If you read the popular news-media, you'll get the impression that the internet is full of pornographic pictures of small children being raped and tortured and that a secret mafia is making billions of on this business. Well, this is the kind of stories that sell newspapers, but very far from the truth.

It is true that some pedophiles are sharing their pictures on the internet, but the extent, the lewdness, and the amount of money involved has been highly exaggerated by the media. Most of the pictures show clothed children. A fraction of the pictures shows naked children, typically playing on a beach or in other non-sexual situations. Within the fraction showing naked children, only a tiny fraction of this fraction shows children in sexual situations.

The traffic takes place mostly in the usenet newsgroups. Those pictures that are illegal (which only few of them are) are always posted anonymously or with a phony 'from'-address for obvious reasons. This means that it is impossible to make money on these activities. From time to time some naive fool is trying to make money on child porn - lured by the claims in the press that this is a very profitable business, which it certainly isn't. These commercial attempts have always been stopped very quickly: If the potential customers can find the pusher then so can the police. And if the police don't have the resources to track down a child pornographer then the mass media certainly have. The ones that are making big money on child porn are not those who attempt to sell it, but the mass media that sell stories about it!

The fact that no money is involved is actually a positive development. Anybody who would make child porn for profit is kept out of the market as long as a sufficient amount of pictures are available for free on the internet. It is, after all, less traumatizing for a child to be photographed by an amateur on the beach or at the pool, than by a greedy mafia-type believing that he can make more money the more hard-core he can make the pictures.

The anti-porn lobby keeps saying that pornography is dangerous because it inspires people to commit sex crimes. But the truth is exactly the opposite: pornography is used as a substitute for frustrated people who might otherwise lose self-control and go out and commit a crime. This is shown very clearly by statistics. The rate of serious sex crimes against children fell remarkably in Denmark in the 1960's when pornography became available.

Criminological research has shown that this dramatic fall in sex crimes is real. It cannot be explained as a change in the propensity to report such crimes. There can be no doubt that pornography prevents crime.

In the 1950's, Copenhagen police hunted male prostitutes. The rumor went among the hustlers that they would get a milder treatment by the police if they said that they had been seduced into homosexuality. Hearing this persistent claim from the hustlers, police officer Jens Jersild concluded that homosexual seduction can cause permanent homosexuality in these boys, who will later perpetuate the phenomenon by seducing the next generation of boys. This theory, which Jersild published in several books and articles, led to a vicious witch-hunt against homosexuals. This witch-hunt didn't end until the medical profession debunked Jersild's seduction theory.

The lesson we can learn from this story is that you cannot mix scientific research with criminal investigation. The persons interviewed during a police investigation are more motivated to tell what they think will benefit themselves that what will contribute to the advancement of science. But current research in child porn is repeating exactly this mistake. When a person is arrested for sexual involvement with a child, he may try to put the blame on something or somebody else. If he puts the blame on the child, they rightly won't listen. If he puts the blame on pornography, then they'll listen enthusiastically and write articles about porn making people commit crimes.


Since child porn evidently prevents crimes, the only reason for banning it would be if children are harmed during the production of the pictures. And, surely, some children are indeed harmed if an insensitive photographer is forcing them to perform acts that they dislike.
Anyway, an effort to protect children from the possible harm of being involved in child porn should be directed at the primary production, not the possession of such pictures and films. Most of the material that is actually circulating consists of old pictures that have been copied again and again. Trying to destroy the material that already exists can never do any good - on the contrary, it will stimulate the production of new material. If people who need child porn cannot get it anywhere they may try to produce it themselves. The more difficult it is to get child porn the more people will produce it themselves. Any attempt to remove child porn from the internet will thus lead to an increase in the primary production of pornographic pictures which is where the actual harm is done.

