A Virginian was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment this week for possession of child pornography.
Child porn represents all most people have no sympathy for. A record of child-rape produced to satisfy people with a sickness some assert is grounds for execution. I’m not going to defend it on any level.
Unfortunately public revulsion makes for poor debate and even poorer law.
The Virginian man received 20 emails describing child abuse, 14 photographs of children being abused and 20 “obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in sexual intercourse with adult males”.
It’s the anime that makes this worthy of comment.
The 2003 PROTECT act (Public Law 108-21 – PDF link) defines photorealistic images of children engaging in sexually explicit conduct as child pornography.
According to PROTECT you can be sent to jail for thinking about and then drawing picture of child abuse. You need never distribute the images, attempt to profit from them or make them public. PROTECT is thought-crime legislation and by removing the distinction between reality and fantasy, makes criminalizing art, literature, music and conversation possible in a way that would have made Stalin smile.
Attacks on adult’s rights to consume explicit material will always start with child porn because its users elicit no sympathy, but if we refuse to challenge the principles of laws like PROTECT their use will be extended and debacles like the Austrian conviction of a Holocaust denier for writing a book will become more common.
The Virginian man would be as guilty of possession of child-pornography if the PROTECT act wasn’t in place. If someone only possesses Anime with criminal themes shouldn’t we be level-headed enough to say that, however distasteful, imagined child-abuse is a sick-fantasy not a crime?
Popularity: 35% [?]
You would think. However as you’ve noticed the U.S. is at that awkward stage, when the citizenry are perfectly willing to give up unpopular, distasteful aspects of freedom – or freedoms that protect the unpopular and distasteful – but haven’t inconvenienced the general populace enough to make people fight rather than complain.
Outlawing bad ideas doesn’t make them go away; it makes them more interesting. When it’s legal to express a bad idea, but the idea itself is still generally disapproved of, the people espousing it just look like fucking morons.
In a free marketplace of ideas, the bad ones will be exposed (or, at least, have the potential to be exposed) for what they are, and the good ones will be challenged and strengthened through debate. Yay intellectual capitalism.
I agree with you Sam, but I’m not sure if using the racist historian David Irving as an analogy works well here.
Irving has for many years actively promoted anti-semitism and racial hatred – which is why he was jailed in Austria (since doing so is a crime there); owning child pornography and being jailed through the ‘thought crime’ law of PROTECT is something totally different.
The need for debate about the ’sickness’ of child pornography is valid; supression of it through such a law does not stop its existence – or help those children exposed to it. We need to question why it is that some people fantasise about this form of abuse, not just lock them up and throw away the key – that solves nothing, bar temporary punishment.
But comparing this Stalinistic law with ones that prevent racist ideologists from spreading their propaganda is just wrong, in my opinion: one man selling millions of books espousing racial hatred has a lot more political power than one man in Virginia owning some offensive and abusive pictures of children – as upsetting as they might be in contrast.
Girl – David Irving wasn’t put in prison for inciting hatred. His crime was Holocaust denial – “Irving was arrested in Austria in November, on a warrant dating back to 1989, when he gave a speech and interview denying the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz.”
His only criminal action was expressing a shitty idea. That’s totally applicable. He plead guilty to Holocaust denial and is now a martyr for misguided Fascists everywhere (Irving claimed to have re-canted in court).
The way to limit flawed thinking is to expose bad ideas to the antiseptic of sunlight, critical analysis and debate. The law that put Irving in jail, like PROTECT, tries to limit speech and I think there’s a valid comparison to be made.
I’m confused about how this law can even be applied to anime. Section 502 of PROTECT outlaws:
‘‘(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer
image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable
from, that of a minor engaging in sexually
explicit conduct; or”;
and it defines “indistinguishable” for us as well:
‘‘(11) the term ‘indistinguishable’ used with respect to a
depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction
is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction
would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged
in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply
to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or
paintings depicting minors or adults.”
Seems to me like anime is completely ruled out right there. PROTECT was put in place because it was becoming a common defense in kiddie porn cases to say that the image might be computer generated. So the prosecution was having to prove that the image was of an actual child. Granted, that seems to be fair, as the burden of proof should be on the prosecution.
Section 504 is related to obscenity and says that such depictions have to be found to be obscene and also lacking” serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;”
So, just drawing a picture doesn’t get you locked away, clearly the jury judged these images to be obscene. Sounds like we’re back to the obscenity discussion from last week then?
