pedophiles themselves.

In my opinion, while their tactics may have some core merit, I think the mentality and actions displayed are downright disgusting.

catsix
10-30-2003, 04:16 PM
One of the issues I think there is with this particular baiting operation is that they are providing actual personal information about the people they've baited. They're asking people on their forums to call these people at home, to call them at work, to call their bosses, to call their families, to post fliers on the windshields of cars in their neighborhoods.

These actions will most certainly have a very negative effect on those people's lives. The people at perverted-justice not only recognize that negative impact, they're counting on and ecouraging it. They readily advocate getting these people fired, having their wives leave them, and in at least one case threatened someone with a weapon (answering the door with a baseball bat).

We live in a society in which the mere implication that someone committed or will commit a sex crime is a very serious thing, with the capacity to completely destroy a life, even if the accusation is false. Which brings me to the absolute most bothering thing that I've seen there:

They readily admit and happily accept that the personal information and pictures of innocent people will, from time to time, be placed on that site. And of course, they call these people, their bosses, their families, and harass them with things like 'We're not going to go away or give up at trying to get you fired until you admit what you did and repent for it.' They are often unwilling to even consider the possibility of innocence. What they're doing is weilding the power to destroy a life, and in my opinion, they ought to be at the very least exercising the responsibility to make absolutely certain that they're not going after an innocent person.

Turning their information over to law enforcement would be one thing, because at least then it would be investigated in order to find out the veracity of the accusation. But these people don't do that. They get a feeling that based on what someone said, they've got to be guilty. They do not believe the burden of proof is on them before they go after this person's life and livelihood.

That's not justice.

NajaNivea
10-30-2003, 05:21 PM
No kidding. The one forum thread I read regarded a kid from Georgia Tech--they were talking about "how to handle him" and saying things like they'd have a scripted set of questions to ask him in one forum, while having all the perverted justice people in another separate, private forum, reading what he said. Then, they would go over his answers, decide which were the weakest, and attack him some more to "get him to give them the truth" and "find out the truth". They referred to it as a "gang bang" and clearly had already tried and hung him, and were waiting to tear him apart. Not to find out if he was guilty of any actual sex crimes, or find out what his motives were, or to even find out if he really did intend to go through with the encounter. They'd clearly already decided he needed to be shredded, and were planning how to attack anything he said to get him to say what they wanted to hear.

They contacted his extended family, they contacted his work, were trying their damndest to get any federal security clearances he may have revoked, they sent transcripts to his friends, they were talking about posting flyers with photos, on and on and on, for no actual crime. For christ's sake, they were even talking about how "the terrorists would find out about his perversion" and thus blackmail him into causing another 9-11, which was cheerfully added to his list of crimes. Dear god.

catsix
10-30-2003, 05:34 PM
It's like a tank full of hungry sharks, into which dropping the tiniest bit of blood will cause a feeding frenzy.

I've been reading there since this thread opened, and I've got to say that while I'm no fan of pedophiles who molest little kids, I do have a very strong interest in not seeing the lives of innocent people ruined out of overzealous desire to punish the 'bad people'.

And over there at perverted-justice, not one single time in any one of the threads that I've read is there any kind of effort made on their part to prove guilt. It's all on 'well we post your info, you prove yourself innocent.'

Scary as hell how driven they are. It's like they've already decided that shredding someone is their goal, so they might as well just go out and find someone, anyone, to shred. And they do it, sometimes hounding the person until he gives in to the 'kid' and then pouncing like a rabid tiger.

Dijon Warlock
11-01-2003, 02:36 AM
Their URL says it all: Perverted Justice.

IMHO, that's what they represent.

Don't get me wrong: they might mean well, but they've fallen into what I've personally termed the Nietzsche Fallacy: "When hunting monsters, one must take care not to become a monster."*

Pedophiles who molest children are certainly something we need to do something about: even *I* would agree with that. On the other hand, I DON'T agree that pedophiles per se deserve to be punished, which is what this website seems to be advocating.

If we're going to persecute them solely for Who They Are Attracted To (as opposed to What They DO), then we're not any better than gay-bashers and homophobes, IMHO. Sure, we might not share their attractions; but we're still hating them for who they want to fuck.

I learned on this very board that doing so was wrong.

* So called since someone on this board has attributed something very like this quote to N. I haven't personally verified it; but I think it's a good piece of advice.