Supreme Court Grants Justice Dep't Request to Reject Child Victims

Last week the United States Supreme Court ignored the extraordinary pleas of three nationally recognized child advocacy groups and granted the Justice Department's request to dismiss a child sex abuse victim's appeal for criminal restitution.

The case now returns to the district court which must follow the DC Circuit's holding that the victim in this case, Amy, does not have a clear and indisputable right to full restitution, but must instead trace precisely how her losses were “proximately” caused by each of the thousands of child molesters and pedophiles who collect and trade her child sex abuse images.

The Supreme Court's rejection means that a child pornography victim's right to criminal restitution in the federal courts will continue to be limited and denied in sixteen states and territories, including California, New York and Washington, DC. Only in the Fifth Circuit—encompassing the states of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi—is restitution still mandatory.

The Court's denial—and the Justice Department's stubborn refusal to abandon a legal standard which the influential Ninth Circuit concluded "present[s] serious obstacles for victims seeking restitution in these sorts of cases"—leaves child sex abuse victims like Amy with scant chance for justice in the federal courts.

Pedophiles, child molesters and the Justice Department are likely to seize on the high court's rejection as a sign that criminal restitution for child sex abuse victims is all but impossible in the federal courts except under the most egregious circumstances.

We continue to urge everyone to Take Action and ask the Justice Department to stop siding with convicted child molesters and pedophiles instead of child sex abuse victims!

Just go to http://bit.ly/DOJustice for full details on how you can help.

For the complete background on this issue, visit http://www.childlaw.us/restitution/.

Take Action! Here's how you can help child sex abuse victims

Why is the Justice Department siding with convicted child molesters and pedophiles instead of child sex abuse victims? Many have called and e-mailed asking "what can I do to help convince the Justice Department to change its unacceptable position on this issue?"

Now you can easily support child sex abuse victims by submitting a request to Congress and the President.

Just click on the Take Action button which will launch our petition at Petition2Congress.com. We've filled in all the details and it only takes a minute.

Just add your name and zip code and a pre-formatted letter will be created which asks your Representative, Senators and the President to immediately contact the Justice Department and ask why the Criminal Division is opposing the victims in In re: Amy Unknown in the Fifth Circuit and United States v. Shawn Crawford in the Sixth Circuit.

The letter also asks Congress to hold hearings to find out why the Justice Department is siding with convicted child molesters and pedophiles instead of child sex abuse victims.

You will be given a chance to make any changes or edits to the letter before sending. For maximum impact Petition2Congress.com can hand-deliver a printed copy of your letter to Capitol Hill and the White House.

Amy and Vicky need your help. Hundreds of victims like them are effectively shut-out of the federal courts by the Justice Department's wrongheaded policy.

Almost 20 years ago, then-Senator Joe Biden promised victims that they would receive restitution from criminals convicted of child sex crimes. Ironically, Vice President Biden's own Justice Department is failing to live up to his vision in the Violence Against Women's Act.

You can help awaken the politicians in Washington with just a few clicks. Amy and Vicky thank everyone for their continued support. You can make a difference in their fight for justice!

Justice Department Sides with Child Molesters and Pedophiles AGAIN

When Justice Department attorneys refused to even sit with the child sex abuse victim at last year's oral argument before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Chief Judge Edith Jones proclaimed:

"What I don't understand is why the government has switched sides. They were on Amy's side in the trial court, were they not? I'm not sure how they can switch sides now and say that the statute doesn't entitle her to relief. That seems very—if not duplicitous—very strange to me. And it's also in derogation of the obvious intent of that provision of the statute."

Now, over a year later, the Justice Department has done the exact same thing again in the Sixth Circuit. Only this time they are asking the Court of Appeals to nullify a court-ordered million dollar award to a child sex abuse victim.

Why is the Obama Justice Department siding with convicted child molesters and pedophiles instead of child sex abuse victims?

In response to this shameful position, the Marsh Law Firm has joined forces with lawyers for the victim in this case and requested immediate intervention in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to defend the million dollar judgment which was abandoned by the government on appeal.

The child sex abuse victim in this case, Vicky, is represented by Seattle attorney Carol Hepburn, who declared:

"It's bad enough that we so often have to fight child molesters and pedophiles all over the country just to get some measure of restitution for the victim. Now we have to fight the government too. Unfortunately the government has turned on us in one of the few cases where we won something significant which would really make a difference in my client's life. I just don't understand why the government is deciding to flip-flop and now go against the victim in these cases."

