USA: Child porn victims’ lawyers cleaning up-The Register
November 16, 2010
[CJ Hinke of FACT comments: We would normally put this article in FACT’s overseas news sections. However, we thought it fit in well with Bangkok’s child porn articles. What happened to “Amy” was horrible, no doubt. No amount of money can compensate for that. But it’s her lawyer who is exploiting “Amy” yet again and he’s making the lion’s share.]
Child porn victims seek multimillion-dollar payouts
One victim. One photo. $3.68 million
The Register: November 2, 2010
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/02/child_restitution_claims/
In December 2008, Virginia-based deputy sheriff Arthur Weston Staples III received a visit at home from police investigating claims he had traded child pornography images online. The former Vietnam vet, who had no previous offenses, was eventually sentenced to more than 17 years in prison after investigators found 400 to 600 illegal images, according to court documents.
The 210-month sentence can be considered modest compared with the life sentences dished out in many child pornography convictions. But in a twist, Staples was also ordered to pay $3.68m for his possession of a single picture taken more than 10 years earlier of a girl being severely sexually abused when she was eight years old. The restitution was awarded to “Amy,” the pseudonym of the victim, who is now 21 and has filed almost identical claims in some 600 other federal prosecutions over the past 18 months.
Over the same period, a separate survivor of sex abuse images identified only as “Vicky” has submitted some 80 claims under the same law, known as the Mandatory Restitution for Sexual Exploitation of Children Act.
Courts have responded to the flood of restitution requests with widely varying rulings. In sharp contrast to the outcome in Staples’s case, the federal judge presiding over a separate child pornography trial in the Eastern District of Texas refused to award any restitution at all, even though two of the illegal images defendant Doyle Randall Paroline admitted to possessing were identified as depicting Amy. That ruling is now on appeal before the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where oral arguments are scheduled for this Thursday.
The new legal maneuver comes as the internet has fundamentally changed the way child abuse images are trafficked. It also comes as federal prosecutions for child pornography have skyrocketed over the past 15 years. In 1995, there were 50, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Last year, there were almost 2,500.
The photographs and videos of Amy – which were shot and originally published by the girl’s uncle – have taken on a life of their own over the past decade, becoming a staple known as “the Misty series” in child predator circles. They depict some of the most depraved images imaginable, including fellatio, cunnilingus, and anal and vaginal penetration.
There are at least 730 federal prosecutions that involve images from the series, according to court documents. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has said the pictures have been actively traded since 1998 in more than 3,227 cases.
New York attorney James Marsh, who represents Amy, hired a psychologist and economist to evaluate her and calculate the damage that has stemmed from her abuse and the continuing distribution of the images documenting it. Accounting for lost wages, counseling and lawyer fees, they settled on a price of $3.37m.
Part of that damage, Marsh and his client argue, results from the continuing trauma of knowing that her images remain widely available.
“Every day of my life I live in constant fear that someone will see my pictures and recognize me and that I will be humiliated all over again,” she wrote in a victim-impact statement (PDF) that has accompanied each restitution claim. “It hurts me to know someone is looking at them – at me – when I was just a little girl being abused for the camera. I did not choose to be there, but now I am there forever in pictures that people are using to do sick things.”
The claims demand that each person convicted of possessing even one of the images pay her damages until the threshold $3.37m is reached under a legal doctrine known as joint and several liability. Under the theory, Amy will stop collecting once the figure is reached. Any defendant who was forced to pay more than another is free to sue the other for compensation.
“Each and every redistribution of the images causes a distinct injury to the victim,” Marsh told The Register. “It’s a very deliberate act that they choose when they go seek images of my client out.”
James R. Marsh has filed about 600 identical claims on behalf of “Amy”
Critics of the tactic – which include a fair number of judges – don’t see it that way. With such images only a few clicks away, and given the ability to make an unlimited number of copies of the original, those who possess the contraband are often far removed from the people who produced it or physically abused the child. And yet the restitution claims make no distinction between the harm done by a person who downloaded a single image and the person who inflicted the abuse in the first place and captured it on film for all to see.
“The losses described in Amy’s reports are generalized and caused by her initial abuse as well as the general existence and dissemination of her pornographic images,” US District Judge Leonard Davis, wrote in December when rejecting her claim against Paroline, the defendant in the Texas case. “No effort has been made to show the portion of these losses specifically caused by Paroline’s possession of Amy’s two images.”
The judge went on to express symathy after concluding that Amy will continue to suffer harm from the pictures for the rest of her life.
“However, the court’s sympathy does not dispense with the requirement that the government satisfy its burden of proving the amount of Amy’s losses proximately caused by Paroline’s possession of her two images,” he continued. “Although this may seem like an impossible burden for the government, the court is nevertheless bound by the requirements of the statute.”
‘Possession alone sufficient’
The statute mandates restitution in any child exploitation conviction for the “full amount of the victim’s losses” and specifically includes costs incurred by medical services, physical and occupational therapy, lost income and attorneys’ fees. It also specifies “any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense.”
Marsh and other child victim advocates argue that the requirement to prove the convicted person proximately caused the damages, applies only to this last catchall item. The other losses need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence, which is almost always satisfied by a conviction that includes one or more images of the victim.
