Just dropped in to spread the joy- have you seen this? (laughing)

[Seattle Zack]

I have some problems with it, in that these self-proclaimed vigilantes aren't bound by the same laws that the police are, the Fourth Amendment in particular. It's all very well and good to gather information and pass it along to the authorities, but it's stepping over the line to "out" them based on the groups own dubious amateur investigative methods which are neither reviewed nor endorsed by law enforcement, and which may not even be valid in a court of law.

One case I read about in Eastern Washington, the FBI caught a guy with a couple thousand child porn images on his computer. He claimed to be a "vigilante" compiling "files" on people he suspected of attempted child molestation, and the pictures he had downloaded were for "research" so he could notify the authorities about the sites. I wonder how many members of this vigilante group are, in fact, possible pedophiles themselves and using this information for easy access to vulnerable children?

 

[pop_54]

whoa

OK! Now for self-gratifying salutations!

Trova, mia vita.


Pops, mon Capitaine.


MG, perhaps more haiku?

You have been victimized. I deeply regret all my actions, and would never have actually greeted anyone. That isn't really my picture. Well, it is my picture, but I thought Pops was 18. Well, what I mean is, I thought Perdita was role-playing an 11 year old! But I thought she was older. But I'm not like that- I don't just go around saying "hi" to people. Curse this anonymous bitch-godess, this "internet"- she made me do it! Ah, non credea! Ah, pieta.

I am over 18 honest I are lady, we can talk naughty now if you want, mum's gone to bed and dad's asleep drunk again, my brother and sister are doing that giggling thing they do up in her room, so I'm alone here now at my PC.

PS: I won't tell anyone real true honest, I like talking to ladies on the internet it gives me a stiffy.

 

[pop_54]

Yep

I can see Sancho's point, and I think some of you are taking it the wrong way. Maybe this is a more understandable parallel:

How many of us married folks have honestly not had at least a passing sexual thought about a brother- or sister-in-law? (or cousin/aunt/uncle) How many of us have attempted to do something about these thoughts?

The action is immoral, not the thought.

Are the writers of incest, interacial (in some warped minds) exhibitionist/voyeur, loving wives, mind control and non-consent, on this very site, to be condemned for their immoral thoughts?

Speaking of which, that site is an open source for prurient interest.

Gauche

Couldn't agree more lad, as I said 'In so many words' above, frightening these coves underground won't help, might as well give them a load confiscated porn and let them wank themselves to death.

The over reaction has just meant you and I have our e-mails read and sites we visit vetted all behind our back, and risk going to jail as a result of some East European 'pop up' logging onto our PC.

But my main gripe is, when they catch some pedo trying to get stuck up a 3 month old baby, what do they give him, 3 fucking years wasn't it, he'll be out to do it again in 18 months.

When they are caught they should be treated accordingly, and fucking well shot. After they've been buggered with the rough end of a Pineapple of course.

You can bet your sweet arse that bastard who did for the 10 yr old's Hollie and Jessica will have a previous record for abusing kids when the case is over, if he's found guilty of course. It shouldn't be possible to have a previous record for child abuse, they shouldn't be about to do it again.

 

[OldnotDead]

Me again,

I think Sancho is getting caught up in parsing of words and not looking at the whole picture. If you substitute the word 'try' for the word 'want' in the quote he uses, I'm pretty sure everyone would fall on the same side of the argument. At least I would hope so. And isn't that the point? What does it matter about parsing of words and arguing over syntax. The real issue is children's safety. Adults need to protect children from those that would harm them, be they bullies or predatory adults.

Reading through more of the site, it is pretty clear that the folks runnig the site should have used the word 'try' as it is the ones that are trying to hook up with underage that they are specifically targeting. They seem to be focused on the ones that go well beyond cybering to making real life connections.

As said above, I'm not sure I can condone all of their actions. Public disclosure without legal process does bother me. But what happened to classmates of my children bothers me a whole lot more.

As parents we did not let our children go to the playground unattended, but some did. Fortunately enough parents were always there that anyone NOT a parent hanging around was pretty obvious and if the behavior warranted, reported. In the internet world too many parents do not 'accompany' children to the 'playground'. Partly it is because the children are older and we give them 'space'. A lot of it has to do with parents that just don't want to get involved.

For the children, I think it is good that there are people that want to reduce the anonymity that allows the heinous actions. But as is painfully apparent in all the headlines, the perpertrators are not exclusive to the obviously inappropriate individuals that lurk around the 'playgrounds'. I do not know the statistics, but we learn every day of children victimized by those in authority positions. They are not molested by stangers, but trusted members of the community.