According to crime victims’ rights advocate Paul Cassell, a former federal judge who is currently a law professor at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at University of Utah (and who also represents Vicky on appeal on a pro bono basis):

"It is unconscionable that the government would abandon a child victim on appeal without any notice or a chance to respond. We only found out about this appeal by accident. If we hadn't intervened, no one would have protected this substantial award before the Court of Appeals. Who could have imagined that the government—which worked so hard at the trial court to obtain this award—would suddenly and without warning switch sides before the Sixth Circuit? The Justice Department simply forgot about the child victim when it filed its appeal pleadings."

Marsh Law Firm partner, James R. Marsh, emphasized that the legal fight for child sex abuse victims will continue whenever and wherever necessary:

"The Department of Justice has fought against us in the Fifth Circuit, the District of Columbia Circuit, the Supreme Court and now the Sixth Circuit. Apparently the decision to abandon child sex abuse victims is being made by lifelong apparatchiks who haven't left Washington in a long, long time. This kind of stupidity is one reason why the American people have such distrust and cynicism in our government right now. It defies any sense of common decency that some government lawyer in Washington, DC would think it's a good idea to expend taxpayer dollars to fight against the interests of child sex abuse victims everywhere in the country."

Marsh exclaimed:

"At a time when Penn State has incited international indignity, it's outrageous that the federal government is marshaling every effort to deny child sex abuse victims criminal restitution which was a central part of the law championed by the Administration's own Vice President Biden as part of his landmark 1994 Violence Against Women's Act. Now that the Senate is holding hearings on how well the nation is protecting children from abuse and neglect, they should start by asking why their own Justice Department is siding with convicted child molesters and pedophiles against the interests of child sex abuse victims."

Click here to Take Action on this issue!

Exploitation of Children Over the Internet Congressional Testimony

The C-Span Video library is a tremendous resource. It has archived on the internet thousands of Congressional hearings and testimony available nowhere else.

Here is Masha Allen's testimony in May 2006 about her international adoption by pedophile Matthew Mancuso.

Unfortunately the explosive Congressional Hearing in September 2006 concerning so-called Follow-Up Issues to the Masha Allen Adoption (i.e., how a single adult male pedophile was able to adopt a five year old Russian girl with the approval of the U.S. State Department and the State of Pennsylvania) is only available in a boring old Congressional Report. Sadly, that revolution was not televised.

How We Can Prevent Child Sexual Abuse

This just arrived in my inbox from the Massachusetts Citizens for Children Enough Abuse Campaign. It is well worth repeating here:

An Open Letter to Massachusetts Citizens About the Penn State Scandal
How We Can Prevent Child Sexual Abuse in Our State

While the Penn State child sexual abuse scandal and cover-up grab national attention, the fact is that cases of child sexual abuse continue to be exposed with unrelenting regularity in every state and community across our country. In Massachusetts alone just in the past six months, we have learned about the decades-long sexual abuse of boys treated by renowned pediatrician Dr. Melvin Levin of Children’s Hospital, the revealed boyhood sexual abuse of Senator Scott Brown by a counselor at a Cape Cod summer camp, the sexual abuse of young female tennis players by former Massachusetts coach and International Tennis Hall of Famer Bob Hewitt. Many more current incidents of child sexual abuse involving less well-known abusers appear weekly in local newspapers all across our state.

Predictably, the Sandusky/Paterno case has prompted the media to focus on who knew what and when. Legislators rush to file bills to strengthen reporting requirements, the alleged abuser is arrested and charged, and we all express sorry for the children who have been violated and for their families who are distressed beyond what we can even imagine.

But the truth is that these after-the-fact responses are insufficient to address what the American Medical Association has labeled “…a silent, violent epidemic.” It’s time to support efforts aimed at preventing child sexual abuse from happening in the first place. This is what Massachusetts Citizens for Children (MCC), lead agency for the Enough Abuse Campaign, has been working to do since the Campaign was launched in 2002.

A public opinion poll conducted in 2007 by the Campaign documented that:

• 80% of citizens believe child sexual abuse is a serious problem in our state


• 75% said they believe it is preventable


• 64% said they would be willing to participate in local community trainings about child sexual abuse and how they can prevent it—up from 48% in a poll conducted four years earlier

Clearly, citizens like you are critical partners in getting the word out that child sexual abuse can be prevented and that in Massachusetts, through the Enough Abuse Campaign, we have the tools and the tested strategies to get the job done.

As a parent, grandparent, or concerned citizen, we are asking you to:

1. Educate yourself about the real facts of child sexual abuse so that you can be an informed advocate for your children and all the children in your family and community.


2. Get involved with the Enough Abuse Campaign, a Massachusetts effort that has been recognized nationally as an effective model to mobilize communities and educate parents, youth, and a range of professionals and other adults about child sexual abuse and how to prevent it.


3. Support the Campaign with your dollars so we can achieve our goal: By 2015 every city and town in Massachusetts will be actively engaged in learning about child sexual abuse and preventing it.