“The possession alone is sufficient to establish the causal link you need for restitution,” said Meg Garvin, executive director of Lewis & Clark College’s National Crime Victim Law Institute. “In every possession case, there is additional harm being caused to the victim and therefore you meet all the tests and restitution becomes mandatory. All of the defendants who possessed the image of Vicki – all of them – owe her the full amount of restitution.”
But critics said an award can be granted only when prosecutors show the offense was the proximate, or direct, cause of a victim’s losses. And some also question the wisdom of creating cash rewards for victims who emphasize just how badly the offenses continue to harm them.
“There’s always a risk in the awarding of restitution that not only a victim is essentially incentivized to assert her harm is as great as possible,” said Douglas Berman, a professor specializing in federal sentencing law at Ohio State College of Law. “What really concerns me is we’ve created an environment in which she will benefit by asserting that she continues to suffer the harms of these crimes.”
Virtually all of the child porn offenders ordered to pay restitution had no contact with the victims and played no role in the production of the images, which were shot and originally published by someone else many years earlier. Despite their limited roles in in the victims’ considerable pain and suffering – most of which, it would seem, was caused by the original abusers – the perps are required to shoulder equal responsibility. Critics have argued it’s a slippery slope.
What about porn mags and movies?
“Presumably, anyone watching porn movies with an underaged character or in possession of a magazine with such a picture could be similarly faced with restitution demands,” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has blogged. “Prosecutors could threaten targets with financial ruin under such theories – forcing guilty pleas to other offenses.”
Some of the most outspoken critics remain the judges charged with ruling on the restitution requests. One of the more recent rejections came in August when a federal judge in North Dakota refused Vicky’s restitution request against convicted child pornography possessor Louis Solsbury. The judge went on to call the new tactic “an evidentiary nightmare” because for victims such as Amy and Vicky there are literally hundreds of thousands of individuals who have contributed to their considerable losses.
“The court is unable to determine, with any reasonable certainty, what losses are attributable to the egregious acts of sexual abuse committed by Vicky’s father, what losses are attributable to the countless others who have received, distributed, or possessed the images, or what losses were caused by this particular defendant’s conduct in possessing the pornographic images in North Dakota,” US District Judge Daniel L. Hovland wrote.
“Without more specific evidence, any award of restitution would be an arbitrary calculation based on speculation and guess work, at best. The decision to award restitution in these types of cases should be, and needs to be, based on some semblance of reason, common sense, and fairness rather than speculation.”
The ruling is now under review by the US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Including rulings in the Solsbury and Paroline cases, there are at least four decisions under appeal, prompting predictions that it’s only a matter of time until the US Supreme Court takes up the issue.
But some, including Ohio State University’s Berman and at least one jurist, say courts aren’t the best venue for settling the issue.
“The undersigned believes that the controversial subject of restitution awards in child pornography cases is one best left for congress to resolve,” Hovland wrote. “These troublesome cases cry out for an appropriate restitution remedy but one best determined by congress – not by a variety of conflicting and inconsistent awards and decisions as have evolved over the past year.”
Sweeping kiddie porn back into the closet-Bangkok Post
November 16, 2010
[CJ Hinke of FACT comments: First let’s talk about “piracy”. DVD “piracy” started here, and in most other third-world countries, because software, movie and music producers got greedy. In short, no one here could afford their prices! Secondly, all movies in Thailand are censored under the Film Act; if we want to see a complete movie here, we must buy a pirate copy.
Now let’s talk about pornography. Thailand has extremely strict porn statutes—even breasts are banned! However, instead of using laws we already have, govt decides censorship works best (which is why, of course, nearly 300,000 webpages are blocked by Thai govt).
Child abuse and exploitation, both sexual and otherwise, is a heinous crime. All child abusers know such exploitation is wrong; these mentally ill individuals, I’m certain, feel as horrible as is possible but are unable to help themselves.
Recording such instances of abuse makes the crime far worse as its victims will always know that such evidence is somewhere.
The point is, to target the abusers. Censorship is not the answer. Just as a YouTube video will never convince anyone to hate the King, neither will child pornography make anyone a paedophile.
Use our existing laws to track and target real child abusers of actual children for legal action and treatment. Don’t waste our precious resources on a few low-level distributors. Not even a decade ago, conservative Singapore also offered child pornography on its streets.
FACT readers will be aware that Interpol has a database of every known child porn image. They employ a spider a crawl the Internet and remove every one of these images, an appropriate and painless approach.
Furthermore, we have it on police authority that all of the video clips are from the days when child porn was legal in Europe (in some countries till 1989). None of this material apparently shows recent child abuse.
As with everything else in Thailand, don’t trust the advertising. “10 years old” is a come on. Censorship only titillates curiosity.]
Cleaning up the streets of Bangkok
Pornography is no longer openly displayed on Sukhumvit’s pavements, but for how long?
Maximilian Wechsler
Bangkok Post: November 7, 2010
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/investigation/205178/cleaning-up-the-streets-of-bangkok
The superintendent of the much-maligned Lumpini police district made a bold statement when asked about pornography recently. “I can guarantee it,” Pol Col Sarawuth Jindakham said when asked if pornographic DVDs and VCDs would still be off the streets in six months’ time.
