And who the hell are you accusing of defending pedophiles?!? Someone disagrees with your evidenceless blanket statement of who pedophiles are (“drawn to positions of power”) and you accuse them of defending pedophilia? What is wrong with you?

I say use the pictures as a sort of “methadone” to keep those so inclined happily masturbating to those historical pictures at home instead of haunting playgrounds.

The late Mike Dobbs used to say that we shouldn’t stop NAMBLA from publishing their magazines openly, since it makes it easier to track down child molesters if they have a forum to brag about their crimes.

I haven’t decided what I think of vance_tam’s idea, although I agree with Dobbs. I’m in favor of using Nazi research results (those few that are useful) and medical data from the US Public Health Service (despite the atrocities committed in Tuskegee) but I’m really not viscerally comfortable with creating a “Department of Kiddie Porn” that would be tasked with managing exploitative images.

You might be interested in reading some of the psychological research about “grooming”. McCartan (2008) says grooming is a three part process, involving the child, the community (which includes the family), and the “institution”. The institution referred to here is some societal construct that allows contact with a child in a way that is exploitable by the offender – institutions include schools, familial relationships, churches, law enforcement, medical and local support communities, etc. Anything that allows a paedophile to have contact with children can be a starting point for grooming activities. So people involved in those trades and activities will need to be more vigilant than the rest of us, if they don’t want to see their co-workers in the headlines.

I could give you more cites, but honestly my first Google query for academic papers on the subject returned over 8000 links. So I think you can check this out without filtering through me, if you’re still interested.

I have sympathy for the mentally ill, but it does not extend so far as to defend paedophiles. I cannot offer any argument in favor of ignoring their attraction to positions that allow them to exploit children, and I am surprised that you seem to be attempting it.

Much later: Attempting a late reply, SamSam… I was responding to your tone (and fragmuffins). You nitpicked my choice of words and then asked me to do your google searches for you, with the obvious intention of repeating the nitpicking and combative behavior (as now demonstrated). What’s wrong with me is I don’t want to engage in a fake argument with you, especially in the context of this post and my statement. You are usually not like this; you know how to use the Internet, where plenty of clarification and support of my general, colloquially formed statement can be easily found. You have no right to demand I do research to support your private definition of the phrase “positions of power”. The fact, and reality, is that paedophiles are drawn to children, and some occupations and relationships inherently permit access to and control over children, and therefore paedophiles prefer those occupations and will focus on developing such relationships. You don’t need to take my word for it, do the ten minutes of research yourself and you will find abundant “citations”.

Don’t confuse leadership with tyranny.

The entire argument surrounding child porn is a very touchy subject. There are photo books (quite a few) that we sold throughout asia with attractive young children, there’s still a brisk market for the clothed “idol” style, too.

IMHO, I think if a person wants that sort of porn they should be permitted to have it. The amount that’s been created since photography was invented should be enough to satisfy anyone. Just dole out a TB a year to anyone who registers. There’d be enough to give them a TB per year forever.

I don’t condone it, but I see it as a prohibition that drove its production underground and hidden it from sight. I am deathly sorry that children were damaged in its creation. I really am. But it was done and now its history and I can’t make it undone. Children are kidnapped/raped/murdered/ etc. to create a new supply for those willing to risk social destruction and misery until the die just to have it. If it was freely available to those willing to register, perhaps the creation sources would dry up?

I don’t have the answer. But I know I would rather have a child lover masturbating to photographs in the privacy of their own home, than for them to grab some kid from a playground to get their jollies.

BWAAA-HA-HA-HA!!!

Actually, statistically most pedophiles are family members of the victims, which doesn’t really have any bearing on the “positions of power” question.

Except Planned Parenthood wasn’t trying to fly anywhere.

That’s hardly the same thing.

Right?

No?

F**k all that innocent until proven guilty

Where did you get the idea that everyone is entitled to a government job working in security? Innocent until proven guilty refers to courts of law. Employers, including the government, have the right to deny a job to someone if they have reason to think that they can’t do the job in a safe manner. If you fail a security check, you don’t get the job. This guy absolutely should have failed a security check.