Here are the Details

The Enough Abuse Campaign is overseen by the Massachusetts Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Partnership, a collaboration of twenty statewide public agencies and private organizations. The Campaign was formed in 2002 under a 5-year grant from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, our nation’s leading public health agency.  The Campaign is now operating in Greater Gloucester, Newton/Waltham, Orange/Athol area, Greater Lowell, Springfield, and in western rural counties. Efforts are currently underway to expand the Campaign to Cape Cod and other communities.

The Campaign’s work has caused the CDC to call Massachusetts “one of the first states in the nation to lead a trailblazing effort to prevent child sexual abuse….” The Ms. Foundation for Women has called the Campaign “an effort that breaks the mold on child sexual abuse in many ways. Its emphasis on community collaboration truly sets it apart from previous efforts.” The Campaign was selected earlier this year by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as one of 12 exemplary projects in the country working to end child maltreatment.

While the Campaign mobilizes communities and trains their leaders to deliver free in-person community workshops and presentations, a new effort has been launched to educate concerned citizens in the privacy of their own homes and offices. By “Joining the Movement” on the Campaign’s homepage, members receive by email our “10 Conversations” series; a new short educational piece is sent twice each month for five months filled with critical information every concerned adult should know and can use to prevent sexual abuse. Topics include:

1. What is Child Sexual Abuse? Touching and Non-Touching Offenses


2. Who are the Abusers? How Can We Identify Them?


3. Grooming Tactics used by Sexual Abusers


4. Behavior and Physical Signs that Might Indicate Child Sexual Abuse


5. Sexual Behaviors of Children: Typical or Problematic?


6. Responding to Sexual Behaviors of Children: Building Skills to Respond Appropriately


7. Talk to Your Children: It’s Easy if You Begin Early and Communicate Often


8. Impact of Child Sexual Abuse on Children


9. Keeping Children Safe on the Internet


10. The Public’s Opinion on Child Sexual Abuse

The series is followed with regular email updates about the latest information in the field, activities of Campaign communities, special events and trainings, and profiles on outstanding prevention advocates.

So please take these actions today. Go to www.enoughabuse.org and view our brief video, “a silent epidemic.” (Many have called it “powerful”, “compelling”, “a real eye opener.”) Then be sure to “Join the Movement” on the homepage so you can begin immediately receiving our “10 Conversations” series online. Tell family members, friends and colleagues about how they, too, can get educated and encourage them to join.

Hacking Child Pornography

A new front has opened in the battle to control child pornography on the internet. Members of the Anonymous hacktivist movement have recently taken down more than 40 secret child-pornography websites and revealed the names of more than 1,500 members of one of the illegal sites.

According to Security News Daily:

The Anonymous campaign began Oct. 14, when members of the hacktivist group found a cache of child-pornography websites while browsing a secret website called the Hidden Wiki, a guidebook to hundreds of underground websites invisible to search engines and regular Internet users. The hackers singled out Lolita City, a file-sharing site used by pedophiles, and leaked the names of the site's 1,589 active members to Pastebin on Tuesday (Oct. 18), the Examiner reported.

Member of Anonymous deciding to hack a website whose stance they don't agree with is by no means shocking news. In the past year, Anonymous-affiliated hackers have gone after the New York Stock Exchange, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Recording Industry Association of America and government sites in Malaysia, Egypt, Tunisia and Zimbabwe.

However, in targeting child pornography sites, and in explaining its methods of attack, these Anonymous-affiliated hackers have revealed a deeply disturbing side of the Internet unknown to most people.

The so-called "darknet," from which this "Operation Darknet" hacking campaign takes its name, is any part of the Internet that is hidden from view — not just hard to reach, but deliberately concealed. In this instance, a darknet appears to have grown out of the free TOR routing service, which offers anonymous, encrypted Web browsing to any user.

The TOR-based darknet has reportedly grown into a private, encrypted constellation of websites offering a variety of shady and illegal services, from fake IDs and steroids to email hacking and tip on how to call in police raids as pranks. There's even a hidden site called "The Last Box" that bills itself as an "Assassination Market."

Not many people know about the "Darknet," and if you do you're probably up to no good. Anonymous' success in penetrating and disrupting Darknet is significant since only the most technically sophisticated hackers could perform such a feat. Unfortunately, given the scope and seemingly endless proliferation of child pornography, it is unlikely that Anonymous can or will have any lasting impact. Their actions do, however, demonstrate to law enforcement and others the possibility of a new approach to dealing with online child exploitation.

Read the entire story here.