NOT FOR SALE: Pirated VCDs displayed at a police press conference on Wednesday. [Pattanapong Hirunard and Somchai Poomlard]
After a recent series of articles in the Bangkok Post on the open sale of pirated pornography – including child porn and bestiality – along Sukhumvit Road between sois 3 and 21, Lumpini police came in for a storm of criticism from the public who were outraged they had failed to remove the offensive material and arrest the sellers.
It also prompted an outburst from the UN children’s rights body that demanded the police and authorities take immediate action.
When the adverse media publicity reached a critical mass, the inevitable police “crackdown” followed and the explicit covers of pirated pornographic movies disappeared from Sukhumvit.
One seller, a Burmese man, was even cheeky enough to put up a sign at his stall reading, “NO HAVE SEXCY MOVIE”.
Since Lumpini police started the crackdown on Oct 5, they have seized 555 pornographic movies from 13 stalls and made four arrests.
They have also seized pirated Hollywood films, sex aids and fake erectile dysfunction drugs.
Pol Col Sarawuth said his men acted after his superior officer, Pol Maj Gen Anuchai Lekbumrung, commander of Metropolitan Police Division 5, ordered him to suppress the sellers of pornographic films, sex aids and toys along Sukhumvit Road and other areas under his control.
Three teams totalling 30 personnel were formed to crack down on pornographic and pirated movies. Two teams are under the command of Pol Lt Col Pirom Chantrapirom, and a third under the command of Pol Lt Col Verachai Potipabcha.
GONE: No porn displayed between sois 3 and 15.
“The area recently filled with porn, so we have to clean it up because it is ugly and offensive to many foreigners and Thais,” Pol Col Sarawuth said.
After almost a month of the crackdown, the Sukhumvit porn-peddlers are taking a cautious approach.
The Burmese vendor who operates between sois 3 and 5 has taken away his “NO HAVE SEXCY MOVIE” sign and is selling porn again, but only to foreigners.
A Thai vendor near soi 5 said: “I used to sell it [pornography] but not any more. I don’t want to take the risk and have trouble with the police.”
A vendor between soi 5 and 7 who used to display porn movies said Lumpini police have been active lately.
“They come almost every day and warn me not to sell porn, otherwise I risk being arrested and fined.
“Now, if the police catch you with only one porn movie, you have to pay a 100,000 baht fine.
“It’s not worth selling it. Some traders decided to quit for a while because they can’t make money by selling only pirated movies. Porn is their main source of income.”
Pol Col Sarawuth said the three units he set up are in a “kind of competition” to seize the pornography and arrest the sellers. They also received help from Metropolitan Police Division 5.
They use undercover Thais and foreigners to snare the sellers, and also employ the element of surprise, such as launching raids on Police Day, which fell on Oct 13.
Vendors assumed they would take the day off to attend official ceremonies.
But the biggest weapon police can employ are heavy financial penalties which drive the vendors out of business. While the penalties for displaying obscene material are relatively light, those for selling films without a licence are much stiffer.
STILL TRADING: Pirated discs remain on sale at Pantip Plaza. [Maximilian Wechsler]
Whether or not a disc is inside the displayed cover also determines the severity of the penalty.
”We can charge them under the Film and Video Act, which has been in force since June 2008, and carries a fine of between 100,000 baht and 500,000 baht, and possibly with Section 287 [display of obscene material] of the penal code with a punishment not exceeding three years in jail or a fine not exceeding 6,000 baht, or both, Pol Col Sarawuth said.
”If we seize only an obscene cover, we will charge them under Section 287, but with the disc inside we will add the Film and Video Act [offence] of selling without a licence.
”Previously, we charged them only under Section 287, so they didn’t care, but no one wants to sell five discs for just 500 baht and end up paying a 100,000 baht fine.”
Pol Col Sarawuth added that bail in such cases is usually 50,000 baht, but can be set higher if police think the suspect is a flight risk. He also noted the law does not allow police to arrest the buyers of pornography.
Pol Col Sarawuth said he is working closely with government agencies such as the Department of Intellectual Property and private companies, including copyright owners, on a daily basis to help stop piracy.
The director of the DSI’s Intellectual Property Crime Bureau, Pol Col Pravesana Mulpramook, said his staff mainly investigate big cases and can only act if a complaint is made.
”We need a complaint for every case. As for porn, we can’t seize it because there’s no complainant.
”If the pirated movies come together with the porn, we can seize it as well. We can’t seize porn but we can inform the police.
”We also cannot act on a complaint from a private citizen, but the police have the authority to seize goods under Article 287 of the Criminal Code [obscene publication], even without the actual disc.
”The pirates don’t care what they put on a disc. They make everything whether its Hollywood movies, porn or software.”
Pol Col Pravesana said porn was the responsibility of local police, not the DSI.
”Some of the porn movies come from websites,” he said. ”The Ministry of Information and Communication Technology can block such websites.
”We can’t do it but we can send recommendations to the ministry.”
Pol Col Sarawuth suspects an organised crime gang is behind the pornography trade, a suspicion borne out by one vendor who was recently arrested and fined.
”My boss takes care of everything, with my stall and the others,” the vendor said.
”She even paid bail of 100,000 baht after I was arrested by Lumpini police and a big fine imposed by the court afterwards.”
He declined to say how much the fine was or whether he had to repay the woman, but he did say the boss later got her money back.
