DISCLAIMER: This is a dangerous column. It talks about subjects that some people find extremely discomforting, and raises issues that demonstrably drive many members of our society into homicidal frenzy. If you fall into EITHER of these classifications, please stop reading now. Beyond this, you're responsible for your own nightmares; you've been warned.
i. a citizen accused of monstrous crimes
Former Catholic priest and liberal talk show host Bernie Ward has been indicted on kiddie porn charges.
That's about as deep as you're going to hear on the subject, if you're 99% of the population, and the damage to Ward's career will be incalculable.
Worse ... well, here's from the San Francisco Chronicle story:
SF radio personality Bernie Ward indicted on child porn charges
Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, December 6, 2007
(12-06) 15:29 PST San Francisco
Bernie Ward, a popular liberal San Francisco radio talk show host and former Catholic priest, has been indicted on federal child pornography charges, authorities said today. Ward, 56, surrendered to federal authorities earlier today but the specifics of the allegations against him are under seal, officials said.
[...]
Ward's attorney said today that the charges are based on incidents that occurred more than four years ago and were part of research for a book.
"As everybody knows, Bernie, for over 20 years, has been a progressive, opposed to insensitive authority - he has been a champion of charities, nonprofits for the homeless," said Doron Weinberg, who appeared in federal court today as Ward's lawyer. "More than three years ago, Bernie was doing research for a book he was doing on hypocrisy in America," Weinberg said. As part of the research, Ward downloaded "a few images" of child pornography, and, Weinberg said, "it came to the attention of the government in late 2004."
"They investigated and they never found any involvement in child pornography other than this period that he accessed these images," Weinberg said. "The government knows that Bernie was doing this for an investigation he was doing for a book. But the government believes he violated the letter of the law and they have gone ahead and prosecuted him."
That is the lawyer's story, and there is no reason to believe that the facts -- this relates to a government confiscation of Ward's computer in 2005 -- are in error. But because Ward is, as KGO (which I used to pick up by standing in just the right spot in the room until I started streaming it on the internet) calls him, "the lion of the left." He is the number one voice on ABC affiliate KGO-AM talk-radio in San Francisco, on an increasingly rightie-dominated radio powerhouse. Are the charges real? Who cares?
The Weblog Awards' 'Best New Blog' Jammie Wearing Fool instantly pounced, also quoting the SF Chronicle piece in toto and adding commentary, like:
The schmuck lieyer (sic) must be confused. Shouldn't it be that his client is being persecuted? Or, does that cat come out of the bag a bit further down the road?
(This from a cowardly dickwad named "RadicalRon.")
Lemminglike, others followed:
San Fran Liberal Radio Personality Indicted On Child Porn Charges
Leftinistra Talk Radio Loses Another
Liberal Radio host indicted for Kiddie Porn
Or, the Huffington Post, which merely posted a link to the selfsame newspaper story, and generated 280 comments,including this gem:
Why does HuffPo exclude the fifth word "liberal" from their blurb, but yet it's there in the body of the article from the Chronicle? Why no "liberal".
Just curious.
And think about how sick and twisted THAT mind* is already: he wants to inextricably make sure that "liberal" is associated with "child porn."
[* Internal evidence suggests that this is a well-known troll -- a Rightie who specifically makes comments that attempt to derail conversation on the Leftie blogs. The Lefties do it, too, alas, but it's not ORGANIZED (or compensated) on the Left the way that it is on the right. "Disinformation" or "psy-ops" as it's called in some circles.]
From the git-go, that's crazy, but we no longer do Lincoln-Douglas debates. We do Pavlov's Dog: "Death Tax"! Woof woof! "Good boy!"
So, "child porn" and "kiddie porn" are about the most poisonous kind of dog biscuit you can toss off the back porch. And lordie do they bite on it.
And we still know nothing more about it than the initial news story.
On the same day, by a vote of 409-2 the House of Representatives approved a "child porn" bill that, according to Declan McCullough at CNET:
The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a bill saying that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings--or face fines of up to $300,000.
That broad definition would cover individuals, coffee shops, libraries, hotels, and even some government agencies that provide Wi-Fi. It also sweeps in social-networking sites, domain name registrars, Internet service providers, and e-mail service providers such as Hotmail and Gmail, and it may require that the complete contents of the user's account be retained for subsequent police inspection.
Before the House vote, which was a lopsided 409 to 2, Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas) held a press conference on Capitol Hill with John Walsh, the host of America's Most Wanted and Ernie Allen, head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
Allen said the legislation--called the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act, or SAFE Act--will "ensure better reporting, investigation, and prosecution of those who use the Internet to distribute images of illegal child pornography."
The SAFE Act represents the latest in Congress' efforts--some of which have raised free speech and privacy concerns--to crack down on sex offenders and Internet predators. One bill introduced a year ago was even broader and would have forced Web sites and blogs to report illegal images. Another would require sex offenders to supply e-mail addresses and instant messaging user names.
Which is already blatantly unconstitutional: you are REQUIRING service providers to spy on their customers, under penalty of potentially crippling fines? Seig heil, baby.
If that's not the intellectual equivalent of the Stamp Act, I'm the Easter Bunny. (What color would you like your eggs?)
ii. a journey to the heart of darkness
Think about this: there is no greater crime in our society, and, at the same time, there is no more vaguely DEFINED crime in our society. Sex and children (except for the former to make the latter). I'll come back to that, but first, from the Radio Equalizer, who positively creams in his Comstock jeans over the news:
06 December 2007
Longtime Libtalker Indicted On Child Pornography Charges
BUSTED
KGO's Bernie Ward Nailed In Child Porn Bust
*** First Reported By The Radio Equalizer ***
*** Update Via Drudge: Lawyer Blames Bush! ***
*** Attempts To Update Ward's Wikipedia Entry Being Undone! ***
*** NEW: Ward's Defense Used Previously By Rocker, Others ***
In a shocking development from San Francisco, longtime liberal talk show host Bernie Ward has apparently been indicted on charges related to child pornography, according to several sources in Baghdad-By-The-Bay. Your Radio Equalizer has learned that Ward, a married father of four, could face up to five years in prison if convicted on each of the two counts. The allegations include both possessing and forwarding child porn.
The onetime seminarian and frequent cable talk show guest was to be arraigned earlier today, photographed and fingerprinted. He was expected to plead not guilty to the charges. As of yet, a request for information from the US Attorney's office in San Francisco has not met with a response. The longtime KGO evening host was notified yesterday by Citadel - ABC management that he has been removed from the station's schedule, effective immediately ....
And who will step up to defend Bernie Ward?
Who?
But what is it he's actually accused of? If all charges are true, then he had a few photographs on his hard drive, and exchanged some photos with someone online.
That, ladies and germs, is a THOUGHT crime.
Whoever MADE those photos may have committed a heinous crime -- more on this below. But looking at those photos is the essence of Bernie Ward's alleged crime: it is a crime of the mind that breaks the fundamental Western legal distinction between THOUGHT and DEED:
I can think about strangling my boss all I want. That's perfectly legal. But it is a crime to ACT on those thoughts. You see? In the arena of pornography, and, now that the porn wars are lost, on "CHILD" pornography, we attempt to regulate THOUGHTS.
As I noted, there are a large number of persons who become insane when the subject of sex and sexuality comes up. Too many have jobs in media.
Let me tell you, fellow citizens, it is NOT illegal to fantasize about having sex with children. It may be disgusting, but those who wish to imagine it have that right. But, moreover, to criminalize the possession of a few pictures while attempting, as a legitimate writer, pursuing a legitimate story, smacks of madness. Worse, it smacks of fascism.
The Feds raided Bernie Ward three years ago. They took a hard drive. Three years later, he is indicted, and removed from the airwaves, shunned by all civilians as a leper (because he's a potential leper, charged with Child Pornography) and WHOM does this serve?
(Hint: they may have something to do with the authorities charging Ward.)
iii. even deeper into the Congo of the id
Well jeepers, guys, What IS Child Pornography?
Glad you asked.
No one really knows. There was a case went to the Supreme Court a couple of years ago, where they wanted to classify photoshopped kiddie porn as kiddie porn. Didn't quite make it. The Court differentiated between fantasy and reality. (For a change.)
But WHAT the hell do you mean by "child pornography"?
Tough to say.
What is a child?
Well, according to English common law, until the 19th Century, it was someone under the age of ten. Girls were considered women when nature considered them so, and boys, as well.
But an age of consent was fixed, and in the USA it began at 13 and gradually moved up to 16 in many states, 18 in all others. Ergo, anyone under the age of 18 is considered a "child," (at least for media purposes) and possessing nude photos of a precocious 16-year-old who likes to take pictures of herself in the mirror is child pornography.
That's not what we generally consider "kiddie porn."
Then you have what we would all clearly consider to be children -- i.e. prepubescents, period -- in "provocative" poses. In some cases, it can simply be photos of children who aren't wearing clothes.
They busted Lewis Carroll on that one, retroactively, in the 'Seventies, but he's been exonerated of being a pedophile since.
When you actually search for the incidence of pedophile (sex with children, and not sex with minors, e.g. "statutory rape") crime, either it is very, very rare ( based on conviction and indictment rates), or else it is rampant everywhere (media reports).
In the bad old pre-internet days of the early 90s, when old Comstock-style postal inspectors trolled for kiddie porn buyers and sellers, the incidence was so rare that in one year, the majority of busts were one Postal Inspector busting ANOTHER Postal Inspector, often simultaneously.
But I remember the bad old days of "snuff films" which were the bane of our land from their first appearance in ADAM magazine (cosmic pun probably not intended), and in a book about the Manson Family, and picked up by the mainstream media circa 1971, where the FANTASY became firmly fixed, and for two decades and more, "snuff films" were not only accepted as GOSPEL TRUTH, but were invoked as evidence in pornography versus anti-pornography debates. As a decided "fact."
And they turned out to be a manufactured boogeyman, a Frankenstein that tittilated the collective unconscience (sic), and therein lies the rub.
The prudes and the bluenoses get the same kind of sick thrill from sick sexual crimes that the sexual criminals do. It shocks the conscience, and the difference seems to be where the orgasm occurs. In the prude, the pontificator, the ejaculation comes in a torrent of smug, self-satisfied, sanctimonious, self-righteous, fire-and-brimstone judgment that one instinctively feels the need to shower and perhaps have a cigarette afterwards.
In the other, it's in the usual place.
But a fixation on either pan of the scales is disturbing.
Of course the actions that create the WORST child pornography -- a literal adult having literal sexual relations with a literal child -- are and ought to be illegal as hell. Punishment or treatment, or both. Absolutely.
But to view a whole book of images of that, well, I have to throw that from deed back to thought. If it is legal to read passages describing such photographs, it is not fundamentally different to view such photographs. At this level, we have stepped from strangling the boss back to thinking about strangling the boss.
It used to be that SAYING that you were going to strangle the boss, even as a threat, didn't carry much legal weight, since people said stupid things all the time. But, increasingly, we place the deed closer and closer to the thought, because we are much smarter, obviously.
OK: If it's illegal to possess or view the IMAGES for any reason, then, finally, how can you prosecute the crime? The very image is so PERVERTING to the mind that the very thought cannot be tolerated, and, therefore, any mind viewing the image is perverted, leaving you with no uncorrupted prosecutors to try the crime, no untainted juries to judge the crime, and no unwarped judges to administer the legal proceedings.
This is not so far-fetched as it might at first appear.
Back when Ida Craddock was being prosecuted on obscenity charges by Anthony Comstock for a book of advice for the wedding night (including the then-shocking admonition to neophyte husbands to engage in foreplay, which any tomcat knew, but no Victorian citizen seemed to), the book was NOT ALLOWED TO BE READ, for fear that it might warp and pervert the jury. (all quotes in the Public Domain):
In contrast with this mass of testimony to their purity and usefulness, a paid informer, who is making his living out of entering complaints against immoral books and pictures, has lodged complaint against one of my books as "obscene, lewd, lascivious," and proposes to indict the other book later on, so as to inflict legal penalties on me a second time. This man, Anthony Comstock, who is unctuous with hypocrisy, pretends that I am placing these books in the hands of minors, even little girls and boys, with a view to the debauchment of their morals. He has not, however, produced any young person thus far who has been injured through their perusal; nor has any parent or guardian come forward who claims even the likelihood of any young persons being injured by either of these books; nor has he even vouchsafed the addresses of any of the people from whom he states he has received complaints.
She notes:
Judge Thomas, who was evidently prejudiced in advance against both myself and my book, saw that he dared not now risk the case to the jury, or he might not manage to convict me after all. And so he announced that he himself intended to pass upon the character of the book. He stated that there is in existence a decision of the United States Supreme Court which gives him this right.
He said he would not let the question go to the jury; he considered the book "obscene, lewd, lascivious, dirty." He added that he would submit to the jury only the question of fact. Did the defendant mail the book? (The charge was "mailing an obscene book.") He said, "Gentlemen of the Jury, the question for you to pass upon is, Did the defendant mail the book? You know that she admits having mailed the book. Please render your verdict. I do not suppose you will care to leave your seats." And the poor little cowed jury could do nothing but to meekly obey the behest of this unrighteous judge, and to pass in their ballots, "Guilty of mailing the book." Which, of course, was no crime at all.