I hope that as you read this thread you will talk about the subject with others in your real life and cyber worlds. Because the real safety of the children is going to be combination of prevention, education and action. There is no one thing that solves the real life problems and no one cure is going to work in cyberspace either. But the predators count on inaction from all. Be active.

 

[raphy]

I'm going post one more time on this thread, and then I'm going to shut up about it, because if I don't, I'm liable to say something I'll regret.

I can't believe we're arguing about syntax and semantics when there's underage kids getting told that some guy wants to piss in their mouths.

Sancho, obviously, you are not and have never been a parent, nor had any emotional relationships (as an adult) with children (nephews, nieces, the neighbour's son who you watched grow up) otherwise you would not be saying the things that you are saying.

Yes, it's wrong to want to fuck little kids. Call me thought-police, call me whatever the fuck you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to want to do that. It's wrong to want to kill someone, too. Of course it fucking is. A desire to take someone's life in an act of cold blooded murder shows a seriously deranged and sick psyche.

Thoughts don't count, actions do? Where do you think actions come from? They sure don't happen on their own. Your arm doesn't lift the gun, your finger doesn't pull the trigger without you telling it to. You think about it first. You don't just happen to be driving past a schoolyard full of 12-year old kids and pick one up and molest him or her, you decide to do that.

If you're telling me that you have a 12-year old daughter and you wouldn't give a shit if I told you I wanted to fuck her in the ass, then I'm gonna call you a liar or a really bad parent, my friend.

And for the record, Svenska, sometimes .. Just sometimes.. When the police *won't* or *can't* step in, somebody else has to. And usually does.

Trust me. I know this from experience.

You can call 'em vigilantes, if you want to but I used to call 'em my friends.

Personally, I *want* to take all of those guys that have sexual conversations with underage kids out into a yard and cut their testicles off with a rusty knife.

And let me tell you, that *want* would translate into *action* the instant I got the opportunity.

Raph, who has more stored up hate than you know towards kiddie-rapers.

edited to say: Actually, this may not be my last post on the subject. It all depends on what other lame excuses people can come up with for merely wanting to abuse children.

 

[Pure]

The site has come up in a few threads. In the second, I and several others knocked it around.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=107825

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=197454

I think the basic question was, is this a good method for dealing with the problem; what abuse might it be subject to?

I would add, the question, To what extent might all these "children" --perverted justice folks and FBI agents--on the net looking to be picked up, induce acts of pedophilia? Not unlike the uncover policeman who goes into the college bar offering to sell drugs.

J.

PS. Nice to see ya, mlle.

 

[whispering_surrender]

Although I usually support thinking whatever you like, the child molester issue frightens me more than I can express. Every time I read anything about it, my vision is filled with the vision of a beautiful blonde girl with gunmetal grey eyes, and seeing those eyes filled with pain.

Any person, who has been a victim of any sort of abuse...child sexual, adult violence, whatever...can tell you that there was nothing but thought until the first time. And once you cross the line, you can never go back.

Any person, who enters any undertaking with an honest attempt to protect any victim of abuse, but especially children, will have my full support. Well, unless I get to the perpetrator first.

Whisper

 

[Seattle Zack]

I don't think you'll get any argument, raphy, that child molestors are the lowest form of life on the planet. Not from me anyway.

What I do object to is the ad hoc nature of this 'organization' put together without any training or any real oversight. If I dump my girlfriend, for example, and she gets pissed she could put my name up there with no proof other than a doctored IM transcript. Or what if I wanted to do the same thing to my landlord? My boss?

Considering the emotional nature of the charges, any refuting would be shouted down and the 'perpetrator' would be publically pilloried, without any evidence whatsoever.

The fact that the site is so evasive about the nature of their relationship with law enforcement also gives me pause.

While the intent may be commendable, I think the execution and implementation of this particular program are seriously flawed.

 

[raphy]

I don't think you'll get any argument, raphy, that child molestors are the lowest form of life on the planet. Not from me anyway.

What I do object to is the ad hoc nature of this 'organization' put together without any training or any real oversight. If I dump my girlfriend, for example, and she gets pissed she could put my name up there with no proof other than a doctored IM transcript. Or what if I wanted to do the same thing to my landlord? My boss?

Considering the emotional nature of the charges, any refuting would be shouted down and the 'perpetrator' would be publically pilloried, without any evidence whatsoever.