Ellie – I hear you but the guy’s in jail. I think you’re making some potentially questionable assumptions. Anime (in the eyes of the court) might include photo-real computer generated animation. Even if it didn’t – the content was counted in his trial under PROTECT and that’s the story. Arguing the law’s not applicable isn’t going to change how it’s been applied in reality?
I used the term ‘draw’ to encompass any form of creative expression that’s not photographic. My point is no different if it’s a sketch or a high-res render. If it’s not real the tools are irrelevant ‘drawing’ child porn can get you locked away and that’s the danger with PROTECT.
Of course – if you’re making the point that you see a difference depending on the realism of the rendering I see. Of course even realism’s highly subjective and I’d be interested why realism’s a factor?
What I’m saying is that the law has two different components. Section 502 is that representations that are indistinguishable treated the same way as kiddie porn. This negates the “prove it is a real child” defense that has appeared in some of these cases. That section specifically says that cartoons, drawings, etc. don’t count.
Section 504 is some sort of extension or clarification of obscenity law as it relates to images of children in non-realistic settings. It still requires the image in question to fail the “merit” test.
I’m not really arguing for anything one way or another – just pointing out a detail. I suspect that the case in question got the guy on regular kiddie porn charges and an additional obscenity charge for the anime. The fact that the anime was found obscene might be the problem here – not whether they considered the anime to be on the same level of actual pictures of real children.
Your initial point, that photorealistic images might deserve protection, is well taken. I wasn’t making an argument about that one way or another.
Ellie – I hear you. I think the law’s a joke though. It is specifically designed to deal with imagined images. That it then tries to differentiate in terms of their mode of production is fatuous – the entire construct is a distraction from the point.
If I produce a photorealistic airbrushed image, scan it into my computer, tweak it a bit and post it on a website I’m a sex-offender, if I hang it in the local coffee-shop I’m an artist? Utterly asinine.
The ‘prove it’s real’ defense shouldn’t be hard to knock down. Forensic analysis leaves traces and photoreal work needs 3d rendering tools, time and skill. Video? Forget about it. Photoshop’s been leaving ‘invisible’ footprints in our files for years and I think any claim that pedophiles are evading prosecution due to that defense is likely fear-mongering.
The victims of pedophiles are the children harmed in its production. Until they’re not being harmed laws like PROTECT (named with the subtle grace of the PATRIOT act) harm our freedoms and perpetuate the myth that pedophiles operate because the laws don’t exist to stop them. No one should go to prison for generating an image in a computer unless there’s proof that image is somehow integral to a crime. PROTECT makes some images ‘dangerous’ by their very nature. Fahrenheit 451…
“PROTECT is thought-crime legislation and by removing the distinction between reality and fantasy, makes criminalizing art, literature, music and conversation possible in a way that would have made Stalin smile.”
Pedophilia has existed throughout the ages, it’s not a new development in recent history, it goes way back in time but the context was also different.
In ancient Greece boys were viewed as holding the key to innocence and beauty, it wasn’t about ‘ass pounding horny cum loads’, the ‘pornography of then’ differs to that of ‘now’ and this is what makes it a valid issue for child pornography, in any way or form to be policed.
I haven’t seen any of Marquis de Sade’s works banned from any bookstores recently, so there is room that rules out the banning of literature, and this is the key point, literature. The writing that is on many pornographic sites is not literature, it doesn’t describe the wider world, the varies philosophies that exist, it doesn’t examine anything but the sex, and that’s the difference right there.
Child porn sites are skin sites, for people who have not matured psychologically, they’re stunted, just like Humbert Humbert in Lolita. The sex ‘today’ in relation to child porn, mimics that of adult sex. How can a five year old comprehend that?
Pedophilia in literature (as a theme) is broader, it works to describe the situations that may trigger the event, the repercussions, expand on the social issues or relfect a certain part of society, the current world – child pornography doesn’t do this it operates on the flesh and image, and that’s why it needs to be policed because it doesn’t offer anyone (except the dysfunctional ‘few’, and yes they’re sexually dysfunctional) anything with substance. It is representative of parents selling their children’s underdeveloped genitalia for any ‘bidder’ and that’s no different to white slavery, except that it occurs on the web.