He said he was arrested by five policemen who jumped from a pick-up truck after he handed a DVD to a European-looking man. They took him to Lumpini police station.
”They came so quickly that I didn’t have a chance to run away. Normally, when warned by other sellers that the police are around, I can walk away and wait until they leave the area. I have to be careful. Now I won’t sell porn any more,” he said.
He also complained that police won’t touch porn sellers in Pantip Plaza as it is owned by a wealthy person.
One major porn distributor at Pantip interviewed on Oct 4, said police had ordered porn vendors across Bangkok to stop selling, or face arrest.
”The police told everyone that they can’t sell until January,” he said. ”Some big sellers offered money to the police who this time refused to take it.
”Despite my special connection [he claimed to be under the protection of someone higher than the police] I am still careful and only sell to regular customers.
”I told my people on the ground floor and second floor to be careful when approaching potential buyers.
”I will now phone my customers when new porn movies are coming and set up an appointment here.
”I won’t sell porn outside Pantip because here it is safe for me.”
He said when police tried to run a suppression campaign against piracy several years ago, sellers asked customers to choose porn from a catalogue and then pay. The discs were sent to them by registered mail.
”I hope it won’t come to that again because it’s difficult to make money. Many people don’t like to give out their address,” he said.
Pol Col Sarawuth from Lumpini said local vendors are using foreign sellers from Burma, Laos and India as fall guys.
”As we change methods to catch the vendors, they change the way they sell as well,” he said.
”Local vendors do not care what happens to the foreign seller _ whether he has to go to jail due to an inability to pay the fine or whatever.”
Asked why it had taken Lumpini police so long to clear the porn and sex toys off the streets, Pol Col Sarawuth said the police have been busy.
From July to September they were cracking down on ”all sorts of crime” from sois 3 to 21.
They were concentrating on counterfeit products such watches, and fashion and leather goods.
”There were only few stalls offering pirated videos with porn, mainly hidden,” he said.
”Because we put a lot of pressure on them at that time, they stopped selling the counterfeit goods and concentrated on pirated and porn videos instead.
”The number of stalls along Sukhumvit Road was increasing, and so were pirated and porn videos, with child porn which has recently been added.
”Many vendors have been selling various illegal products along Sukhumvit Road for many years, and once you stop them selling one product, they will quickly change to others.
”This is what happened during our suppression campaign.”
The history of pirated DVDs
Piracy started in Thailand about 15 years ago, most notably with pirated copies of Microsoft Windows 95 and music CDs.
Pol Col Pravesana Mulpramook, director of the Intellectual Property Crime Bureau at the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) said video players, personal computers and notebook computers were getting cheaper, creating a huge market for VCDs and DVDs.
“Piracy developed into a big business,” he said.
“Businesspeople came from Taiwan and China about 12 to 15 years ago and opened factories to produce pirated CDs, VCDs and DVDs.
“They imported copying machines illegally and sent the DVDs and CDs to big distribution centres at Khlong Thom, Siam Square and other locations where small operators buy to sell everywhere, whether in Bangkok or up-country.
“At that time, the United Wa State Army also produced pirated movies, including porn smuggled through Tachilek and Mae Sai to be distributed in Thailand,” Pol Col Pravesana said.
“Large Thai music and movie companies which obtained a licence from the copyright owners might order 5,000 copies of a certain movie but produce extra copies to be sold more cheaply on the street.
“The extra production is usually done at night.
“Some traders also smuggle DVDs from neighbouring countries. That’s why the price for pirated DVDs is low – 80 to 100 baht each, or less.
“In one case, we arrested a Thai man and seized almost 500,000 DVDs which he kept in storage in Salaya, Nakhon Pathom province. He smuggled in the DVDs from a neighbouring country in the south.”
Pol Col Pravesana said the companies producing DVDs under licence make them on machines that cost over 10 million baht, and can produce about 15 copies a minute.
“You just insert polycarbonate into the machine and it will make the disc and copy the movie at the same time.
“Some offenders also buy duplicators, each with 11 slots – one for the original disc and 10 for making copies – which will take about four minutes for music and about seven for DVDs.
“You can connect several duplicators to increase production.”
Each machine costs about 20,000 baht and can be bought legally: “At Ban Mo, they can sell three pirated movies for 100 baht and still make a profit. That’s because they use duplicators that can produce thousands of copies in 24 hours.
“These days, people can download movies and music from the internet, so the days of street sellers hawking pirated movies might be numbered.”
Child porn still on sale despite ‘crackdown’-Bangkok Post
November 16, 2010
Child porn on sale despite ‘Crackdown’
- Maxmilian Wechsler & Wassayos Ngamkham
- Bangkok Post: October 10, 2010
- http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/200579/child-porn-on-sale-despite-crackdown
Child pornography and other explicit films are still being sold openly along Sukhumvit Road despite a police promise to crack down on the illicit sales.
After the Bangkok Post Sunday broke the story last week, we revisited the stalls from Monday to Friday and observed an increase in the total amount of pornography being sold, with explicit gay movies added to the titles on offer. Child pornography was still openly on sale, along with bestiality movies.
Saravuth Chindakham, chief of Lumpini police station which covers the area, said yesterday police were trying to crack down on sellers of the child pornography VCDs and DVDs.
