Here Today... Gone To Hell!

.

Can't the parties concerned have the individual pictures removed from that sort of site on the grounds of either privacy or child endangerment? That would be the law to make, if necessary, rather than trying to enact laws restricting the legal content of websites.

What's with the hesitation here? Pull the site immediately.

Well, people should exercise their democratic rights and vote for a bill that outlaws any pedophile from engaging in this behaviour. Going by a universal law - the majority all agree that paedoplhilia is wrong. There should be no grey area in this case at all.

Society should see fit that certain restrictions are placed on such people.

Wow, that is really sad news.
In some cultures the type of practice you are talking about used to be quite 'normal', however in this day and age there has been more insight into child psychology and the impacts of such practices upon the child and the evidence. I hope that was brought up in the non-judgemental discussions........

hard to choose between the burka and the thong for our 12 years old :)

A thong is not appropriate for a 12 year old!

It probably should be classified as a preference over deviance, though I don't see the logic which follows from that to decriminalization. It would, at least, put the focus on the punishment of the crime rather than the "treatment" of the "disease". I don't think that either the age of consent nor the statutory rape laws would be altered to favor pedophiles, that would be a pretty tough sell - I don't think we'll see anyone adopting that cause as a campaign platform.

The sheer amount of media coverage that pedophiles get these days is insane, and seems to rise in accordance with the level of child-worship perpetrated by the same media. The causal link is obvious, I have to wonder to what extent both of those factor into the number of pedophiles formed by - and their level of activity in - our society/culture. I'm not saying "if we ignore it, won't it go away?" But I do question whether dedicating primetime network shows to it really helps to subdue or extinguish the behavior.

Firstly, a pedophile needs to be taught right from wrong, regardless of "sexual urge". The net behaviour is only feeding the problem. For their own good that priviledge should be taken away.

There was a case here in Australia where a pedophile was caught with pages and pages of notes about what he would do to some young girls. These notes were graphic and gruesome.
Rather than lock this man up right away - the magistrate needed a psychological report first. Other people had the view that this person should have been locked up then and there...

Calling it a disease is is not tough enough and calling it a preference is really social work gone mad!

And yes, the media is putting alot of pressure on young girls today, bastards!

You are not considering the key factor in this, the child, the one's who aren't old enough to share the views of academics! Geez, they only begin to reverse their thinking at age 10 or later!

Homosexuality is a practice between grown men, that's the difference.

Thankfully, the rights of the child or child rights can only get better!

With pedophilia a universal law and point of view will have to be set so deviants do not 'quietly slip through' because that would be wrong. And it has gone on too long!

Ok, so your not talking about the paedophile in the article anymore, you are talking about children demonstrating sexual play with eachother.

I think the age of consent between an adult and child is pretty clear. In an adult/child situation where the child seems to consent it is usually because that child has been groomed.

Yeah... That's why it's always handy to have this chart http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm with you where every you're travelling. Which ever part you are in the whole thing...

Question: Do you believe that you can cure pedophilia? Is it possible to take, for example, a convicted multi-offending pedophile and, through a course of treatment, cure them of any and all inclinations or interest towards children? To be specific, I'm not asking if they can be taught to view their tendencies as immoral and not to act on them, I mean a bona-fide 100% cure in at least enough cases to eliminate fluke or error.  It seems to me that if the answer is negative that's provocative evidence against classifying it as a simple deviance - suggestive of at least a little collective ignorance still to be eradicated.

I think it's underestimating the power of the conservative and religious lobbies to say that something like condoning pedophilia could slip-by unnoticed. Not within a couple of decades anyway. Though it raises an interesting point; If, at some point in the future, it was something which was largely condoned and decriminalized wouldn't that represent a sea-change in public opinion, and wouldn't such a society be not only within its rights but morally bound to affect such a change to remain ethically sound (within it's own scope, regardless of our opinion as people of an entirely different ethical climate). And is there any point to this hypothetical?!

What's this laws repealed and invalidated thing in America?

You could take a paedophile thorugh a hospital ward where young children have been raped - that might cure them. (Arteaud?).

Society needs to make the firm decision that paedophilia is a taboo and stick to it. If it's taboo, it's taboo, end of story or suffer the consequences.

Ethics has no time for fence sitting!

It becomes "normal" within the scope of academics  and mental health professionals, which isn't to say that the same would be true across the board. I would think it more important to classify it correctly based upon the knowns than to classify it in a manner which simply keeps it in scope in case of future developments. From what you're saying it sounds like there's not the consensus to make a definitive call either way, that being the case it would obviously make most sense to keep it on the books until there is definitive proof. 

Yes, insights into child psychology are recently new.

I don't think child psychology is part of the issue at this stage. The law says it's illegal, society says it's immoral, and the behavior is considered deviant/a disorder/ a disease. All of those factors being true, a child's ability to consent is irrelevant. If the law and the classification were to change then the consent issue would be an active factor.