For example, Swedish police have claimed to have found vast amounts of child porn documenting thousands of child molestations, many of them in Sweden. An independent investigation found that most of the films were copies of the same old films, documenting only 2 cases of child abuse in Sweden in seventeen years, and 40 in the rest of Europe. A strange alliance between certain policemen, Save the Children, Queen Silvia, and the media is campaigning for a change in the Swedish constitution for the purpose of banning the possession of child pornography. One piece of evidence that has been widely used in this campaign is a five minutes excerpt from a porn film showing a boy being abused. Swedish police have claimed that this boy is probably Swedish. They say that he is drugged, probably abducted, and possibly killed. A lawyer who has seen the whole film says that nothing in the film supports these claims. In fact the boy was very awake and involved in the action. It later turned out that the boy was Dutch and that the abuser was his older brother. But such debunking of course cannot stop the emotional campaign



When police investigate a suspicion of child porn possession, they routinely seize all videos found in the home of the suspect in order to examine if any of the films contain illegal scenes. But the way these actions are presented in the newspapers often gives the impression that all the seized material is illegal. For example, in 1994 Canadian police raided the home of a 50 year old high school teacher and left with 875 videotapes as well as lots of magazines and photographs. On the next day, the videos made an appearance at a press conference. They were stacked by the hundreds around the chief of police as he revealed to reporters the enormity of the problem of child porn in London, Ontario. In a matter of days, Ontario's solicitor general announced funding for a province-wide task force to be headed by London police. Everyone just assumed that the videotapes contained child porn. But prosecutors never charged the man with anythig connected to those tapes. And for good reason. What the police seized was a magnificent collection of Hollywood movies and European art films.

The newspapers often give the impression that the typical child porn picture shows the brutal rape of small children, sometimes as young as 2 years old. But the truth is that such pictures are extremely rare, if they exist at all! The ever-wider definition of child pornography means that in many jurisdictions it covers 'children' as old as 17 years and even adults dressed up as children. They don't have to be involved in any sexual activity: Pictures of nude children or even drawings are illegal in many countries. One man has even been prosecuted for the possession of a film showing clothed children where the camera in one scene zoomed in on the crotch. The only logical reason for including such pictures in the definition of child porn is to boost statistics and fuel the hysteria so as to get more ressources for the police!


Another way of boosting the statistics is entrapment. It has become a popular sport among police agents and postal inspectors to offer child porn for sale to persons suspected of being interested in such material, and then arrest them if they take the bait. Hundreds of persons have gone to jail solely for crimes that the authorities thus have incited them to do. Given the fact that the only legal way of getting access to child porn in the USA is to be an entrapment agent, it is hard to avoid the suspicion that some agents have clandestine motives for engaging in this business. In fact, there is an increasing number of cases where police officers are charged with child porn or sex charges.


The legality of such entrapments has often been disputed, and in some cases they are definitely illegal. In the spring of 1988, Boston police recruited a hardened criminal as a secret agent in order to entrap a 58 years old man in Denmark by the name of J?rgen Jensen suspected of selling child pornography. Mr Jensen, who had never been in America before, was lured on a paid trip to Boston with the promise of a very high profit if he could deliver some child porn. Such entrapments are illegal according to Danish law, and the American agent carried out the operation in Denmark without the knowledge of Danish authorities. After a few years in prison, Mr Jensen was released back to Danmark, probably due to the diplomatic crisis that ensued over the operation of the American agent provocateur in Denmark.

New dubious ways of keeping the child porn hysteria alive are invented all the time, but certainly not to the benefit of the children.

I've never come across CP on the internet,but then again like most people I don't use the net for adult material,but for news and chat.

That the net is full of adult smut and filth I have no doubts,but have also read elsewhere that the whole CP thing was blown up to get funding for NGOs to go interfering everywhere.
Even twenty years ago in Thailand these same NGOs ran riot,and USA money was tied to Thai government participation,and help given.Of course drugs were the bigger thing back then,but CP was a growing area of interference.
What is easy to forget that in other cultures ages of consent/marriage etc vary.In India often puberty is a sign for marriage,and in Thailand probally not so different.

We need a bogeyman to sell papers,and sex sells.The same papers ranting and raving about pedos used to have 16 yo girls like Sam Fox nude inside page 3.

Once we've done with CP,wonder what will be next?

wow..that's a long dissertation but I reckon you reveal some new facts.

I certainly believe that authorities exagerate the instances of child porn and go to great lengths to terrify people about the 'pedo behind every bush' scenario.

