The new McCarthyism

[As a warning, be careful if you search for and visit any of the sites mentioned in this post. Some of these sites are decoys put up by police agencies, some are independent sites but whose visitors are monitored, and some are bona fide (if that term can be applied) child pornography sites but may be subject to seizure in the future with police inspection of the computer and web site records.]

William Burton once noted that when he placed the words "Bill Clinton's penis" in a post, he received an avalanche of hits. Other bloggers have noted that any post about "Elvis Presley" will also attract visitors like moths to a flame. I am a little troubled by what these visitors are looking for in their Google searches, but I'm sure my hit counter will go through the roof with this post about child pornography.

Recent high profile arrests for possession of child pornography in Britain have raised, to my way of thinking, a number of troubling issues. Let's consider the case of Peter Townshend. His arrest made the news, but details behind it are less well known. As reported in The Economist, two child pornography sites were raided by the FBI and their records confiscated. The FBI obtained over 7000 e-mail addresses and other identifiers, with more than 2400 of these from overseas, from the "Candyman" Yahoo site. Another subscription site called "Landslide" began as an adult porn site but provided child pornography as well. This was investigated by US postal inspectors and the DOJ. The owner of Landslide Productions, Mr. Reddy, was just sentenced to 1335 years in prison. The data from the seized business included computer records of an unknown number of American visitors, estimated at over 20,000.

The DOJ provided UK police with the names of 7272 British citizens who visited the site and subscribed. These names, along with those from the Candyman investigation, are being investigated in the UK under the name of "Operation Ore." As reported in the Economist article, UK police have selectively investigated people on that list.

When the inquiry began, the police divided the suspects into three groups. The highest priority for investigation was given to anyone with access to children, with a previous conviction or who was on the sex offender register. The second category was those in a position of authority, while the lowest priority was given to the largest group—those not regarded as posing a particular risk to children.

In other words, after going after the ex-cons, the police next concentrate on the political targets, then, perhaps later, on those persons who were not known to the police previously. To be sure, some of these are be sex-offenders not yet identified who are left free to continue their activities while the police concentrate on the high-profile cases. Its the treatment of the political cases that is interesting.

They include judges, teachers, barristers, solicitors, university lecturers, hospital consultants, a deputy prison governor, 50 policemen (including two involved in the investigation into the murders of two girls in Soham last year) and, it is said, two senior Labour MPs. Fewer than 5% were previously known to the police. The lives of any who are named as suspects, whether they are innocent or guilty, will be ruined. Already, there have been two suicides. Each day more names are dribbling out, sometimes even before a search warrant has been issued or an arrest made. And the police have not yet started on category three.

Some of the leaks are part of a long and dishonourable tradition of a few crooked policemen selling information to tabloid papers.

One of the people arrested with Mr. Townshend, a teacher named Gerry Megham, may also have committed suicide. Lest the reader think such stories are only in the UK, I point to several recent local high profile arrests in Florida, including a rabbi, a reverend, a social worker, and an assistant district attorney. All are accused of accessing child pornography on the internet and downloading pictures on their computers.

This current spate of arrests bears closer examination. The charges of "engaging or manufacturing child pornography" are so seemingly heinous on the surface that they inspire revulsion in most people. Yet, the laws are written and interpreted so that downloading a picture constitutes "manufacturing" child pornography. By this definition, anyone who has looked at the "Anarchist's Cookbook" on the internet (and there are many sites where it is posted) has manufactured a bomb and, according to Mr. Ashcroft's new, improved "Patriot II," is a terrorist who can be imprisoned without trial.

Secondly, the charges are so damaging that the mere accusation is enough to destroy one's life and career, much like the charges of Communist Party membership in the McCarthy era. The evidence may be just as evanescent. In some cases, it consists of IP and e-mail addresses which the police say point to the suspect; in others, it is images found on computers which are impounded by the police and only available for defense inspection afterwards. Call me paranoid, but when prominent persons are selectively accused and ruined as they are trotted off in handcuffs in the full glare of a (selectively leaked) media circus, the possibilities for abuse are only too evident. Later, when the evidence is heard and the accused exonerated, you can be sure there will be no front page leader.

