Who Protects Us from the "Protectors?" The Case of Father Ritter from Covenant House (and the Relevance to the Crypto/G.A.K. Debate) The issue of the need to "protect children" is used as a major attack on quality crypto. The "kiddie pornographers" are described as one of the "four horsemen" who will, we are told, hide behind the crypto. Yet a review of the character and activities (medically, psychotherapeutically, ethically) of the very child protectors shows a tendency for some to be involved in the very activities they are ostensibly opposing. Worse, the public reputations built not infrequently serve to shield the individuals against public investigation of their own sexual activities. Father Bruce Ritter, one founder of Covenant House, is an example. Covenant House was originally started in New York City and located in the 42nd St. Times Square "porn district." The announced purpose of the organization was to protect runaway youth, arriving in NYC at the nearby interstate bus station, from sexual and other predations by the Square's denizens. Ritter soon developed a national reputation as a leading child protector. He was, for example, appointed a member of the President's Commission on Pornography ("Meese Commission.") There was only one fly in the ointment: Fr. Ritter was sexually involved with the very youth he was "protecting." So Ritter's anti-sexual persona (no sex education, "just say 'no'," anti-condom distribution, anti-birth control, anti- abortion, clerical celibacy, anti-porn) covered his sexual practices. Ritter's fundraising to protect the children raised money for his hotel rooms. Worse, his public persona served to protect him as charges of his sexual proclivities surfaced. Ritter's supporters in the "save the children" coalitions did not investigate Ritter. They attacked the youth bringing charges against their saint. Some critics were charged with being fronts for the Times Square porn industry. Others had their honesty and their sanity questioned. Only when additional charges from additional youth surfaced and journalists "followed the money" trail did the true story of Ritter's sexual proclivities and masquerade develop. Critics of quality crypto and the internet demand that supporters of these things answer questions about what the supporters are doing to fight the "kiddie porn" forces. We should ask them the same question(s) about their own movement. Equally we should demand answers to the question of what they are doing to expose forces -- like Ritter -- who use the "protect the children" industry as camouflage for the very predations the industry ostensibly exists to fight.