Fwd from alt.censorship: Another unhappy customer of CPAC. Stephen Hopkins writes:

Some time ago, an organisation called CPAC, the murky Child Protection and Advocacy Coalition decided to crusade against certain so-called "boy-lover" sites on the Internet, with the aim of getting them shut down. The organisation, headed by one Anne Cox- -who refuses to identify the organisations comprising CPAC--identified some black-listed sites, of which my own, http://www.stadiou.demon.co.uk, is one of them.

Actually, the Lovely and Talented Ms. Cox is far too shrewd to actually libel people on her organization's home page, so she generally links to other sites performing this function, while maintaining a discreet distance behind an appropriate disclaimer. Two months ago, I wouldn't have known CPAC from a hole in the ground. Today, quite a few people have come to know the organization and its various shills, largely because of their attempts at "Ideological Cleansing" on the World Wide Web. I had a pretty good idea what the organizational agenda was when I saw the name Debbie Mahoney, who most Usenetters remember from the Nikki Craft frivolities. Half a dozen screws short of a fully connected brain, even on her better days, and an agenda and a bag of dirty tricks that would have made Richard Nixon jealous.

I feel almost honoured that my on-line activities have attracted this much interest, but in including it on a list of "child molestors" and "pedophiles" CPAC attribute far more importance to it than it deserves.

Most of CPAC's visible agenda is pretty reasonable. It's the part about harrassing legal First Ammendment protected speech on the Net, based on their perception of the sexual orientation of the people engaging in it, because supposedly such people might *SOMEDAY* commit a crime, that is a bit of a civil liberties stretch. Like most Dworks, they believe in "voodoo molestation," where unnamed children thousands of miles away are vicariously "exploited" should a single stranger have "impure thoughts" about them by looking at even innocuous photographs, or should accurate depictions of childhood sexuality be permitted in mainstream media. They are getting their nonsense written into the law one tiny step at a time, the Hatch "synthetic sexual depictions of minors" smoke and mirrors being their latest accomplishment.

Jim Tradwick, a San Antonio, Texas businessman, can testify to the tactics of vigilante censors. Tradwick runs XtatiX, a small Texas based company offering Web space to individuals and companies. In June he found himself on the receiving end of hate e-mails and harassing phone calls. The U.S. Customs threatened to confiscate his computer systems for investigation, and the San Antonio police threatened to take away his young son.

What's really amazing is how much under the table support the anti-civil liberties agenda gets from LEAs and agencies of the Federal Government. With Civil Forfeiture laws reversing the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and helpful government agencies attempting to apply pressure to suspected "Thought Criminals," it becomes very difficult for the typical business owner to avoid capitulating to these folks.

Had Tradwick been caught dabbling with child pornography? Or had he perhaps allowed his systems to be used by a pedophile ring? Twice no. His only "crime", that so infuriated CPAC, was to host a gay site called "Free Spirits" (http://www.ivan.net/fs) abou t attraction to teenagers, which included articles written by gay teens themselves.

But Cox, along with her ally--a retired police officer called Mike Paladino obsessed with sexual perversion--and his contingent of jackbooted thugs, decreeded that Free Spirits was beyond the pale. And thus Tradwick found himself on the receiving end of harassment, hate mail, and even death threats against his son.

Paladino isn't just a retired police officer, he is a retired Police Captain! We're talking management here. He doesn't just wield the ol' "Assault Plunger," he's part of the design team. :)

I made an effort to build bridges between myself and CPAC by posting what I hoped would be considered reasoned and reasonable debate on their discussion board. However, even that was too much, as my access to their forum was restricted to read-only. I can only conclude that Cox didn't want reason to interfere with the prevailing views expressed in the forum.

Har! The only rhetorical weapon the Lovely and Talented Ms. Cox needs in her forum is the Delete Key.

So I am circulating, via Usenet, blind e-mail, and BoyChat, the text of the message I attempted to post to CPAC's forum under my BoyChat and IRC nickname Rob Walker. I welcome anyone from CPAC to discuss the points herein, anywhere they like. I know poste rs to the CPAC forum occasionally monitor BoyChat, and Usenet groups such as alt.censorship and others. Unlike other boards, BoyChat does not censor messages whose sentiment its Webmaster does not agree with.

Well, that's very nice, but I think this is a task tantamount to trying to convert the Ayatollah Khomeni to Episcopalianism But I wish you the best of luck in your quest. [CPAC-Censored Social Science Essay Expunged] -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ enoch@zipcon.com $ via Finger $ {Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell}