Silk Road forums

I don’t see how you can call marked increases to the bottom line through sales “speculative” demand. Looks like a tangible increase in demand to me. And since we are discussing commercialization, I still don’t see the use of this metaphor. I’m against legalizing possession and distribution because of the harm it incurs. If these acts happened in a vacuum that made it impossible to harm anyone else I wouldn’t be. If it didn't harm anyone sexual attraction to prepubescent children could just be another sexual fetish, a sexual preference even, and I wouldn't give two shits about what pedophiles did. But it’s not useful to speculate on that because facts don’t exist independently in vacuums IRL. And we are talking about child porn and not widgets in a mental masurbatory math exercise.

You would charge for access to a PIR system that holds many things including CP. Since the payment is for access to the system, and the content downloaded from
the system cannot be determined by anyone, it thus masks the demand for the content both from a financial perspective and also from the perspective of nobody knows that the content is actually downloaded. Child porn essentially is a widget in a math exercise, just as all other data represented with 1's and 0's is.

Furthermore, knowledge of the heavy psychological damage incurred upon victims of child sex abuse has only become prominent over the last 30 years or so with awareness spreading gradually during that time around the globe. It's why massive underage sex scandals could even come to light at all against religious orgs as powerful as the Catholic Church. It's why pedos like Gary Glitter can find no safe refuge in the world where he can safely practice his desire of underage sex, while serial child sex abuser Jimmy Saville could go to town on hoards of children and have it all complicitously hushed up by mobs of enablers back in the seventies.

Sure child sex abuse causes horribly psychological damage to the victims of it. However I am entirely unconvinced that there is a magical voodoo revictimization process that somehow instantaneously occurs when someone looks at CP. A CP file is just a bunch of 1's and 0's when you get down to it, looking at how a particular series of 1's and 0's causes pixels on your monitor to color themselves does not have a magical effect on the subjects portrayed in the images.

Although I’m not familiar with the numbers you admitted yourself there are large numbers doing this unwittingly who have no idea CP is mingled in with the jailbait porn they are downloading.

I am familiar with the numbers. There are tens of millions of people on P2P networks intentionally seeking out and downloading very underage CP, often unwittingly becoming distributors in doing so. There are also a lot of people who unwittingly download jailbait porn, which actually is considered to be CP, from many clearnet porn sites that allow user uploadable content.   And there are some cases where prepubescent porn makes its way to such sites as well, although on mainstream porn sites you will be much less likely to find content like this than to find jailbait porn. CP is quite the epidemic at this point in time, the number of people becoming involved with it is growing at an extremely rapid rate that shows no signs of slowing down. And it is largely not child molesters but simply curious idiots on P2P networks who don't realize how easy it is for them to be caught, or that after viewing some images they will automatically start distributing them. That is really the saddest part about CP laws, the fact that a great many good and normal people are finding themselves facing many years in prison and lifetimes as registered sex offenders for finding some image or video from a P2P network search (perhaps not even a search for CP), downloading it out of curiosity and unwittingly becoming a distributor of child pornography. It is the most unfair and cruel fate for these people to have their entire lives completely and thoroughly ruined for downloading a bunch of 1's and 0's. I am grateful that federal judges particularly are starting to speak out about the cruelty of child pornography laws, as well as some other small parts of the legal system. But there is so much misinformation in peoples heads, so many bullshit government studies with falsified statistics, so much misinformation and fear mongering and term merging from the media and so many political points to be won for being hard on CP offenders, that countless more people are going to be fucked by these laws for many more years before anything significantly changes. And really it is insane that even if someone faces only a maximum of five years in  prison for having a CP image, they quickly can go away for life once they have twenty images. They are almost entirely at the mercy of the courts in regards to if they will die in prison or be released on probation, and it has gone either way in cases that are otherwise essentially the same. Where is the justice in that?

I would like to point out that the people arguing against reduced sentences for CP possession in the following article, are citing LIES and FALSIFIED STUDIES. They are either misled by propaganda or they themselves are continuing to intentionally spread lies and propaganda. As the citation I gave above shows, one of their primary studies that showed 85% of CP offenders had had sexual contact with a child, INCLUDED SEXUAL CONTACT WHEN THE OFFENDER WAS A MINOR. That is like saying we should have strict sentences for having yellow as your favorite color, because 85% of people who have yellow as their favorite color had sex with one of their peers when they were in highschool! It is god damn shameful that we have people in authority positions making such bullshit studies (they were probably trained by the people "studying" drugs) and it is a god damn shame that the media and politicians regurgitate these lies so much that they enter into the minds of the public as truth. It is a sham, they try to demonize people so they can get them sent to prisons and rehabilitation facilities and on probation, so that they can fund themselves with more and more money, fund their private industry partners (a lot of private industry involvement in making tools for tracking down CP offenders, it is a multi billion dollar industry for fucks sake!), gain political points, etc. They are literally selling harmless, normal people into a lifetime of fucking slavery, people who go to prison for CP offenses are just as much slaves to the state as people who go to prison for drug offenses, the dirty tactics used by the state to turn society rabidly against these people are the same dirty tactics they use to turn society against drug users. It is a farce and it is a fucking shame.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/29/debate-rages-over-severity-child-porn-sentences/

NEW YORK –  Their crimes are so loathsome that some hardened courtroom veterans recoil at viewing the evidence. Yet child-pornography offenders are now the focus of an intense debate within the legal community as to whether the federal sentences they face have become, in many cases, too severe.

By the end of this year, after a review dating to 2009, the U.S. Sentencing Commission plans to release a report that's likely to propose changes to the sentencing guidelines that it oversees. It's a daunting task, given the polarized viewpoints that the commission is weighing.

The issue "is highly charged, both emotionally and politically," said one of the six commissioners, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell.

On one side of the debate, many federal judges and public defenders say repeated moves by Congress to toughen the penalties over the past 25 years have badly skewed the guidelines, to the point where offenders who possess and distribute child pornography can go to prison for longer than those who actually rape or sexually abuse a child. In a 2010 survey of federal judges by the Sentencing Commission, about 70 percent said the proposed ranges of sentences for possession and receipt of child pornography were too high. Demonstrating their displeasure, federal judges issued child porn sentences below the guidelines 45 percent of the time in 2010, more than double the rate for all other crimes.

On the other hand, some prosecutors and members of Congress, as well as advocates for sexual-abuse victims, oppose any push for more leniency. At a public hearing in February, the Sentencing Commission received a victim's statement lamenting that child pornography offenders "are being entertained by my shame and pain."

"They need to be taught how much pain they inflict and a greater term of imprisonment will teach them that, (and) will comfort victims seeking justice," the victim said. "I don't believe that short periods of imprisonment will accomplish these things."

Once completed, the Sentencing Commission report will be submitted to Congress, which could shelve it or incorporate its recommendations into new legislation.

Already, the commission has conveyed some concerns. In a 2010 report on mandatory minimum sentences, the commission said the penalties for certain child pornography offenses "may be excessively severe and as a result are being applied inconsistently."

However, similar misgivings voiced by the commission in previous years failed to deter Congress from repeatedly ratcheting up the penalties — including legislation in 2003 that more than doubled average sentences for child pornography crimes.

Many of the offenses carry a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison, and the guidelines call for additional penalties — known as enhancements — based on a range of factors, such as the age of the children depicted in the imagery and whether a computer was used in the crime. As of last year, the median sentence was seven years.

In a recent article for the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, former Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and former federal prosecutor Linda Dale Hoffa criticized the approach by Congress.

"The fact that child pornography offenders can be given longer sentences than child abusers or violent offenders reflects a lack of care by Congress," Specter and Hoffa wrote. "In the rush to prove itself hostile to individuals who possess or distribute child pornography, Congress has obscured the real distinctions between different offenders."

Hoffa doubts Congress will be eager to ease the guidelines.

"If you vote against these harsher penalties, the sound bite is that you're protecting child pornographers, and that could be the end of somebody's career," she said in a telephone interview. "It's a political radioactive hot potato."

As a backdrop to the sentencing debate, Internet-based child pornography has proliferated, and the crime is an increasingly high priority for federal law enforcement agents.

According to the Justice Department, federal prosecutors obtained at least 2,713 indictments for sexual exploitation of minors in 2011, up from 1,901 in 2006. This month, the FBI announced that the latest addition to its "Ten Most Wanted Fugitives" is a former elementary school teacher, Eric Justin Toth, who is accused of possessing and producing child pornography.

In testimony to the Sentencing Commission in February, three Justice Department experts said the sentencing guidelines for child pornography should be revised — not with the overall aim of making them more lenient, but rather to help the courts do a better job of differentiating among offenders and determining appropriate punishment.

"The guideline has not kept pace with technological advancements in both computer media and Internet and software technologies," the DOJ experts said.

As opposed to focusing on the quantity of images collected by an offender, the experts said revised guidelines could take into account the length of time the offender has been involved with child porn, the degree of sophistication of measures taken to avoid detection, and the extent to which the offender communicates as part of a network.

One such network, called Dreamboard, was unraveled by investigators last year. In all, 72 people were charged with participating in an international, members-only Internet club created to trade tens of thousands of images and videos of sexually abused children.

There's one point of agreement in the sentencing debate: All parties agree that penalties should remain severe — or be toughened — for those who produce and promote child pornography.

A key point of contention, by contrast, is the degree to which offenders charged with receipt and possession of child porn pose a risk of physically abusing children themselves, as opposed to looking at images of abuse.

New York-based federal defender Deirdre von Dornum told the Sentencing Commission there's insufficient evidence to prove a strong correlation. Child pornography offenders have a lower recidivism rate than child molesters, she said, and many could be safely monitored via supervised probation.

"Many of these individuals have stable employment, family support, and no prior contact with the criminal justice system," she said. "Punitive terms of imprisonment do nothing but weaken or destroy pro-social influences in their lives."

The Justice Department experts were more skeptical, citing research suggesting that a substantial percentage of child-pornography offenders are pedophiles who either have sexually abused a child or might try to do so.

Von Dornum challenged the premise that tough sentencing would dry up the market for child porn.

"Because child pornography is free, widely available and easy to produce, it is not subject to the normal laws of supply and demand," she said, noting that many countries do not even have laws against it.

She also said the sentencing guidelines contribute to unjust disparities, depending on whether a prosecutor charged a defendant with receipt of child pornography, as well as possession. Under the guidelines, receipt carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence, but possession has no mandatory minimum.

According to von Dornum, the average sentence for a federal child pornography offense in 2010 was higher than for all other offenses except murder and kidnapping. Indeed, the average was about six months higher than for sexual abuse offenders.

"Yet there is significant political pressure to do nothing but continue to increase penalties for these offenders, the 'modern-day untouchables,'" she testified. She urged the commission "to take the difficult step of rising above the politics and fear" and revise the sentencing framework.

Another witness at the February hearing — testifying on behalf of her fellow federal judges in the Judicial Conference of the United States — was Casey Rodgers, chief judge of the Northern District of Florida.

Rodgers stressed that child pornography entails "unspeakable acts by the offenders and unimaginable harm to the child victims."

Nonetheless, she said doubts are growing within the judiciary about the reasonableness of the sentencing guidelines, as demonstrated by the extent to which judges are refusing to follow them and issuing lower sentences.

Rodgers urged the commission to propose repealing the mandatory minimum sentence for receipt of child porn. And she said the guidelines should be revised to help judges better identify which offenders are at greatest risk of committing future sexual abuse of children.

"Lengthy terms of incarceration alone will not adequately address the harms of these offenders," she testified. "Greater reliance on the use of supervised release should be considered."

Troy Stabenow, an assistant federal public defender in Missouri, said the judges' resistance to the sentencing guidelines was "pretty courageous,"

"They're doing it knowing they're likely be lambasted in the media," he said. "They wouldn't be doing it unless they really believe a lot of typical offenders they see are not the menace that people assume they are."

In Congress, some Republicans have voiced dismay at the judges' stance, as evidenced by a recent letter to the Sentencing Commission from Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Subcommittee on Crime.

"I am concerned that the federal judiciary is failing to consider the severity of child pornography and its victims," he wrote. "This departure rate is disturbing and threatens the most vulnerable among us, our children."

Among Democrats in Congress, there are numerous critics of mandatory minimum sentences — for example, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. But members of Leahy's staff doubt there will be any groundswell of support in Congress for easing child-pornography sentences.

One of the few recent rollbacks of sentencing laws came in 2010 when Congress reduced the difference between sentences for crimes committed by crack cocaine and powder cocaine users.

The disparity had been assailed by civil-rights advocates as a form of racial discrimination because most people convicted of crack crimes were black.

There's no equivalent advocacy campaign on behalf of child porn offenders, about 90 percent of whom are white.

"You don't have any built-in sympathy," said Jelani Jefferson Exum, a professor at the University of Toledo College of Law. "Who's going to stand up and say, 'I'm fighting for child porn possessors.'"

Susan Howley, public policy director for the National Center for Victims of Crime, has been urging those involved in the debate to keep the victims in mind. She says they face higher risk of developing mental health disorders, sexual dysfunction and substance abuse problems.

"While sentencing does not appear to be the perfect tool to reduce the market for child abuse images, it is one of the few tools available," Howley told the public hearing in February. "Through sentencing we express to society, and to the individual victims and family members harmed, that we recognize the seriousness of this offense."

Ok. Based on your apparent command of the historical subject matter and without having independently confirmed these details I probably underestimated the commercial viability of repacking freely available content, at least within the CP industry. But I also think the fact that child porn consumers have shown such a willingness to pay for what is freely available also speaks to the enormous commercial possibilities for this market. In a sense it confirms reasons I’ve mentioned as to why people pay for premium content despite the fact that they could find some of the exact same content on p2p; it saves them the time of having to look for it and from the risk of not finding what they were looking for.

Sure there are plenty of idiots who are willing to pay for things they can get for free. The world is a large place and it would be foolish for me to think that there will not be thousands of people in it who are willing to pay for CP. I still maintain that they should not be treated as criminal unless it can be proven that they have knowingly and directly funded a child molester for the purpose of producing new child pornography. I also still maintain that with the rise of P2P, commercial CP distribution is going to be less valuable to those interested in obtaining CP.

You’re being really disingenuous here. So here’s a child completely dependent upon domineering religious parents for physical, financial, and emotional survival with their education strictly controlled and absent of any understanding of scientific knowledge and whose only exposure to science is the demonization of the subject by their nutjob parents. How freely do you believe that child could voluntarily choose to learn science and facts? It’s as outrageous as claiming the obliviously brainwashed could voluntarily and spontaneously choose to unbrainwash themselves.

The appearance of such disingenuity makes everything else you say here sound like a complete and total cop out if it didn’t already.

I guess what it really comes down to is I do not feel like we are responsible for the children of others, but I do feel that we have no right to dictate to others how they will raise their children, short of preventing them from abusing their children. I do not think that religious indoctrination is an abuse of such magnitude that it would justify external intervention. Even today there are groups that largely indoctrinate their children and cut off their access to external information, the Amish is one such population, however I do not believe that we must force the Amish to modernize themselves or to teach their children things that are at odds with their traditional faith. Does that mean that you now suspect me of being a closeted Amish person?

Also for the record again, I would like to clarify for everyone that I am indeed not a religious person, and I am quite openly a doubtful agnostic.

Maybe not absolute certainty. Epistemology might have us conclude the impossibility of this for anyone. But there are relative degrees of certainty no? How you might live your life might be radically different if you thought the probability of the christian narrative had an 80% chance from being true than 20%. I’m actually not in disagreement with anything you just said, just your absolutist approach based on your inability to know with certainty 100% that religious zealots aren’t right, that you can’t use some of your militant libertarianism to ensure their kids are being given a choice to decide whether to follow in the footsteps of their parents or not. Holding out the possibility of that .000001% likelihood of an outcome that you are 99.999999% certain is false seems so ridiculousy futile while making you look so small and petty it makes one wonder why you would insist on it. And even here I probably still vastly underestimated the unlikelihood of a lake of fire being a real destination for “sinners” following death.

Yeah you did vastly overestimate the probability of the Christian beliefs mapping to reality, it approaches zero so closely that I could fill the screen up with zeros prior to putting a 1. It seems we do not disagree on this, rather we disagree on if we have the right to force others to teach their children the things that have the highest probability of being true or not.

In light of your provided reference I see it has happened on very rare occasions, although most of the time efforts were made to introduce such things such proposals were soundly defeated. But your comparison with the unconstituionality of child porn is a poor one. The founders made no mention of child porn as it didn’t yet exist. Furthermore, restrictions on 1st amendment rights that don’t appear explicitly in the constitution has long been established by the courts as constitutional and desired in limited and exceptional instances. The founders, however, did have strong and explicit feelings about church and state separation which is why courts will continue to quash these cases that appear before it quickly. Also, it’s not that the system didn’t work. It’s only that it didn’t work as fast as you or I would have liked when curriculum was stealth changed by religionists through the introduction of a storybook rendition of creationism. It would seem the lesson to be drawn is to remain vigilant about looking out for these sorts of shenanigans so they can be challenged in court as soon as its identified. Not to change the system altogether so this sort of stuff doesn’t happen. Because it’s not like a government run by your militant libertarian cabal would be perfect either. If you believe in due process a case like this would still need to appear before a court to determine and assess guilt, even if it’s a private court. Or maybe you think the wealthy oligarchs that would certainly own these schools should be able to aribtrarily decide what happened and who was at fault. But that’s still no guarantee that the oligarch will make an actionable decision faster than you or I would have liked or to prevent such a thing from happening.
I also really think these wealthy oligarchs who would rule over their private property like mini-despots in your world of no public property would really do a number on due process even if there were private courts although I see no reason that such a thing would exist, if they did they would resemble how private arbitration works today. Yet as biased as arbitration is today slanting heavily towards their court’s employer, the private court in your world would be an order of magnitude worse because there would be even less checks and balances to demand equity with no government.

Certainly it has come to light on rare occasions, however you are naive to think that schools do not routinely expose the children they teach to religion. I have had teachers at public schools who knew of my lack of faith tell me that they think it is insane I risk my eternal soul. Indeed, I had one tell me while looking down his nose at me, that it is "too bad" that I am not a Christian. Although they did not try to teach me intelligent design. I cannot recall if in our daily pledge of allegiance to the state if we said "one nation under God", but I assume that we did as it is part of the pledge. 

Also, the founders made no mentions of Ak-47s either, but it is widely believed that we have the constitutional right to own these weapons. Likewise the constitution promises us freedom of speech and of the press. Admittedly there have been restrictions placed on freedom of speech, as well as the firearms that we are allowed to own. It makes sense that we cannot falsely yell fire in a crowded room, at least it makes sense so long as we live in a society that doesn't respect the rights of property owners enough to let them decide the rules of their own property. The courts have held that freedom of speech can be violated when there is a compelling reason to do so, with a clear societal benefit in doing so. I would maintain that this is not the case for child pornography possession in particular, as numerous studies have shown that there is no true correlation between child pornography possession and sex crimes against children. I would also extend this to distribution, although of course not production short of non coerced self production. In fact I would argue that there is a compelling reason with a clear societal benefit in legalizing the possession and distribution of child pornography, as numerous studies have concluded that the access to child pornography in an area strongly negatively correlates with the rate of child sex abuse in said area. Thus the courts ban of child pornography possession not only does not meet the criteria required for restricting our right to freedom of speech, but it actually does the exact opposite of what they intended. This is what happens when uninformed and emotionally charged people are given power, they make decisions that seem to be correct to them but are incorrect due to their lack of knowledge and inability to reason.

Additionally our constitutional right to freedom of and from religion is also routinely violated. People in the church of Santo Daime are given an exception to the controlled substance act that allows them to consume DMT, Native Americans of certain religious backgrounds are given exceptions to the controlled substance act allowing them to use mescaline and additionally Catholic children are given exceptions to alcohol laws in order for them to be allowed to take their communion. These are all clear violations of the constitution. In short, essentially every single part of the constitution has been and continues to be violated by the government. It is essentially a worthless document and it is used more for propaganda and as a political talking point than anything. None of the major political parties in the United States actually want to follow the constitution, and they don't. Libertarians are the only ones who actually like the majority of the constitution of the USA.

pot heroin and PCP are all active when smoked. Smoking an E tab is going to be a complete waste of time, it might be possible to smoke MDMA crystal in some form but I have no idea, not sure on methodone either but smoking pills is a waste of time and stupid.

And now for my promised citations.

www.fd.org/pdf_lib/FJC2012/Child_Porn_Dangerousness.pdf

by Melissa Hamilton, JD, Ph.D

summary:

Does not show an offender typology, but is still nice reading for any who wish to be informed. It shows the scientific flaws of various government studies involving CP, points out that the market thesis (jpinkmans argument) has absolutely zero empirical support, explains that teenagers are some of the biggest producers of child porn, traditional organized crime is not involved in child porn, child sex abuse rates have dropped 62% since the internet became mainstream (and CP became available again), child porn offenders and molesters are distinct groups with minor overlap, most CP offenders have large collections of adult porn as well (making them likely pornography addicts and/or sexually indiscriminate rather than pedophiles), technically a large percentage of males have interest in child porn, a popular government study into correlation between child porn possession and sexual contact with minors included sexual contact with minors when CP offender was under age (how honest of them!).


Here is a typology from an FBI agent with 30 years of experience. It doesn't say the percentages though. Pornography addicts would likely fall under situational offender type a.

Preferential Offenders
a .    pedophile: Offender, as previously discussed, with a definite preference for
children.

b.   Diverse offender: Offender with a wide variety of paraphiliac or deviant sexu-
al interests, but no strong sexual preference for children. This offender was
previously referred to in my typology as the sexually indiscriminate.

c.     Latent offender: Individual with potentially illegal but previously latent
sexual preferences who has more recently begun to criminally act out
when inhibitions are weakened after arousal patterns are fueled and vali-
dated through online computer communication.

Situational offenders:
a.    "Normal” adolescent/adult: Usually a typical adolescent searching online
for pornography and sex or an impulsive/curious adult with newly found
access to a wide range of pornography and sexual opportunities.

b.    Morally indiscriminate offender: Usually a power/anger-motivated sex of-
fender with a history of varied violent offenses. Parents, especially mothers,
who make their children available for sex with individuals on the Internet
would also most likely fit in this category.

c.   Profiteer: The criminal just trying to make easy money. With the lowered
risk of identification and increased potential for profit, these individuals
have returned to trafficking in child pornography.



Miscellaneous “offenders:”
a.    Media reporters: Individuals who erroneously believe they can go online
and traffic in child pornography and arrange meetings with suspected
child molesters as part of an authorized and valid news exposé.

b.   Pranksters: Individuals who disseminate false or incriminating informa-
tion to embarrass the targets of their “dirty tricks.”

c.    Older “boyfriends:” Individuals in their late teens or early 20s attempting to
sexually interact with adolescent girls or boys.

d.   Overzealous citizens: Individuals who go overboard doing their own private
investigations into this problem. As will be discussed, investigators must be
cautious of all overzealous citizens offering their services in these cases.

here is another info clip from here: http://www.nlada.org/forensics/for_lib/Documents/1170859257.66/nladasubmission.doc

(note in particular that it says the frequently do not qualify for pedophilia)

Pornography and importuning offenders are often a different ‘breed’ of sex offender. These offenders often do not have a prior sex offense history.  They rarely possess an antisocial personality  disorder and frequently do not qualify for pedophilia.  They may possess symptoms that fall under the rubric of the following categories:
   Paraphilias (sexual deviancy disorders, i.e., pedophilia)
   Hypersexual disorders
   Obsessive compulsive disorders/Impulse Control Disorders
   Online sexual problems/addictions
   Other psychiatric disorders such as depression that include features of emotional loneliness and isolation or stem from environmental issues such as broken marriage and loss of employment. They may cope with these problems through inappropriate sexual activity.

The most relevant paraphilic disorder concerning pornography offenders and importuners would be pedophilia. One must experience recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual  activity with a prepubescent child or children, generally age 13 years or younger.
All too often, a defendant is contacted by a law enforcement officer who imposters a 12 year old girl.  The age of 12 is usually used to fulfill two purposes: to establish an age relevant to pedophilia and also to satisfy harsher penalties under sex offender laws.  When considering this diagnosis, an expert should view all pornographic images to consider the ages of the children/adolescents as many of these pictures will be of teens older than age 13.  The expert must determine if the individual was viewing pornography for 6 months or longer. One can technically be diagnosed with pedophilia by viewing child pornography (and not actually engaging in hands-on offending of youth).  Such use must cause them impairment in social, occupational, or other areas of functioning. 
Conversely, hypersexual disorders include a disturbance of more conventional sexual functioning such as masturbating or the use of pornography and at some point the use is compulsive and/or excessive and causes the person distress. Hypersexual disorders  may also include cybersex (Internet related activities geared for sexual arousal and attracting others online). 

....

INTERNET ADDICTION & EMOTIONAL AVOIDANCE
Many offenders who have possessed pornography on their computers and engaged in cyber-chat with underage females use the Internet to avoid negative emotional states, such as depression, anxiety, anger, boredom, and loneliness.
 Quayle, E., Vaughan, M., & Taylor, M. (2006). Sex offenders, Internet child abuse images and emotional avoidance: The importance of values. Aggression and Violent Behavior (11).  This is a critical point  because these offenders may not be sexually deviant, rather they use sex as an outlet to deal with these emotional deficits.
The Internet serves as a device to access sexual material which ultimately assists in relieving one’s sexual arousal and alleviating emotional distress and dissatisfaction in one’s life.  The Internet offers sex offenders an avenue to download pornography and masturbate to images which is in effect a rewarding and reinforcing process leading to further avoidance from dealing with one’s problems and human relationships.
 Greenfield, D., & Orzack, M. (2002).  The Electronic Bedroom: Clinical Assessment of Online Sexual Problems and Internet-Enabled Sexual Behavior. In A. Cooper (Ed.), Sex and the Internet: A Guidebook for Clinicians (pp. 129-146).   This Internet behavior has an addictive quality with the subconscious process of avoiding negative emotional states.
Internet addiction includes an individual who has obsessive thoughts about the Internet and has volitional problems controlling Internet use leading to excessive amounts of time online and failure to meet the demands of their everyday life.  They will likely experience negative emotional states when offline and increasing tolerance to the effects of being online while denying problematic behaviors in their lives.  When online, they will have more positive feelings about themselves. This Internet addiction includes a behavioral sequence that has a rewarding and reinforcing quality that mimics an impulse control disorder such as Kleptomania.  The images that stimulate sexual arousal, the anonymity with the computer use including anonymous chat rooms and typing on the computer, may play a role in making the Internet reinforcing.
An important feature, the anonymity of the computer use which includes having relationships with others, is critical to many of these offenders, perhaps especially the importuners.  Importuning type offenders often lack relationships or are involved in dissatisfied and conflictual relationships/marriages and the chat rooms allow an outlet to have connections with others.  This connection with others which may be legal (exposing oneself through webcams to other consenting adults) may be reinforcing and have an addictive quality. The adult male who searches for consenting women to view his ‘show’ may have a difficult time finding these women online. He may be afraid that the  individuals he is exposing himself to are in fact homosexual men posing as women. His exposing activities which may not qualify for exhibitionism (because the viewers are not ‘unsuspecting strangers’)  may be reinforcing to him when he does find viewers he deems appropriate. However, given his emotional deficits and need for anonymous connection, this type of offender is often vulnerable to an instant sex connection with an online law enforcement agent who he thinks is an adolescent female.
Importantly, one may question the differentiation of the behavioral reinforcement of the Internet use versus the function of the pornographic material itself.
 Quayle, E., & Taylor, M. (2002). Child pornography and the Internet: Perpetuating a cycle of abuse. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23.   Both resources serve the same purposes of obtaining reinforcing stimulation and avoiding negative mood and emotional states.  The Internet functions as an anonymous device to access both connections with others via chat rooms as well as a resource to obtain pornographic images to masturbate to.  Each behavioral sequence on the Internet serves as a motivation resulting in sexual arousal and orgasm which are pleasurable and intrinsically rewarding.   
Pornography offenders are unlike contact ‘hands on’ sex offenders as the access to the Internet is available and immediate, controlled and anonymous.  The predator who society fears is the individual who stalks children and abducts them on playgrounds eventually sexually assaulting them, often in  a heinous fashion.  Indeed, most pornography offenders do not use pornography as a vehicle to stimulate themselves to engage in a contact sex offense.

Well that is all I am going to post for now as I am having trouble to find any solid numbers in regards to the percentages of people arrested for CP crimes who qualify for a diagnosis of pedophilia versus pornography addiction. I know there is a pdf out there with such numbers though, as I recall reading it some years ago. I will continue looking and update this thread if I find it. Still I believe I have demonstrated citations proving that child pornography offenders fall somewhere on a wide typology that includes more than pedophiles, and additionally that they frequently do not qualify for pedophilia (as the last citation I give states).

The Tor devs are entirely against partial distribution of the main relay list. They are also entirely against further decentralization of the directory authority servers. Both of those things cause more harm than good, although it is the approach I2P has taken.

Earlier on the Tor development community seemed to have been much more focused on preventing attackers who can see exit traffic (the exit node, destination sites) from linking exit traffic to a single entity, than they were focused on preventing attackers from tracing targets in relatively short amounts of time. This is somewhat evident in the fact that circuits used to rotate once every thirty seconds, which would have resulted in attackers being able to trace people roughly twenty times faster than they can today (particularly as there were not even entry guards initially). The reason they changed from thirty seconds to ten minutes was not even because of this fact, but rather because the volunteer nodes had trouble keeping up with the computational demands of doing so many cryptographic operations to create new circuits so quickly. I believe that recently they have been giving more thought to increasing untraceability, and they currently have plans to extend circuit rotation time past ten minutes, reduce the number of selected entry guards and add layered entry guards. I am quite glad that they are heading in this direction, as I believe that a large majority of those who use Tor would prefer the chance for very strong anonymity/privacy at the risk of having no anonymity/privacy versus having weaker anonymity with a stronger guarantee of some anonymity/privacy. This is particular true for people like vendors on SR, because like I said, even if your circuit is pwnt for two seconds you are just as fucked as if it is pwnt for two hours.

First off, assassination of individuals is right out.

Helping Wikileaks out here and there is cool, they seem to be able to time some of their info well. But to me, Anonymous is very very good at manipulating and shutting down large and supposably secure, arcane systems (for Ex., sutting down MasterCard & Paypal to protest MC & PP's refusing to process payment for  WikiLeaks a few years back. ) If Anon. really wants to engage in warfare, keep control of, say, Iran's centrifuges, or for fun, traffic light control systems in large cities (keep the cameras monitoring everything, makes for great internet watching!)

Anonymous doesn't have hackers of such high caliber that they could realistically take control of Irans centrifuges. Also I agree that assassination of individuals is right out, we must kill entire groups of people.

Here's the problem with your thinking. When you would use force as a militant libertarian, it does not matter one whit any claims you make about not siding with anyone, you end up having to choose a side when enforcing your beliefs. So yes, that you would choose to side with the delusional fanatic's right to raise their kids ignorant of science over the innocent kid's right to learn science so he can make up his own mind whether to accept or reject it means that you are taking sides. You are siding with slavery. You are definitely NOT embracing freedom. 

I can only disagree with this.

Dude you must be high. There's no WAY ID was taught in public schools. School boards composed of religious extremists tried to get course curriculum changed to offer education of ID as a competing theory to evolution because they argued evolution is a "theory" like Intelligent Design is a "theory" so is equally valid. It really resembles the kind of false equivalency that is so pervasive in your thinking. But you can't just change something like that because there are uniform standards and a process involved in changing them. Yet here you are decrying uniform standards which in this case prevented ID being taught in those schools and will further prevent it being taught to your kid. It's for this reason that uniform standards were developed, to prevent falsifiable bullshit being outright adopted in our educational curriculum.
So who cares what the creationists do? It doesn't matter. You are under no threat of your child being taught creationism in public schools because our country was founded on the principle of a clear seaparation of church and state that was affirmed by the Supreme Court first in the Scopes monkey trial almost a century ago. Scopes established the precedent that has since been reaffirmed and upheld by every case of this nature that has appeared before any court ever since by a concept in law known as Stare Decisis as established precedent. Any attempt to teach ID would be instantly challenged in court and not tolerated. Church and state separation is a bedrock principle of our founding fathers as espoused by Thomas Jefferson. Didn't you learn this stuff in school? Ah, that's right. You had a superior private religious education didn't you? Figures they wouldn't teach you that.

I believe that you are incorrect. Every now and then I hear (rightfully) controversy about creationists having snuck some shit into the public school systems again.  Let me try to find some examples.

This actually contains a lot of information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#2004.E2.80.932005:_Dover.2C_Pennsylvania

Of Pandas and People became the focus of a litigation and controversy in Dover, Pennsylvania in 2004 after the Dover Area School Board endorsed it as a reference book. Perhaps inevitably, the ensuing court case was dubbed the "Panda Trial" by the media in an allusion to the famous "Monkey Trial" of 1925.[56]

Although the board did not actually purchase the book, 60 copies were donated to the district by an anonymous party. It was revealed in court that a school board member asked his church for donations for the purchase of those books[57] although that board member had denied all knowledge of the source of donation in an earlier deposition.[58] Amid an international controversy, the board also became the first in the US to promote the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom, sparking a lawsuit, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, by the American Civil Liberties Union and other plaintiffs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

This is just the first example I can find of creationism being taught in schools in the USA recently. It has happened on several occasions in several different ways though. You are right that it is unconstitutional, but so is the ban on child pornography possession and distribution and that hasn't stopped anyone from going to jail for it. The creationists do tend to get shut down pretty quickly, but it has been part of the curriculum at some public schools in the USA even as recently as the later 2000's, although I am not sure when the last reference I can find would be from. The courts do shut it down fairly quickly though, but then it just gets repackaged and pops up again. so you are not correct in saying that the entire public schools of the USA are free from creationism, just the majority of them are, and the minority that become temporarily infected are routinely quashed by the courts (until they repackage it as something else). The thing is in a highly religious area of the USA teaching creationism in school has enough public support that of course it is going to keep working its way into the curriculum before the courts can rule it illegal in its nth reincarnation (intelligent design being the newest version that I am aware of).

Yeah because you don't believe innocent kids have a right to be free if their parents enslave them by brainwashing them whereas I think they have a right to choose what to believe.
You keep returning to the false equivalency of what religious people think as if it somehow validates your point when all it does is just makes you look ludicrous and unhinged to any objective reader. So why don't you just admit that you secretly agree with what the religious people think? It's hard to believe anyone but a religious absolutist could introduce such an argument and think it was compelling. Since you proclaim your devotion to libertarian militancy you should have no shame admitting you're a fanatic. Religious zealotry and ideological fanatacism are just two sides of the same coin.

I am actually in essentially complete disagreement with the religious people, and am actually quite against religion in general as I see it causes a lot of bad things to happen, many of which actually negatively effect me. So you are incorrect to assume that I am a religious person, and actually I am substantially far from being a religious person. I am in favor of freedom though, including freedom for insane religious nuts.

But you haven't given a rational explanation why. Your argument "it interferes with their freedom" without offering a coherent explanation of WHY their freedom takes precedent over the enslavement of their children. Your answer so far of "because I value their right over their child's rights" just isn't compelling. Do you value their rights and support their "freedom" to sexually abuse their kids? I hope not. Well why not?

Of course I do not claim they have a right to sexually abuse their kids. I also do not think that they have a right to abandon or neglect their children, using the logic that they brought their children into existence, and thus if they leave their vulnerable children to fend for themselves, they have essentially initiated force against their children. I just do not personally hold abusing or neglecting children on the same level as teaching children religious dogma and refusing to teach them science.

But if libertarians that think like you had gotten their way by doing away with uniform educational standards, ID could have been taught in public schools because religious extremists were elected to school boards and/or formed the majority public opinion in certain school districts and imposed their will upon course curriculum. The irony is that with a more libertarian setup your kid WOULD actually be under the threat of being taught ID. Reality seems to have a habit of dictating something quite contrary to what you believe would happen.

First of all ID HAS been taught in public schools in the USA. Second of all libertarians do not think that there should even be public schools, as they do not think that there should be taxation to fund them. Libertarians believe that any private school can teach whatever they want, and children are free to go to whatever private school will take them / they can afford, and parents are not required to send their children to any particular private school or have them taught any particular curriculum.

So if a parent decided to not educate their kid at all and keep them confined at home and dumb as a stump doing slave labor for them on their farm that would be perfectly ok with you too using your logic here. You seem to have a sadistic side to you.

I do not believe that a parent has a right to keep a child confined at home if the child does not want to be confined at home. I do not claim that parents own their children, I only claim that I do not own their children and I do not own them (so therefor I can not force them to teach their children what I believe is right).

But the reasoning you used to show that was all fucked up. Look, it doesn't matter if the link doesn't apply in all cases. All that matters is that in the vast majority of cases there would be a link because providers of premium content would want to follow a profitable business model. The broken one you outlined would not be the case in the vast majority of premium child porn content for sale because its profitability is not sustainable. I haven't thought through the ethics of what you're proposing yet, but your claim that it doesn't "inherently" lead to CP production is besides the point. The fact that it WOULD be the case in the vast majority of cases should be reason enough. But if it even leads to only one less child being exploited, isn't it worth it to make CP distribution illegal? If you say no, I ask how you can be so callous? So you can protect the chump changers that are engaging in the semi-unethical borderline fraudulent activity of reselling freely copied content as premium content? Why are the freedoms of chump changers to conduct their business this way more important to you than the kids who would suffer sexual exploitation by producers trying to meet the increases in demand? What if it were your kid?

As I mentioned previously in this reply, the last major CP distribution group actually made three million dollars distributing content that was already freely available on Tor and Freenet. To the best of my knowledge, they used recycled and rebranded content and did not produce anything or pay producers to produce anything. Actually there is an extremely detailed history of child pornography that was leaked to Wikileaks by an insider in the commercial CP world, that goes into much more detail than what I have gone into in this thread. I highly suggest you read it, although it was indeed written by a sick pedophile who in some cases even minimized the immorality of forcible child rape. Regardless it is the best insider look into the world of CP that you will likely find, and again I remind you that my insight into the world of CP is largely from research and reading and not from first hand participation on any level (especially not distribution or production!). And no I do not think if it saves one child from being molested that it is worth it to make CP distribution illegal. From a utilitarian point of view (and really I am not a utilitarian, but in this case I would take such a view), I would see more value in preventing millions of people from going to prison for often unwittingly distributing CP on P2P networks, than I would on preventing one child from being molested.

Tell you what, in your world where chump changers try and sell repackaged free content copied off a hidden service to clueless noobs it isn't an issue. But in the vast majority of cases where kids are sexually exploited from child porn producers that turn a profit from your fucked up policies it would DEFINITELY be an issue.

I am against trading liberty and freedom for a little temporary protection.

What? First, your logic here is AFU because you're using figures from ONE commercial CP operation which says nothing about how many other operations could have profitably co-existed, especially if the depressed demand from making  possession and distribution illegal with harsh penalties were lifted. The market was far from saturated. Second, it doesn't address how legalization would allow distribution channels to operate freely and openly, increasing their exposure and accessibility to the masses. These are factors that would have definitely increased membership totals and the bottom line. 

Well to be fair, at the time there was essentially only ONE commercial CP operation in existence, so....

But I guess I can agree with you here for the most part, membership would have increased and so would the bottom line. But again this distributor was not producing they were selling old rebranded images from P2P networks and other sources.

But demand is never impossible to determine and is innately involved in the reasons to bring a product to market. If there were no demand it wouldn't be on the market. So it doesn't make sense to introduce a metaphor where demand for a product is impossible to determine. That's not how the real world works.

If not for commercialization you could indeed use PIR to perfectly obfuscate the demand for CP. Due to commercialization, there may be some side channels for this information to leak through, perhaps a boost in the number of people paying for access to the PIR correlates with the introduction of more CP to the PIR. However this would be speculative demand as the PIR would still be successful in totally obfuscating the actual demand for CP. That is how....mathematics works.

Dude, do you realize we've been talking about premium child porn? Without demand that sets a price for a premium commercial product, there's no premium commercial product. It's that simple.
And since I've been running linux since the mid nineties I think I'm pretty familiar with open source. Price doesn't have to involve just an affixed numerical figure from a denomination of currency although this is the way it's usually represented on econ charts. Demand for open source and linux is constrained by its increased complexity that makes it more difficult for the layman to use, lack of uniform customer support (too many distros for any uniformity even though some 3rd party vendors offer support), a need to RTFM everything especially when something breaks, etc. So the price for potential consumers is the time and commitment involved over other OS's. And I shouldn't have to explain how open source dev returns benefits that exceed the cost else they wouldn't be doing it. Read the mission statement from the Free Software Foundation if you have to. The return is not monetary and but instead involves other high valued intangible commodities. If there was really no cost, MS and other closed source vendors that produce dirt like OSX would be historical artifacts by now. I think I've been remarkably restrained in refraining from browbeating and telling you how clueless I know you are. So if you want to keep this civil, I'd rec doing the same. If not, let 'er rip.

If you are not just worried about dollars going to producers, then what other price is it that you are discussing in relation to premium CP? I am kind of confused by what you have written here actually. Also perhaps you should define premium for me, I take it to mean high end, but I also consider linux to be high end software that is provided to me for no financial charge so....

Not sure why you would bring this up again unless you remain fundamentally ignorant to the effect that illegality and the high priority the US DOJ places on shutting down child porn has on potential premium content suppliers. If anything the lack of commercial product confirms all the points I’ve been making; that making distribution and possesion illegal makes the production of premium content creation too high. The benefit to producing it does not outweigh the cost because profits are limited from demand  repressed by illegality.

This is easily refuted by once again pointing out that the largest production and distribution rings ever operated AFTER child pornography was made illegal to possess or distribute. Also the demand may be repressed but it is still enormous, there are literally tens of millions of people out there who are downloading CP on any given day. That seems like quite a lot of demand for CP to me. Also essentially none of them are paying for it.


PS: Another story about intelligent design being taught in a USA public school (and again of course the courts put an end to it. But it was briefly being taught. Looks like this time they at least taught it as philosophy instead of an evolution alternative!): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/