Craddock then made the insightful comment:
if the reading of impure books and the gazing upon impure pictures does debauch and corrupt and pervert the mind (and we know that it does), when we reflect that Anthony Comstock has himself read perhaps more obscene books, and has gazed upon perhaps more lewd pictures than has any other one man in the United States, what are we to think of the probable state of Mr. Comstock's imagination today upon sexual matters?
The man is a sex pervert; he is what physicians term a Sadist--namely a person in whom the impulses of cruelty arise concurrently with the stirring of sex emotion. The Sadist finds keen delight in inflicting either physical cruelty or mental humiliation upon the source of that emotion. Also he may find pleasure in gloating over the possibilities to others. I believe that Mr. Comstock takes pleasure in lugging in on all occasions a word picture (especially to a large audience) of the shocking possibilities of the corruption of the morals of innocent youth.
Like the Craddock judge, we rely, as modern media does, on "characterizations" -- the "obscene book" the "child porn."
And, like "snuff films," we don't actually know the incidence of all the crimes involved, pedophilia AND kiddie porn.
To hear the media, it's rampant.
According to trolls, it's them "liberals."
iv. big brother is a cheapskate
Declan McCullough is a fine reporter, but he makes the mistake of seeing it through partisan eyes, e.g. he reports that 409 congresspersons voted for, and two Republicans -- Ron Paul and some other guy -- voted against the bill.
Not one Democrat opposed the SAFE Act. Two Republicans did: Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning presidential candidate from Texas, and Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia.
He sees the glass as
.00489 = .489% empty
While I see it as
.99511 = 99.511% full
Or, more full than Ivory Soap is pure*. (* 99 and 44/100ths per cent)
Which is nearly identical to the congressional vote in Joe McCarthy's 1954 to include "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, coincidentally.
CNET News continues:
This is what the SAFE Act requires: Anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service" to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image must (a) register their name, mailing address, phone number, and fax number with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's "CyberTipline" and (b) "make a report" to the CyberTipline that (c) must include any information about the person or Internet address behind the suspect activity and (d) the illegal images themselves. (By the way, "electronic communications service" and "remote computing service" providers already have some reporting requirements under existing law too.)
The definition of which images qualify as illegal is expansive. It includes obvious child pornography, meaning photographs and videos of children being molested. But it also includes photographs of fully clothed minors in overly "lascivious" poses, and certain obscene visual depictions including a "drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting." (Yes, that covers the subset of anime called hentai).
That's one scary FULL glass.
Do you know what the difference between a computer image and an image in your brain is?
Voltage.
That's all. Each is stored in fundamentally the same manner, but the brain is somewhat more complex and uses lower voltages. Seen from the level of standard AC110 or 220 current, the difference in voltage is MINISCULE.
There is, in fact, very little to distinguish a thought inside your brain from an image "stored" on your hard drive.
Now, I'm going to ask you this question: from Bernie Ward's indictment for three "thoughts" on his computer, and the exchange of a "thought" possibly, how far is it to a bad thought in YOUR brain?
And, while you're thinking about that, ask yourself, if my service provider has to monitor my accounts for child porn and obscene images, etc. etc. how are they going to know, unless they constantly watch EVERYTHING I say and send on the internet? And how easy does that make it for NSA snoops to retrieve tips and evidence if it's already being catalogued for them, for free.
Is this really where we want to go?
Thank ghod Americans don't have any secrets. Just think of the blackmail and intimidation value. You students of history might recall that the Gestapo subjugated the German populace by turning everybody into an informant.
Is this REALLY where we want to go?
And, do you think that it's an accident that Bernie Ward, the lion of the left, has been forcibly removed from the airwaves, as Dan Rather was, as Don Imus was, albeit through differing means? I mean, are all three accidents, or perhaps they incurred the wrath of someone who's already monitoring everything you do or say on the internet?
Is this really where we want to be heading, because the camel's nose is well under the tent now, and, the mere sight of a "cameltoe" in proper circumstances is sufficient to send you to prison.
Good luck Bernie Ward. We, your audience, hope to one day hear you again.
Now, quick, don't think about unicorns.
Courage.
===============
(c) 2007 Hart Williams, his vorpal sword