The crackdown was ordered by the chief of Metropolitan Police Division 5, Pol Maj Gen Anuchai Lekbamrung, following our report last Sunday which found the pornography on sale between Sois 3 and 21. Pol Col Saravuth admitted it was difficult to catch the vendors red-handed as the stall owners dispersed before police arrived. He said the main tactic officers used was to pose as a buyer.
”At least pressure from police will make it difficult for them to do business,” he said.
Pol Lt Col Piyoros Kanhasiri, an investigator at Lumpini station who is directly responsible for the cases, said he sent his team to the area once, but the sellers closed their stalls. He said officers would police the areas regularly to try to put an end to the problem.
During our follow-up investigation last week, our team spent about two hours a night observing the stalls. We saw no attempt by police to confiscate the offensive material or make an arrest and the sellers appeared unworried by any threat of a police crackdown.
One of the street’s largest sellers of child porn had it on display on Friday night.
”What do you want? Thai, Japanese or European?” said the vendor to passing tourists, including adultsparents with small children.
When one passer-by stopped to look, he asked, ”Do you want ‘Lolita’?”, pointing at covers showing children aged under 10. ”I can sell you one movie for 100 baht or six for 500 baht. You can buy now,” the seller said pushing to make a sale.
The amount of child pornography on display varies throughout the day; however, we noticed it was always available after 8pm.
One seller boasted to the Bangkok Post Sunday team that child pornography was now available on DVDs instead of VCDs ”which are not so good in quality”.
A foreign diplomat who lives in the area and has been monitoring the situation on a daily basis since the story was published, said he was amazed that the obscene material had not been seized.
”They don’t have to mount a big operation or make many arrests, they just have to take it away so thousands of passers-by don’t have to look at it,” said the diplomat, who asked not to be named.
He said that authorities’ inaction could embolden the vendors. ”They are encouraged to continue and even increase their business because they know that they are well looked after by someone powerful.”
During our follow-up investigation, sSome vendors became suspicious and packed up for two hours on Friday night after we started asking about the sale of child pornography. But the stalls reopened two hours later, with the pornography again on display.
One of the sellers said he was aware of the Bangkok Post Sunday story, but was not worried about being arrested as it was not published by a Thai-language paper.
Child porn VCDs for sale on Bangkok’s tourist streets-Bangkok Post
November 16, 2010
Child porn on streets stirs outrage
SUKHUMVIT VENDORS OPENLY SELL VCDS
Maxmilian Wechsler
Bangkok Post: October 3, 2010
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/199391/child-porn-on-streets-stirs-outrage
Child pornography is being openly sold on the footpaths of the city’s busiest road, outraging both tourists and residents who said it would not be tolerated in any other country.
OBSCENE: One of the stalls selling child porn
After receiving several complaints about the DVD and VCD vendors along Sukhumvit Road between Soi 3 and 21, the Bangkok Post Sunday discovered that child pornography was openly displayed on tables along with copies of the latest Hollywood blockbusters.
The child pornography, sold on VCDs for 80 baht a disc, featured children from Burma, China, Europe, the Philippines and Thailand. Some of the VCD covers, which graphically showed children in sex acts, advertised that the children were as young as seven years old. Pornographic videos of bestiality were also displayed by vendors.
Several diplomats who live in the area expressed dismay when told of the open sales and after being shown the explicit covers of the VCDs.
”This is totally outrageous and should not be tolerated by the authorities,” said one ambassador who lives in the area. ”You would have to look hard for any country in the world where this would be allowed, let alone on the main tourist street of the capital.”
One resident who alerted the Bangkok Post Sunday to the VCDs said he was horrified that police were not cracking down on the vendors. ”They were being openly sold on roadside stalls at about 3pm on a Sunday afternoon. I couldn’t believe it.”
The open display of pornography would have been unthinkable only a few years ago, although pirated Hollywood movies were freely available.
Often the sellers of the Hollywood movies only display the covers, and get an assistant to retrieve the actual discs to minimise the chances of arrest.
A senior police officer who works on copyright infringement said local police and other enforcement agencies can confiscate obscene materials based only on the displayed cover.
”To distribute or exhibit obscene materials is a criminal offence under Section 287 of the penal code of Thailand with the punishment not exceeding three years’ imprisonment or fine not exceeding 6,000baht, or both,” said the officer, who asked to remain anonymous.
”It is a quite easy case; you don’t have to do much investigation because it is there on display. The policeman or any other authorised person can just take it from the stall and arrest the vendor. That’s all. But someone has to go there and do it. This is the problem.”
He added that the pirated pornographic video trade is run by ”influential people” so there was only a remote chance it would ever be stopped. ”It is like a certain casino on Phetchaburi Road _ not far away from Pantip Plaza _ which is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. No one raids the building. The people who work there and run the place are untouchable,” the officer said.
Last Thursday, the Bangkok Post Sunday team counted 17 stalls between Soi 3 and 21 selling pirated movies, with nine displaying pornography. There were 18 other stalls selling sex aids and erectile dysfunction drugs, eight of which were also offering a variety of sex toys.
Despite the open display of pornography on Sukhumvit Road, there is virtually none on Silom Road.
”This might indicate different police districts,” said the officer. ”Silom Road is under the jurisdiction of Bangrak police station and has a different set of rules from the Lumpini station, which has jurisdiction over Sukhumvit Road.”