The fact that the site is so evasive about the nature of their relationship with law enforcement also gives me pause.

While the intent may be commendable, I think the execution and implementation of this particular program are seriously flawed.

Totally agreed, Zack... Waay to easy to fake evidence on the internet.

Raph.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Sancho: If I were to essay the mission statement from a purely objective standpoint, I would agree that a less emotionally charged and more specific term could have been chosen. As Old/Not dead stated, "try" as a substitution could pretty much remove the perceived threat of dreaded anti-thinkism. Were this a government organization you would find much more careful wordsmithing, no doubt, aimed at avoiding such elicitations. However, this is a volunteer organization with a passionate belief, and under the same good ol' amendment that protects the drooling daydreams of hypothetical tot-poppers, they can and should be allowed to think anything they want, and say so, on their private web site. The best political or intellectual choice? Maybe not. I do see your point, and I note it. But I don't think you disagree with the message, even given the messenger.

You also raise another point. Fantasizing isn't doing. But oh, there are so many levels of fantasy, aren't there?

Many of us might fantasize about something "amoral" in a very detached and erotically idealized way- and it might turn us on mentally, but we would not be turned on by the reality of the act.

Some people fantasize about an amoral act and would be aroused by the act in practice, but know that putting those thoughts into practice would be intrinsically wrong.

Some people would fantasize about an amoral act, and even though they might not actually pursue gratification in real life, would not hesitate if the opportunity presented itself. (say, in a chatroom)

Still other people fantasize about amoral things and are afraid to act them out. Not unwilling. Afraid.

And then we have those sterling and stellar individuals who don't care one way or another, they fantasize and act, completely motivated by narcissistic greed and desire at the expense of others.

In which of these scenarios would one say of the individual it is "ok to want to fuck kids"?

One might conceivably argue that "fantasy" does not definitively equal "want" as a descriptive construct.

In the first example, one might say that not wanting the experience in real life means that you don't actually "want" anything- anything, that is, but a disembodied erotic thought that flashes through your mental movie-screen.

While I am still not saying that any unrealized thought is "wrong"- (there is no such simple bi-tonality in life, in any discipline) the truth is that there is always the indefinable yet infinitely real variable of *intent*. Simple thoughts are given a whole new life- taken to a whole new dimension when you: write them down, express them, subject others to them, obsess over them...or, for that matter, own them so intimately that the slightest suggestion that your thought is misguided provokes a visceral response of righteous indignation.

but hey, I'm with Raphy

 

[raphy]

The site has come up in a few threads. In the second, I and several others knocked it around.

Without wanting to derail this wonderful happy thread... They don't like you much over on the BDSM board either, do they Pure.. You're just loved everywhere you go.

*smirk*

 

[Pure]

The following links to 'tech tv' were at the 'perverted justice' website. The excerpt below, is from the first.

http://www.techtv.com/cybercrime/viceonline/story/0,23008,3327010,00.html


http://www.techtv.com/cybercrime/viceonline/story/0,23008,3327556,00.html

http://www.techtv.com/cybercrime/viceonline/story/0,23008,3396760,00.html

-------
[begin excerpt]
Defendants Plead Fantasy


Charged with using the Internet to lure minors into sex, defendants claim they were engaging in a harmless fantasy -- with a consenting adult.

By Jack Karp


When federal agents and New York police officers raided a New York hotel room and arrested John Weisser in April 2000, they had what they thought was an open-and-shut case.

For four months the 38-year-old California man had been using AOL's Instant Messenger to chat with undercover agents collectively posing as a 12-year-old boy. Weisser had sent the agents a naked picture of himself, written that he wanted to have sex with the fictitious boy, and finally invited the boy to meet him at a hotel room in New York.

"We had the laptop computer that the defendant was sitting at when we came in," Peter Cavicchia, a group supervisor in the electronic crimes task force at the US Secret Service, told "CyberCrime."

"There was a video camera in a backpack and a tape that was kind of cued up and ready to go. There was a CD with child pornography on it in his briefcase. We seized a pornographic videotape and other sexual paraphernalia, as well as an AOL CD that we believe was used to install AOL the night before he was arrested."

"The combination of the forensic examinations that were done on the defendant's work, home, and the computer that was seized from the hotel, along with the testimony and the admission of all the chat conversations that were had by the defendant and our undercovers, I think were the perfect combination," Cavicchia said.