So there are two sides, the ’sellers’ who want to make cash, the parents or guardians who photograph these kids and the pederasts. One side is validating the fantasies of the other whereas in much literature this isn’t ‘validated’ in a commercial sense. So when naked children are on the web, it’s not a ‘fantasy’ it’s a reality because the kids are being photographed, they’re too young to give their full consent or understand fully what is happening, therefore any legislation is valid.
In regard to people being apprehended for ‘fantasising’, well it’s the reactional force that is because what occurs when police are investigating, investigations taking so much time due to the technological aspects involved because the sites are underground, the webmaster is arrested (‘if’, because they don’t usually catch them), but the users, the subscribers are arrested because they subscribe with their credit cards (address details etc).
The arrest is a warning bell that it won’t be tolerated and child pornography shouldn’t be tolerated or passed off as a a ’sex alternative’. We’re supposedly living in a more ‘civilised’ world with so much knowledge, compared to de Sade’s time, and yet, there is a minority out there who will validate child pornography and usually the people who do that have no children of their own.
There’s an earlier point(s) about the nature of the imagery, whether it’s real or not. In court cases like these the images aren’t made available to the public to see, the images may also depict other acts as well.
When an image is basically childish, anatomically, whether it’s a photograph of a real child or not, it’s still child-porn, just like in adult porn there are adult images that are realistic portraying adults (large breasts for example) having sex and sure enough these adult cartoons aren’t outlawed, an example of more extreme images are the cartoons of Roberts (bdsm cartoons, that usually focus on ‘rape fantasy’) but the distinction between children and adults is probably more so linked to adults being ‘able’ to arrive at a conclusion, sexually, about what they want whereas children aren’t yet capable of making that decision.
Hentai may not portray anatomically ‘realistic’ humans or adults, but the images are usually childish and the very word ‘Hentai’ means perverted/perversion, so it follows that the acts depicted are more extreme and are depicted to take place between people who look (in many ways) like children. In a sense it’s like a loophole, where if real photography cannot be used, the second best alternative (for profit) is the cartoon.
The issue at hand isn’t whether or not a visual record of a crime being committed (photographic child porn) is defensible; it’s whether or not a fictional depiction of those acts should be illegal.
Cartoons and drawings are explicitly included in the statute (in other words, a fictional visual depiction of sexual abuse of children is specifically rendered illegal, if its primary intent is arousal), and the man in question was convicted for receiving the cartoons, not just for the actual photographs of child porn.
This is legislation directed at a visual representation of an idea that would be illegal if acted out.
Whether or not pedophiles are using fictional drawings of child abuse to get off doesn’t really matter. It’s gross, but it doesn’t matter. We can’t control what another person uses to get off; in the absence of prurient/”obscene” materials there’s always the classic skip-through-the-plot maneuver every 12 year old knows. The point isn’t what they do with the image; the point is that the legislation assumes creating or receiving that type of image should be a sex crime (which means registering as a sex offender, which in Virginia means having your personal information accessible by your nosy, heavily armed neighbors).
It should not be a crime to draw, receive, or look at a fictional image, period, whether or not it’s gross or distasteful.
Frankly I think eliciting arousal is as valid as eliciting any other emotional or physical response, but the discomfort lies in the fact that it is primarily a physical response. There’s still a lot of Gnostic demonization of the body going on. Triggering arousal with uncomfortable imagery isn’t artistically invalid – it’s an old trick used by horror writers and surrealist artists, triggering confusion/shame/disgust/curiosity that makes people look at what’s causing the arousal and at what’s causing the feelings around it.
Of course, a lot of the time horror artists don’t come out and whap you over the head with their artistic intent, assuming there is one other than “This is a scary, freaky picture;” they leave it to happen in your head. If this were a different decade with the same types of people in power they’d be the ones fighting obscenity charges. Different decade – different target.
The idea of child porn won’t make people pedophiles. Pictures of the idea of child porn won’t make people pedophiles. It might trigger some discomfort with that borderline attraction to younger teenagers, but it’s not going to break people’s brains. The horror craze of the ’70’s and ’80’s didn’t turn most people into mass murderers, and a great deal of the genre materials (visual, video, and written) produced had about the same amount of plot as an obscene work…
“It should not be a crime to draw, receive, or look at a fictional image, period, whether or not it’s gross or distasteful.”
-gross or distasteful in other words substitute for ‘obvious childish physical traits and anatomy’ huh?