UK plans total ‘net surveillance by 2015-Register
November 16, 2010
UK.gov plans net surveillance by 2015
Snoop schedule
The Register: November 8, 2010
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/08/imp_date_2015/
Government measures to massively increase surveillance of the internet will be in place within five years.
In its departmental business plan, published today, the Home Office said it aims that “key proposals [will be] implemented for the storage and acquisition of internet and e-mail records” by June 2015.
The plan is the latest incarnation of the Interception Modernisation Programme (IMP), a much-delayed initiative, backed by the intelligence agencies, to capture details of who contacts whom, when and where*, online.
The Labour government shelved IMP before the election, but it has been revived by the coalition, despite a promise to “end the storage of internet and email records without good reason”.
Confusingly, today’s Home Office document says it will “end the storage of internet and email records without good reason” via “proposals for the storage and acquisition of internet and email records”.
It also pledges to introduce legislation “if necessary”. While in opposition the security minister, Baroness Neville-Jones, sharply criticised any move to gather more communications data without primary legislation.
The government has said it will give details of its proposals before the end of this year. It is currently unclear whether it will retain the IMP label, but the aims of the programme are unchanged.
At Prime Minister’s Questions recently, David Cameron said: “We are not considering a central government database to store all communications information, and we shall be working with the Information Commissioner’s Office on anything we do in that area.”
When Labour held a consultation on IMP it was not proposing a central database, but measures to compel ISPs to intercept and store communications data on behalf of the intelligence services and police.
*Communications data does not include the content of communications, which authorities require a warrant from the Home Secretary to access. Senior intelligence and police officers can authorise access to communications data themselves.
USA: Jim Morrison drug pardon considered…but he’s dead!-The Hill
November 16, 2010
[CJ Hinke of FACT comments: We’re bloody tired of this weak pandering to common criminals by our elected officials. Jim ain’t gonna like this!]
Crist willing to consider Jim Morrison pardon before leaving office
J. Taylor Rushing
The Hill: November 11, 2010
In his last two months in office, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is considering a December surprise: a posthumous pardon for Jim Morrison, lead singer of The Doors, for indecent exposure charges after an infamous 1969 Miami concert.
In a phone interview with The Hill, Crist said “stay tuned” regarding the idea of a posthumous pardon for the singer who died in Paris in 1971. Crist on Tuesday lost his independent bid for the U.S. Senate and will replaced by Republican Rick Scott in January.
“Candidly, it’s something that I haven’t given a lot of thought to, but it’s something I’m willing to look into in the time I have left,” said Crist. “Anything is possible.”
Morrison, a native of Melbourne, Fla., was convicted of indecent exposure and profanity after a March 1, 1969, concert in Miami in which he allegedly exposed himself and acted lewdly. He had seen a provocative stage play the night before in Los Angeles and was purported to have drank steadily that day en route to Florida.
Other band members have stated in interviews over the years that Morrison was clearly drunk at the concert, as obvious from sound recordings which showed he also tried to provoke the audience at various times.
Ironically, Morrison was cleared of drunkenness charges in the ensuing trial, as well as a felony charge for lewd and lascivious behavior, but was convicted of exposure and profanity. Morrison and his lawyers had hoped to turn the trial into a First Amendment battle, and he claimed in several later interviews that the trial was a sham. Morrison’s death in 1971 ended the case without him ever serving any prison time.
Doors fans have clamored for years to get Morrison’s name cleared, but Crist’s predecessors in the governor’s office were unmoved. In 2007, Crist said he would consider it, acknowledging “there was some doubt about how solid the case was.” Both Morrison and Crist attended Florida State University in Tallahassee, which Crist cites as one reason he is considering the issue.
Crist hasn’t moved on a Morrison pardon since then — but time is the difference now. Pardons in Florida must go through the Board of Executive Clemency, which has one final meeting Dec. 9. Crist, Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, Attorney General Bill McCollum and Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson all sit on the board, but all will leave office in January.
Crist’s Senate run prevented him from seeking a second term, while Bronson is term-limited, and the unsuccessful bids for governor by Sink and McCollum will force them from office.
Under state law, a pardon must have the consent of Crist and at least two other members. Bronson spokesman Terence McElroy said Bronson is willing to consider it, while a McCollum spokesman said McCollum would consider it only if Crist brings it forward.
The uncertainty frustrates Doors fans such as Dave Diamond, a TV producer in Ohio who has mounted a petition drive and letter-writing campaign to Crist on Morrison’s behalf for years. Diamond, who has compiled a website and an 11-part YouTube series to explain the effort, wants Crist to see Morrison as a Florida citizen, not a rock star.
“Basically all we’re doing these days is waiting,” Diamond said Friday. “This is the last chance Gov. Crist will have with the board to make good on his 2007 commitment to give this longstanding case a fair review and a vote in favor for or against the special posthumous pardon request.”
Diamond notes the Dec. 9 pardon board hearing falls one day after Morrison’s birthday — the late singer would have been 67 today. In letters to Crist, he notes that in 2003, then-Gov. George Pataki (R-N.Y.) pardoned the late comedian Lenny Bruce for a 1965 obscenity conviction. And in 2006, charges against the late Enron founder Kenneth Lay were tossed by a Texas judge.
