Norm writes:

Can a suspected pedophile claim that a virus downloaded the porn without him knowing?

Preposterous? But can a cop or a lawyer explain why the defense is preposterous?

Prior to the mainstreaming of Jesus Freaks and Victimology, I recall that a study estimated the total number of genuine pedophiles, (those fitting the DSM description), in the US and Europe combined to be around 15,000. This is why the commercial child porn market folded of its own accord, before the Meeslings decided that child porn could be made into the one political issue no one could risk opposing. What these dodos fail to realize, is that while only genuine pedophiles will pay big bucks for child porn, large numbers of relatively ordinary people will view free child porn, if they can do so without government threats. Biology has dictated, after all, that men are generally attracted to the youngest, healthiest-looking fertile females, and the arbitrary age of majority set by society is several years beyond this. If anyone thinks the dissemination and viewing of zero-cost child porn made possible by digital photography and the Internet involves only "pedophiles", each of whom is slowing working their way up to victim number 300, they need to unplug the Sex Abuse Agenda from their sphincter, and grab a clue. The criminalization of "intentionally listening," and "intentionally looking," will ultimately end up being applied to lots of things that don't involve depictions of horny adolescents. People trapped in the rhetoric of the Sex Abuse Agenda are greasing the skids for the New Police State, unaware that the doctrine they are following was fabricated from whole cloth by Antisexualists, Radical Feminists, Bible Thumpers, and those opposed to Youth Rights, and has no basis in scientific fact. The First Amendment should give adults the right to communicate amongst themselves on any topic of their choosing, including through the use of visual material. How easily we toss this fundamental concept because the Abused Womens' Whining Contingent transmogrifies any possibility of non-problematical sexual activity on the part of minors into a statement that they bear responsibility for their own abuse. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Eric Cordian wrote:

If anyone thinks the dissemination and viewing of zero-cost child porn made possible by digital photography and the Internet involves only "pedophiles", each of whom is slowing working their way up to victim number 300, they need to unplug the Sex Abuse Agenda from their sphincter, and grab a clue.

Especially so since, in the absence of law enforcement interference, a limited online supply can serve a huge body of viewers. This makes the problem impossible to solve on the demand side. The rational response would be to go back to plain old police work for those few producers that actually harm kids, treat the cases without explicit regard for the sexual nature of the deeds (if there is physical violence, that's punishable quite without specialized KP statutes), and let the images stay online to satisfy what demand there is. In fact it might not be a bad idea to saturate the market by putting the stuff in the public domain and allocating some of the considerable law enforcement anti-KP budgets to run the servers. At least the financial incentive to produce more KP would come down considerably. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, student/math+CS, Helsinki university email: <decoy@iki.fi>, website: http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front