It’s not just the subject of ‘animation’ here, it’s also the issue of a marketplace for children’s genitalia as an extension of that too, as well as imagery of children in sexual acts, which is what the article also refers to.
“The idea of child porn won’t make people pedophiles. Pictures of the idea of child porn won’t make people pedophiles.”
When Millikan’s electric shock experiments occured, they weren’t ‘real’, no shocks were give, but they indicated that an average ‘Joe’ could transform into a war criminal if they were conditioned enough.
So who’s to say that continual stimuli, images of children, when exposed to a person at a pivotal point in their sexual development won’t leave imprints for later?
But it’s so easy to use other words, that generalise and lump everything into the ‘gross’ category.
“Frankly I think eliciting arousal is as valid as eliciting any other emotional or physical response, but the discomfort lies in the fact that it is primarily a physical response.”
So I guess it’s all right to film a five year old girl sucking an adult male’s cock as long as it elicits arousal?
Horror films use fake blood, fake body parts.
child pornography on the web, in photographic form, uses real children. cartoons, that aren’t ‘art’, that are only mass produced images that look the same all the time, only act to cement a particular idea – that of children having, not just ‘average run of the mill sex’ but other more extreme forms.
(my pc is so screwed cutting out)..
but in answer to the title of the topic:
Is ’some’ child pornography okay?
no.
“-gross or distasteful in other words substitute for ‘obvious childish physical traits and anatomy’ huh?”
Nah, gross or distasteful, as in addressing both the specific issue at hand (cartoons depicting child abuse) and the more generalized idea behind the PROTECT act (that fictional depictions of disgusting things should be illegal).
“It’s not just the subject of ‘animation’ here, it’s also the issue of a marketplace for children’s genitalia as an extension of that too, as well as imagery of children in sexual acts, which is what the article also refers to.”
I wasn’t addressing the issue of a marketplace for children’s genitalia so much as the issue of people criminalizing depictions of ideas they don’t like (criminalizing the production of obscenity rather than just the distribution and receipt is something fairly new, and not a positive development as obscenity can only be determined in court – basically you can now be put on trial for drawing CP, and since obscenity prosecutions are damaging and drawn out there’s a lot of pressure to settle when in fact no crime may have been committed).
Do I think the fact that there is a marketplace for kids’ genitals is a positive, healthy thing? No. But I think the idea of a child engaging in sexual activity and the reality of parents raping their kids and taking pictures are two very different things, and it’s widely acknowledged among organizations that investigate and prosecute pedophiles that there’s a tremendous difference between those that just think about it and those that act it out (a minority of pedophiles). It’s not a minor distinction, it’s the difference between a sick bastard and an abuser and it should be the difference between a sick bastard and a criminal.
“When Millikan’s electric shock experiments occured, they weren’t ‘real’, no shocks were give, but they indicated that an average ‘Joe’ could transform into a war criminal if they were conditioned enough.
So who’s to say that continual stimuli, images of children, when exposed to a person at a pivotal point in their sexual development won’t leave imprints for later?”
Conditioning is real, obviously. However there hasn’t been anywhere near enough research done on sexual conditioning. I know that it exists. I also know that with most deviant sexual behaviors, the imprinting is done at a fairly young age (and I sincerely doubt there are a lot of 10-12 year olds looking for cartoon kiddie porn). For the most part, kids encounter images of sexual child abuse when they’re being groomed by a pedophile, obviously in the hopes that some sort of arousal, normalization, or conditioning will take place – but from what little we know of pedophilia (http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia.html#Causes), that’s not how most pedophiles become pedophiles. It’s possibly due to some form of sexual abuse early on, but it’s not considered to be caused by child porn or real porn.
I think a lot more research needs to be done on what causes pedophilia. We don’t know enough at this point to say one way or the other what triggers it. However the ages at which paraphilia imprinting starts (generally before puberty, and thusly before sex drive and curiosity induce porn-hunting) and current research indicate it’s pretty unlikely.
“But it’s so easy to use other words, that generalise and lump everything into the ‘gross’ category.”
If I was afraid to use the phrase child porn I wouldn’t have used it so often in the comment you quoted. However Sam’s post did try to show the PROTECT act as a legislative trend that applies to issues other than child porn, and so I used the “gross” category because fictional images of torture, racism, etc. also fall into that “gross” category and would be next on the agenda.