Both Lay and Morrison died pending appeal, Diamond points out, but Lay’s charges were abated within three months while Morrison’s charges haven’t been reconsidered in 40 years.
“We are still hopeful that he will see this case through,” Diamond said of Crist. “He’s the only governor in Florida that’s even acknowledged this effort at all, and we appreciate his time towards this matter.”
Crist said he won’t make the decision lightly, noting the many complexities surrounding the 41-year-old case. Numerous sound recordings from the show exist, for example, but Morrison’s defenders say none of the scores of photographs from the show prove the exposure charge.
“We would have to look into all of that,” Crist said.
USA: Paedo guide author defends his book-5280
November 16, 2010
[FACT comments: Let’s look at this logically. Philip R. Greaves II may not know how to use a spell-checker but he’s out of the closet. Either the man is courageous about his beliefs or a shameless self-promoter. How this hurts actual children is beyond us.]
Pueblo’s Phillip R. Greaves II Defends His Book for Pedophiles
5280: November 11, 2010
http://www.5280.com/blogs/2010/11/11/pueblos-phillip-r-greaves-ii-defends-his-book-pedophiles
In a phone interview with CNN, Phillip R. Greaves II of Pueblo explains the philosophy behind his controversial book on pedophiles that was for sale on Amazon.com. “True pedophiles,” he says, “love children and would never hurt them…Penetration is out. You can’t do that with a child, but kissing and fondling I don’t think is that big of a problem.”
Greaves, who is at the center of a national firestorm for his book, The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover’s Code of Conduct, claims he has never had sexual contact with a child as an adult, but he did when he was a teenager and was “introduced to oral sex” at the age of seven by an older female. The book has caused outrage across the nation, as well as in Colorado, where Mike Harris, an investigator for the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office, has arrested more than 470 pedophiles. “When it fuels the motive for people on how to approach kids, how to find kids, how to touch kids and sexually abuse them, that’s just wrong,” Harris tells 9News.
Meanwhile, Lisa Hogan, an attorney with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, says the book appears to be covered by the First Amendment, which does not protect obscenity or child pornography but might support written words about them. Regardless, Amazon.com has apparently removed the book in response to the protests, writes UPI.
USA: No shortage of purveyors-TechCrunch
November 16, 2010
[FACT comments: Who’s Your Daddy Dept… Once again corporate America falls to fundamentalist do-gooders. And TechCrunch must be in support: they even failed to include the title lest some pervert buys the book! Seriously, if something offends you, walking away in the sign of maturity. Incidentally, the title in question is The Paedophile’s Guide to Love & Pleasure: A Child-Lover’s Code Of Conduct by New Mexican Philip R. Greaves II; Wikipedia entry here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pedophile’s_Guide_to_Love_and_Pleasure. The book is apparently a self-published e-book and we have been unable to find an ISBN. Before the controversy raised by the “Christian Institute”, only a single copy had been sold (shades of Harry Nicolaides!) We bet Mr. Greaves is laughing all the way to the bank!]
If Amazon Won’t Cross The Line, Someone Else Will
TechCrunch: November 10, 2010
http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/10/if-amazon-wont-cross-the-line-someone-else-will/
This morning’s discovery of a mind-bogglingly offensive title in Amazon’s self-publishing e-book platform has drawn a variety of responses. There are a number of issues in play here, from first-amendment rights to a “curated” web. And although Amazon has issued a statement apparently taking a hard-line stance against censorship, the book is almost certainly in violation of their Digital Text Platform guidelines, which makes their defense of this title seem a bit arbitrary.
The guidelines state that offensive material (which they define as “about what you would expect”) will be rejected or removed, yet they stated today that “it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable.” They can’t have it both ways, and it’s dangerous for such a sensitive question to remain unanswered when the company shapes digital publishing to so significant an extent. So what’s it going to be?
Both sides have a legitimate defense. Amazon is not the government, they are a corporation, and it is their prerogative whether or not to publish something. They are not in a position to censor, they are in a position to choose whether or not to provide a service. That’s a different thing altogether. And it’s actually, if you look at their content guidelines, their present policy. That’s why the decision not to remove this book is so surprising.
On the other hand, while it isn’t easy to defend pedophilia, it isn’t really necessary. Free speech is protected in this country, with very few exceptions, and even those are difficult to prove. Usually they have to do with a clear and present danger, something which this book, awful as it is, does not present. If it is Amazon’s position that they will make available anything that is not demonstrably illegal, then they are only assailable on grounds of what constitutes good taste.
That’s a hell of a position to take, but the fact is someone is going to take it whether Amazon does or not. While the comparison is in some ways a poor one, it is a natural one, so I may as well say that the “curated” App Store versus the “open” Android Market constitutes a similar fundamental antagonism. That kind of divide is only going to grow, and because both sides get to claim the high ground, there’s good reason for both to exist. The same will happen with the book market, and (to some extent) the rest of the internet. This is just an advance skirmish brought about by a particularly repulsive book on a particularly influential platform. What Amazon does with a hot potato like this will draw a line in the sand. And like most lines in the sand, people tend to get on one side or the other of them.
Let’s say Amazon recants and pulls the book. While many will congratulate them for a showing of prudence and good taste, the other booksellers, which are hovering above this debacle like buzzards, will settle in and feast. “Can you trust Amazon?” “Every book in our store is hand-approved.” The taglines write themselves.