But at trial, Weisser's lawyer insisted that the case wasn't as simple as it first seemed. Paul Dalnoky, who originally defended Weisser, argued that his client never actually believed he was chatting with a 12-year-old boy but knew he was corresponding with an adult who was only pretending to be a child.

"I truly believe that John really felt that he was talking to people who were role-playing," Dalnoky said. "I don't believe he really believed there would be a child at the other end."

"If you don't believe that you're really talking to a 12-year-old, you haven't committed a crime," Dalnoky said. "It's not a crime to talk to grown-ups." [end excerpt]

 

[Guest]

but hey, I'm with Raphy

Bellissima, I'm with him too. Let's do a threesome real soon.

Trova

 

[whispering_surrender]

Pure,

Be careful. Be very careful.....you're treading on dangerous ground here.

Whisper

 

[raphy]

but hey, I'm with Raphy

You just used much bigger words, Mlle

 

[Guest]

You just used much bigger words, Mlle

Raff, the woman has a vocabulary I envy, and the authority of an intelligence to wield it with power. I adore her, if that hasn't been made evident.

'dita

 

[raphy]

Pure,

Be careful. Be very careful.....you're treading on dangerous ground here.

Whisper

Nah, Pure never treads on dangerous ground, because Pure never gives any real opinions, do you, Pure?

Pure likes to read a thread, then decide what the most politically convenient stance to take would be, then 'sum' up, providing an ample supply of googled web pages to back the summary.

That's why Pure's posts hold no weight

Right, Pure?

 

[raphy]

Raff, the woman has a vocabulary I envy, and the authority of an intelligence to wield it with power. I adore her, if that hasn't been made evident.

'dita

It has, and I'm coming round to your way of thinking.. Although I didn't need much nudging about Mlle

 

[Guest]

... I would add, the question, To what extent might all these "children" --perverted justice folks and FBI agents--on the net looking to be picked up, induce acts of pedophilia? Not unlike the uncover policeman who goes into the college bar offering to sell drugs.

One does not "induce" pedophilia. Your analogy is stupid. A person who enters a chat room of children and speaks to someone who is impersonating a child is NOT induced, simply tricked. NO ordinary child seduces a grown-up either.

Perdita

 

[scarlet vixen]

Perdita said, "One does not "induce" pedophilia. Your analogy is stupid. A person who enters a chat room of children and speaks to someone who is impersonating a child is NOT induced, simply tricked. NO ordinary child seduces a grown-up either."

The issue of inducement to commit a crime is a live one. There is no actual child in the scenario, so the agent would be doing the inducing. How: Well, saying things like (hypothetically) "I'm 13 and I'm lonely. Can I see you?"

If the troller is an amateur, I think the chance of straying over the line and thus hurting or torpedoing the case is greater. Obviously an FBI agent is going to be more careful.

J.

[added 11-12] aka 'pure'

Quelle horreur, an alternate internet screenname. Good detective work, raphy, noting the J's, the I's, same topic, same thread, same evening. Definitely add 'cybersleuth' to your CV.

I know of no laws against another name/identity, barring fraud; or literotica rules, except for fraud and damage to the system; or moral rules, except, Don't mindfuck your friends.

 

[raphy]

Looks like somebody didn't check what username they were logged in under.

 

[raphy]

Oh look, and now it's been edited to take the 'J' out of it...

*chuckles*.... Nice try, Pure

 

[raphy]

Perdita said, "One does not "induce" pedophilia. Your analogy is stupid. A person who enters a chat room of children and speaks to someone who is impersonating a child is NOT induced, simply tricked. NO ordinary child seduces a grown-up either."

The issue of inducement to commit a crime is a live one. There is no actual child in the scenario, so the agent would be doing the inducing. How: Well, saying things like (hypothetically) "I'm 13 and I'm lonely. Can I see you?"

If the troller is an amateur, I think the chance of straying over the line and thus hurting or torpedoing the case is greater. Obviously an FBI agent is going to be more careful.

J.

*smirks*

edit: Oh what a tangled web we weave...

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Oh....my...god.

He didn't...

Not really...!

*laughing****, hysterical.

At the risk of creating an oxymoron (or offending one), this is truly a stratospheric new low for The Individual.

mlle

Raphy, seriously, I want to mate with you. You rawk. LOL

 

[Guest]

... this is truly a stratospheric new low for The Individual.

Raphy, seriously, I want to mate with you. You rawk. LOL

Srta. Azul, I am laughing my fucking wet calzones off.

Trova