I wrote: “Frankly I think eliciting arousal is as valid as eliciting any other emotional or physical response…”
Anastasia responded: “So I guess it’s all right to film a five year old girl sucking an adult male’s cock as long as it elicits arousal?”"
Uh… What does that have to do with anything? Seems to me like a misleading, inflammatory question that would be answered with a simple reread of my comment.
Never, anywhere in my comment did I say actual child porn was okay. It’s a crime, it’s a record of a crime and that’s as it should be.
The PROTECT act distinguishes between legally safe “art” involving child sexual abuse and crime by using the ambiguous legal term obscenity. If you follow obscenity law and its implications at all, you’ve probably heard the phrase “appeals to the prurient interest” used to describe one of the factors that qualifies a work as obscenity.
Prurience is defined, legally, as appealing primarily to a sick, morbid, shameful or degrading interest in sex and one of its defining factors is the primary intent to arouse – basically to produce porn. Pretty much any other primary intent falls under artistic merit or educational/historical/scientific value.
Removing primary intent to cause arousal from the scope of obscenity law – hell, removing obscenity law – would not render “a five year old girl sucking an adult male’s cock” legal. I suppose I should have stated explicitly that my comments about triggering arousal as a valid artistic intent were meant as a stab at the current state of obscenity law. My mistake.
That said, in your comments you often blur the line between fictional representations of child sex abuse and actual child porn, which is an actual record of an actual crime. The one is thought-crime, the creation of which was recently made illegal, and the other is actual crime, which has been illegal for a very long time. They are very different in that creating #1, hentai with a cartoon 8 year old as the central cast member, doesn’t hurt any actual 8 year olds and creating #2, a photographic, real video with an actual 8 year old as the central cast member, harms actual 8 year olds.
Jesus – long comments.
Anastasia – “…any legislation is justified.” You can’t mean that. Can you?
You can’t argue that child-porn’s a conditioning tool without accepting the same effects for violent material, gay material and everything else. I’m with you on the influence of media but don’t believe it changes character. You could lock most people in a room and force them to watch a child-porn loop without any danger of making them a predator.
Thinking about abusing children while looking at renderings of it is certainly distasteful, but how is it more criminal than thinking about killing people while watching horror movies?
“Thinking about abusing children while looking at renderings of it is certainly distasteful, but how is it more criminal than thinking about killing people while watching horror movies?”
That’s what I was getting at. If I’d said it that way it would’ve saved a lot of scrolling…
Sabrina – normally about 3 screens into any thread of comments I manage to rewrite my initial post as a single sentence. I’m such an amateur…
Seriously I don’t understand why there is a need to analyse a simple question.
Do I think that Hentai is ’sex positive?’ answer to that is no. Why? It’s straightforward really because it doesn’t depict ‘adults’ it depicts a child.
Sam- in regard to legislation in regard to imagery used to profit, especially when it concerns child porn, yes I do believe it’s required ( I didn’t say ‘everything should be legislated) even though it can never be enforced but that doesn’t mean that half assed pseudo intellectual arguments justify a type of pornography, not even a ‘little’ bit of it. In all other porn that concerns adults, adults make a decision, they’re capable of making a decision but to essentially be ‘lax’, therefore enable another separate market to emerge (in relation to Sabrina’s earlier comment).
Also Sabrina:
“Never, anywhere in my comment did I say actual child porn was okay. It’s a crime, it’s a record of a crime and that’s as it should be.”
Well you didn’t specifically ’state’ that child pornography is NOT OKAY?
And the question I ask is that ‘why’ for a simple question:
is ’some’ child pornography okay?
that people pussyfoot around it.
It’s a yes or no question.
What I find astounding and sometimes irritating is that certain pornographers of adult porn, on the Internet will be half arsed about this issue just because they don’t want to ‘appear’ anti ‘anything’ sexually related but when it involves children then how is it sexual?
Other prolific pornographers (not Internet ones) don’t even bother analysing the whys and wheretofores because they know (the Hugh Hefners of this world) that it’s a subject that shouldn’t be engaged in a ‘oh gee maybe, I don’t know but I’ll refer to this law, this idea/concept’ style.
I realise my commentary may have irritated many but I don’t see why, just because a website is porn related that an issue such as child pornography needs to be analysed in regard to legislation.
Child pornography is separate from adult pornography. It shouldn’t be a market because if it were a market, where do you all think the children would come from? There is only so much ‘animation’ that people will accept, before they’ll want to see the real thing.