They also leave themselves vulnerable to criticism from some ambitious e-book market, who says “So first they pull 1984 from your Kindle. Next they make some rules, then let in a book against those rules. Then they say those rules don’t apply. Then they apply them, but only after public outcry. Is that integrity? We may not agree with what you write, but we will defend to bankruptcy your right to publish it.” Or something to that effect. It may not be pretty, but the fact is it is a stand some people are very passionate about taking. Even if their store ended up being nothing but rape manuals and racist screeds, all they need to do is point to the first amendment and say that theirs is a legal and needful operation. And it’s not a long walk from there to Wikileaks.
If they choose not to pull the book, they must clarify their position in all this, and that is not going to be easy after this opening act. Is Amazon bold enough to be the bookseller I describe above? I somehow doubt that’s a position that will please shareholders.
Wherever Amazon chooses to stand after this incident, someone will define themselves by its shadow. The only appropriate action they could have taken would have been to immediately pull the book on being notified of its existence, and take the position that it slipped through the cracks and they’ll be hiring more people to oversee content control. These things do happen, though I’d be suspicious of any content control process with cracks big enough to let such a blatant red flag such as “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure” through them.
We expect to hear from Amazon soon on whether they truly have subscribed to either free speech and good taste, two principles which in this case appear to be incompossible. Who knows but this might have been a watershed moment for the e-book market? I doubt this one will just get swept under the rug.
On a related note, while we certainly encourage you to make your opinion (positive or negative) known to Amazon, as they must square themselves with the repercussions of their actions either way, please try to remember that if you buy the book as a means of protest against censorship, you are giving money to the author of this monstrosity.
Update: Amazon has removed the book.
USA: Website drives paedo guide from 158,221 to 96 on Amazon-TechCrunch
November 16, 2010
The 158,221st Best-Selling Kindle Book: The Pedophile’s Guide To Love And Pleasure
TechCrunch: November 10, 2010
http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/10/kindle-pedophile-book/
One thing Amazon loves to tout about their Kindle bookstore is their huge collection of wide-ranging titles. I’ll say. Here’s a great example of something I’m pretty sure you won’t find in rivals e-bookstores: The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure. Yep, that’s the actual title.
This book can’t actually be about that, can it? Well, here’s the description:
This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certian rules for these adults to follow. I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter sentences should they ever be caught.
“Liter” aside, yes, this is outrageous.
And Amazon customers are letting their feelings be known about such a book. Of the 59 customers reviews of the product, 58 give it the minimum 1 star (while one joker gave it 5 stars). And it looks like just about all of them are from today, and they’re all basically either calling for a boycott of Amazon for carrying such a book, or for Amazon to remove it immediately. A few of them say they’ve called or email Amazon and that the company has said it’s looking into it.
But one commenter says that Amazon already got back to them with the following:
“Let me assure you that Amazon.com does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts; we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions.”
“Amazon.com believes it is censorship not to sell certain titles because we believe their message is objectionable.”
Another comment says that over 100 negative reviews have been deleted so far, but they keep coming in. This could get very ugly.
We’ve reached out to Amazon for comment, but haven’t heard back yet. We’ll update if we do.
The book is Kindle-only and is for sale for $4.79. It is currently the 158,221st best-selling Kindle book in the store. That is terrifying.
Update: Here’s Amazon’s statement:
Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions.
USA: Amazon removes paedo manual-Times
November 16, 2010
Amazon U-turn in face of pedophile guide fury
- The Times: November 13, 2010
- http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/amazon-u-turn-in-face-of-pedophile-guide-fury/story-e6frgakx-1225952852428
THE online retailer Amazon has bowed to threats of a mass boycott over its decision to sell a guide to pedophilia.
Amazon quietly stopped sales of the self-published electronic book The Paedophile’s Guide to Love & Pleasure: A Child-Lover’s Code Of Conduct yesterday, a day after defending it on the grounds of free speech.
The e-book went on sale two weeks ago but hit the headlines only after news of its publication spread among users of Facebook and Twitter, prompting widespread fury and calls for it to be pulled. The outrage was further fuelled when Amazon said that, while they “do not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, we do support the rights of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions. Amazon.com believes it is censorship not to sell certain titles because we believe their message is objectionable”.
That statement led to an avalanche of posts on Twitter and Facebook calling for a boycott of the online retailer. Diaper.com, a baby supplies site whose parent company was recently bought by Amazon, posted a message on its Facebook page dissociating itself from Amazon’s decision.
Microbloggers were yesterday celebrating their victory – but, ironically, the publicity has given the book far greater prominence, boosting it up the sales rankings on Amazon’s Kindle store from No 58,221 to No 96.
Kindle, in addition to more conventional titles, allows unpublished authors the chance to sell their books in electronic form. Amazon has declined to elaborate on what checks it runs on such materials, although guidelines on its website forbid “pornography and hardcore material that depicts graphic sexual acts” and state that the company reserves the right to determine “the appropriateness of titles sold on our sites”.
Philip Greaves, the former nurse’s aide who wrote the book, said yesterday he had sold just one copy before the furore. He defended his work, which he described as a how-to guide for pedophiles to indulge their fantasies without causing harm.
FACT - Freedom Against Censorship Thailand 