Further, while "child pornography" is repulsive, the effectiveness of such draconian actions are questionable. The attendant witch-hunt atmosphere is clearly excessive and seems to be manipulated by law enforcement. Here locally, in the lead up to a recent demonstration, I witnessed this as interviews were put on hold while the media scurried to cover the (leaked and staged) arrest of a local assistant DA. This story led.

It is clear that such a reflexive "natural" revulsion to child porn is cultural. Historically, there is evidence of adult-child sexuality in the Greek and Roman eras. In modern Japan, erotic images (movie, photo, and anime) of young girls are accepted and readily available; there is obvious social pressure for girls to dress and appear pre-pubescent. Japan may be the largest source of "kiddie porn" in the world. Even in our own culture, there is a not too subtle stream. However, in mass media, it is only acceptable to present this as "pubescent" soft porn (consider Nabokov or the movie "American Beauty").

Nevertheless, let's posit that there is a social and government interest in protecting children from exploitation, whether through labor, abuse, or sexual exploitation. Given this state interest, then there are two main arguments for harsh penalties for those acquire child pornography. First, it is argued that looking at kiddie porn leads to child sexual abuse and creates "predators." Secondly, paying for photographs of children being sexually abused creates an incentive for more abuse in order to produce more such material.

The first argument is weak. As noted in the Economist,

Proponents of the argument that looking leads to doing say that, in America, 36% of those who watch child pornography are also child molesters. Whether or not that widely-disputed figure is true, it does not prove that watching pornography causes abuse. What about the other 64%? Maybe, for them, looking is a substitute for doing. Interestingly, at the same time as child pornography has become more widely available, so child abuse has declined. According to the Crimes Against Children Research Centre, a research group funded by America's Department of Justice, between 1992 and 2000 the number of substantiated cases of sexual abuse of children in the United States dropped by more than a third. In Britain, child abuse declined by 7% between 1991 and 2001.

Other empiric evidence that those who look at child pornography are likely to be child abusers or sexual predators suggests that the number is probably less than 10%.

A corollary argument is that allowing any child sex abuse perpetuates a "cycle" of sexual abuse as these abused children become abusers in turn. This appears to occur at a lower rate than previously alleged (about 1 in 8). Further, it appears that, just as in the case of rape, these acts are more about violence than sex. Children who are victims of physical abuse, not specifically sexual abuse, are more likely to become sexual abusers. Once one dissects out the effect of physical abuse, the predictive value of prior sexual abuse in determining who becomes a sexual offender is difficult to show.

The second argument, that paying for photographs of children being sexually abused creates an incentive for more abuse in order to produce more such material, is probably true. But, in yet another case of unintended consequences, Mr. Ashcroft may, himself, be one of the biggest child pornographers. After the Candyman and Landslide sites were detected, they were infiltrated by government agents and police posing as customers and the sites were allowed to continue operating. The Candyman site was a file sharing site. What did the FBI agents share and where did it come from? Landslide was a subscription site. I wonder how many of my tax dollars was paid to these sites and other sources. How much of that money flowed to the real manufacturers (photographers and distributors overseas)? It is certain that the interest shown by the "agents" and infusion of money actually stimulated production of new material and increased, not reduced, risk for children, again mostly overseas.

The pornography industry is increasingly globalized and most porn appears to come from overseas. In this not-yet-declared "War on Porn," the DOJ and other police forces appear to be concentrating on the easy targets, the individual "consumers" of such material. A pattern of selective arrests and prosecution designed to maximize media interest and promote the appearance of "doing something" is evident. This strategy is doomed to failure, as in the so-called "War on Drugs." Aggressive enforcement in the US may net 100,000 arrests (based on the number from the two operations so far) if all those so implicated were pursued. More sweeping arrests of these customers may net a number of actual sexual predators, which is laudable, at a cost of ruining of the majority of those accused, most simply voyeurs. Even so, that is drop in the bucket considering the world-wide consumer base. It is much harder for the DOJ to go after the producers in other countries and, thus, actually protect the children being victimized. This requires diplomacy, patience, funds, and a multilateral approach, all things for which the administration has show little affinity.

Posted by Gordon at February 07, 2003 09:11 PM | E-mail Author | Back to main page