I'm not only talking about a child's ability to consent, I'm talking about the psychological rammifiactions on children taking on or being forced into a sexual role before their minds have caught up. If there is overwhelming evidence that it does more harm than good then the laws and classification will never change.

Of course, many cases are simply never taken to the levels they should be taken to and the effects may manifest later in life for that child. And.......with the media influences, many children think that what they are doing is perfectly normal.

Yes, there is a fortune to be made in Internet law.

aren't there laws about putting up people's pictures?  I thought for sure if you complained they would have to remove it.

No, if you post a pic here it can be used in a comercial ad for a dating-site...you can do nothing about it than not post pics.

thats fucked up!

Hack it/ddos it.

dos shoud be enough :)

it is an extremely interesting issue to discuss though.  are there limits when it comes to freedom of speech?  If it becomes illegal to post pics of kids and talk (not do, but just talk) about them in sick ways and shit, would it ever become illegal to say bad things about the president or post photo shopped pics of Lieberman with his hand down Bush's pants....  Would a bands lyrics become "illegal" if they talked about violence or were extremely sexual or something??  when you give an inch, people will take a yard.

i hate to say it, because this guy is a bonafide asshole, but with freedom of speech its either all or nothing.  I love how the community is fighting back though.  this guy should be fearing for his life.  i'm sure there are people out there who would kill him or beat him severely now that they know who he is.

i do think the pictures are not public though, and if i can identify myself (or my kid) in a photo on your website you should, by law, have to take it down.

I don't want sound like I'm defending this guy, but in America, we have constitutional guarantees that protect "freedom of the press".Passing any kind of legislation would probably be ruled unconstitutional. One can buy all kinds of sick shit novels here. As far as anyone knows, this guy has never touched a child. He is beyond the reach of the law.

It should be legislated against as a privacy issue, rather than a freedom of speech/the press issue. Solves the problem, doesn't incur opposition from civil liberties groups, and doesn't effect the constitution. Seems the obvious route. Still, I think I'll start stockpiling William S. Burroughs' novels as a precautionary measure.

Yes, in these circumstances it should not be seen as a freedom of speech issue. What do the majority think? Make it a human rights issue perhaps......

All the parents should pool in their money, hire a hitman and have him shot. Then check his site's web logs, find where the hits are coming from and have all of them shot too. Then we can all sleep in peace. All this law-amendment bullshit takes too much time. :)

Why can't the guy be charged with soliciting?  :rant:

That rationale was used back in the day to hunt down and prosecute communists.  Just by holding meetings, they were said to be inciting treason and endangering the state. 

I think the reaction has been perfect - let the world know what he's doing and now he'll fear for his life whenever he steps out the door.

In france, it's illegal to badmouth the president, although a lot of comics do.
It's illegal to say the word " canabis" outloud, you can get pulled for it.

And in a way, i don't complain, because freedom of speech is one thing, but there should be limitations, some people should NOT have freedom, freedom is a strong word and some people have lost their right to freedom when they endangered the majority, aka the rest of the people.

I don't believe in the US type freedom of speech because it lets anyone come up with the sickiest shit i ever read, watched or heard.

Anything else is not freedom of speech. As long as one is not slandering someone, speech and ideals should be freely espressed ... no matter how repugnant.

agreed.  who decides what "sick" is?  Larry Flynt or Jerry Falwell?

Sorry, this guy is using his freedom of speech to solicit. You can get arrested for that.

He isn't soliciting by any definition of the word. Unless you have your own definition that I'm not aware of.

Yes, he's putting up pictures of children and informing other paedophiles of the best palces to find children. If that aint soliciting........

Just when u think the planet can't get any weirder or worse.............

A good prosecutor should be able to make a case for soliciting, in Australia anyway........

I know Americas legal system is completely different to the one in Australia - I should have thought that Canada's would be similar to Australia's system.

I think prosecutors in America only get cases depending upon previous successes.

Needlessly, to say, this guy is obviously being watched very closely.

LEGISLATION that will ban pedophiles from using the internet passed the Upper House last night.

The Family First Bill give courts the power to prevent pedophiles accessing the internet and police the ability to enter the house of a convicted pedophile and seized their computer at any time if they have "reasonable suspicion".

"At any given time the best data we have says there are 50,000 pedophiles trawling the internet looking for children to prey upon," Mr Hood said.

"This will make a substantial difference."

The Bill is now expected to pass the Lower House when Parliament resumes in September.

Source: The Advertiser 2nd August 2007 (Australia)
By Nick Henderson, State Political Reporter

Of course, the key word here is convicted paedophile.

It can't turn into a witch hunt, of course!

I fail to see how '"freedom of speech" prevents pedophiles from taking a strolls around a public parks where children no doubt frequent.

We have court rulings in Canada declaring child porn has artist merit.

But he isn't, as far as the article reported, telling them to do anything illegal with children nor offering means, opportunity or even advice on how to do something illegal with children or adults. So he isn't soliciting. He's being far more insidious.