The last USA Attorney General Alberto Gonzales-who incidently wrote appraisals that the US could use torture that included , as he admitted on a TV interview the "crushing of a young boy's testicles or rape of a child belonging to a suspected terrorist to gain information"-claimed there were 'billions of child porn internet sites',a claim repeated by the self appointed 'child protectors'.

It sounds quite ludicrous to me but they rope in all those sites that may have porn with suspected under 18 year olds from East Europe (and should include the infamous"Page 3 girls")

Personally-I haven't got a clue what's really out there but I reckon authorities love to protect their turf and love weaving in probably horrible child abuse with maybe slightly underaged teens who pose for money and don't give a toss about the pics-and to boot-those teens who are into 'sexting'.

I've had this conversation with journalists-who claim child porn victims say it ruins their lives yet if you ask them what proof they have it's always after having spoken to 3/4 people who have claimed compo-hardly a scientific study and none can still answer my usual question-that if just looking at a child porn pic repeats the crime all over again , where does that leave police, judges, court officials, juries and so on ?

never got an answer yet.

However I like your theory that it's the tabloids who really profit out of this stuff by flogging newsprint and in The Sun's case-literally up to a few years ago. Where are those old Page 3 girls ?...there's a fortune to be made by suing..perhaps I should get a lawyer to place an advert for a class action ! (but I want 15%)

ps : Someone in the know who has had a really good look at News Corp's breakdown of profits-real figures on the profits of some newspapers are concealed in overall figures-say it's grim news about The Sun, NoTW and the Times plus the overall debts levels could cause a heart attack.

Child Porn does exist and here is where :

1. BEBO and MY SPACE

2. MAJOR LABEL VIDEOS on YOU TUBE

3. TITITLATION STORIES ON THE MSM

Even in the DAILY MAIL this week there has been an article saying that our kids are SEXUALISED at an early age by these things.

The idea that CHILD PORN is a sub genre of PORN for people in DIRTY MACS is a 1950s stereotype.

In 2009 the "Sexualised" child is enjoyed by those in "power" the "elite" of our society who see no value in human life and exploit both children and the old. These people pack out our House of Parliament and House of Lords - they are the Senior Police in our Police Forces - and they are the rich banksters who run our finance systems.

This is the real truth about what is going on and how they try to cover it up by blaming everyone else except themselves.

I keep saying this but in the BIGGEST SECRET by David Icke there is a tremendous chapter about WHAT REALLY IS HAPPENING to children in the World ( and this was written in the mid 1990s - but still true now )

A paedo is someone who like PRE PUBESCENT children - e.g usually under 12. That is very sick in my view and does not represent at all what is being hailed as Paedo in the media.

They seem to suggest that ordinary teenage experimentation is Sex Offending.

This is ideal because it suits the elite and their twisted ways. David Icke even suggests the reasons WHY the elite like being paedophiles - which is a very compelling argument.

No wonder the MAINSTREAM MEDIA wants to rubbish David Icke - they are terrified that he knows the truth about their Lords and Masters. Which he does. When the media "rubbishes" someone and bad mouths them - you have to consider WHY ? if David ICke is such a nutter then there would be no need to do such things - do they do this to the "Mentally Ill person" in your area ? Do they ? Of course not. The only logical conclusion is that they need to keep trying to damage his reputation.

All round the world millions read and listen to David Icke - not as a guru or religious leader - but as someone who has found out the truth about our ELITE and is willing to say it as it is.

Each year more facts leak out about how the ELITE are ripping us all off. How they cheat about their expenses - how they lie to create wars - how they create viruses in order to cash in on the vaccines - how they manipulate World events and starve millions i the third world. We all now know THESE THINGS are true - if we had listened to ICKE in the early 90s we could have done something about it nearly 20 years ago.

Child Porn is a myth. It is a "growth industry" for the Police. It is a way to take computers away from POLITICAL OPPONENTS and JOURNALISTS with no reason - and then to be able to go through their work. YOu dont need ONE photo on your machines to get them all taken by the POLICE. Not even an allegation. They take computers of OPPONENTS to New Liebour EVERY DAY. This is the POLICE STATE in action.

Always leave copies of your work on servers - so if you ever lose your computers because you disagreee with New Labour you can continue working. Also any sensitive documents for your business or private life - use external storage in cyber space. Or make sure nothing on your PCs is of any use to New Liebour.