The other reality is that I’m betting none of you were the arresting officers, none of you were on the jury and yet there’s this sudden brouhaha over legislation regarding child porn. There must have been a reason for prosecuting this man but there’s also the other aspect: this site is for adult porn is it not? Isn’t child pornography a separate issue? Yes or no?
How many people in the above commentry have answered the question at hand, whether it is ‘all right’ or ‘not’ for some child pornography?
NONE.
It’s this intllectual ‘dance’.
No one ‘addresses’ the issue of the marketplace, even though theres a clear and obvious association: if ’some child porn becomes okay’ then the market expands, more children are exploited so some sick fucks can have a hard on, sick people who need professional help.
The moment an adult pornographer, in any way or form even ’says’ it’s sort of okay, or even hints at an element of ‘okay’ then they open up a can of worms that can only bite them in the ass: from a business perspective, primarily because the majority of people find child porn repulsive and sick, and the pornographer relies on the majority to profit.
I don’t even know why ‘is some child pornography okay’ is even posted up in this site (that deals with adult pornograpy).
Far be it from me to put words in Sam’s mouth, but I thought that one of the points – perhaps even the main point? – of the post was that making it illegal to be aroused by, think about, or draw something – even something as objectionable as child pornography – sets a dangerous precedent. I’ll even admit that I was on the fence on parts of this topic when I first read the post. But as I’ve read through the comments and given it more thought, I think I have to agree with Sam and Sabrina. I’m sure we can agree that the thought of someone enjoying sexual depictions of children (whether real or rendered) is disturbing, distasteful, even abhorrent. I can certainly understand the inclination to take stronger action than one would normally allow in order to protect our children. However, we can’t just start making things illegal because we are afraid of how a person will use them or be influenced by them. And this is where I think this post is appropriate on a site that deals with adult content. If we allow emotions such as disgust and fear to win in the case of child pornography, even if that disgust and fear is nearly unanimous in our society, then how easy will it be for those same criteria to be used in criminalizing certain kinds of adult pornography? And then, as someone touched upon in an earlier comment, how do we stop it from bleeding into all forms of art and entertainment?
“Thinking about abusing children while looking at renderings of it is certainly distasteful, but how is it more criminal than thinking about killing people while watching horror movies?”
You may think that cartoon child pornography and horror movies are miles apart, and outlawing the former could never have an effect on the latter in the real world. But what we are doing is setting a precedent. With this precedent, we can criminalize something because a) it depicts something illegal; b) we are afraid it -could- influence an already sick person to commit a crime; or c) it encourages someone to fantasize about something iillegal. Suddenly, we find that slasher films are moved to the XXX section of our video store, Grand Theft Auto has been permanently removed from the shelves of the video game stores, and your next door neighbor is being arrested because she gets off on a good rape fantasy.
I would like to send you some links to publications about my child porn criminal
case. This case is getting public
attention as an example of a miscarriage of justice. I could not
defend myself, because I did not have enough money for a computer
expert.
I was forced to confess to the
possession of child porn. My browser was hijacked while I was browsing
the web. I was redirected to illegal sites against my will. Some
illegal pictures were found on my hard drive, recovering in
unallocated clusters, without dates of file creation/download.
I do not know how courts can widely press these charges on people to
convict them, while the whole Internet is a mess.
This is my story in inquisition21.com. There is all
information about case written by Irish writer Brian
Rothery.
http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~7~page_num~3.html
This is publication in Wired news
http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,63391,00.html
This is publication in Theregester
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/13/browser_hijacking_risks/
Article in Globe and Mail newspaper
http://ctv.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040617.gttwhijac17/tech/Technology/techBN/ctv-technology
Article in ZDnet
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5344831.html
This is article in Washington Times, May 22, 2004
There is information about my case.
http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/dailys/05-30-04.html
Article in Crime research center:
http://www.crime-research.org/news/07.22.2004/506/
Article in Dallas, TX Newspaper
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13614767&BRD=1426&PAG=461&dept_id=528214&rfi=6
Child porn law was declared unconstitutional in Hennepin County, Minnesota, USA’
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=11750
“I came here to the US as political refugee from the former Soviet
Union, and, now like many other people in the US, I feel shame that
all of this can happen in the US – supposed to be the greatest
democracy in the world.”