Pedophiles Lobby for Acceptance

Two recent articles expose a political effort by pedophiles to gain acceptance and legitimacy. Last week FoxNews reported that a group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals are lobbying for changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, the guideline of standards on mental health that's put together by the American Psychiatric Association. According to FoxNews:

The organization, which calls itself B4U-Act says its mission is to help pedophiles before they create a crisis, and to do so by offering a less critical view of the disorder.

"Stigmatizing and stereotyping minor-attracted people inflames the fears of minor-attracted people, mental health professionals and the public, without contributing to an understanding of minor-attracted people or the issue of child sexual abuse," reads the organization's website.

B4U-Act said that 38 individuals attended a symposium in Baltimore last week, including researchers from Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University and the universities of Illinois and Louisville. According to the group, which said to not endorse every point of view expressed, the speakers in attendance concluded that "minor-attracted" individuals are largely misunderstood and should not be criminalized even as their actions should be discouraged.

Speakers also argued that people who are sexually attracted to children should have input into the decision about how pedophilia is defined in the DSM, which they said is supposed to be a guide to promote “mental health vs. social control.”

Critics of the conference say it was a thinly veiled attempt to make children of any age sexually accessible to adults.

That same week, the New York Times ran an op-ed entitled "Sex Offenders: The Last Pariahs" The author, Professor Roger N. Lancaster, argues that:

Our sex offender laws are expansive, costly and ineffective — guided by panic, not reason. It is time to change the conversation: to promote child welfare based on sound data rather than statistically anomalous horror stories, and in some cases to revisit outdated laws that do little to protect children. Little will have been gained if we trade a bloated prison system for sprawling forms of electronic surveillance that offload the costs of imprisonment onto offenders, their families and their communities.

This sounds reasonable until you consider that Lancaster ignores recent research which indicates a substantial rate of recidivism by convicted child sex offenders. According to Lancaster "only a tiny proportion of sex crimes are committed by repeat offenders."

A recently reported study of individuals incarcerated for possession, receipt and distribution of child pornography, however, found that these offenders were significantly
more likely than not to have sexually abused a child via a hands-on act.

The study’s authors suggest that online criminal investigations, while targeting so-called “Internet sex offenders,” likely have resulted in the apprehension of concomitant child molesters. Upon being discovered these offenders tend to minimize their behavior. They may attribute their search for child pornography to “curiosity” or a similar benign motivation. They may “accept responsibility” only for those behaviors that are already known to law enforcement, but hide any contact sexual crimes to avoid prosecution for these offenses, or to avoid the shame and humiliation that would result from revealing their deviance to family, friends, and community. Only later do the majority of sex offenders who enter treatment acknowledge that they were not, as they initially claimed, merely interested in sexual images involving children; they were, and are, sexually aroused by children.

Further, as prior research and the current findings suggest, it appears that the manifestations of their deviant sexual arousal was not limited to fantasy. Rather,
when an opportunity arose either incidentally or as a result of planned predatory efforts many offenders molested or raped children and engaged in a variety of other
sexually deviant behaviors. Michael L. Bourke & Andres E. Hernandez, The ‘Butner Study’ Redux: A Report of the Incidence of Hands-on Child Victimization by Child
Pornography Offenders, Journal of Family Violence (2009) 24:183-191.

In addition, one study of sex offenders found an overall recidivism rate of 31.7%. Kingston, Drew, et al., Pornography Use and Sexual Aggression: The Impact of
Frequency and Type of Pornography Use on Recidivism Among Sexual Offenders, Aggressive Behavior, Volume 34 (2008).

The predicted odds of recidivism increased by 177% among the offenders that viewed deviant pornography such as child pornography. Moreover, the predicted odds of
violent recidivism, including sexually violent recidivism, increased by 185% for this group. The predicted odds of any type of sexual recidivism increased by 233% for
the group that admitted to viewing deviant pornography. This increased risk of recidivism among sexually deviant offenders has also been found in earlier studies,
including a meta-study from 1996 (updated in 2004). See Hanson, R. Karl, et. al., Predictors of Sexual Recidivism: An Updated Meta-Analysis, Public Works and Government Services Canada (2004).

Indeed, a study slated for publication in December, followed 201 registered male child pornography offenders 5.9 years after release from prison. In this extended follow-up, 34% of offenders had new charges for any type of reoffense, with 6% charged with a contact sexual offense against a child and an additional 3% charged with historical contact sex offenses (i.e., previously undetected offenses). Predictors of new violent (including sexual contact) offending were prior offense history, including violent history, and younger offender age. Approximately a quarter of the sample was sanctioned for a failure on conditional release; in half of these failures, the
offenders were in contact with children or used the internet, often to access pornography again. Angela W. Eke, Michael C. Seto & Jennette Williams, Examining the Criminal History and Future Offending of Child Pornography Offenders: An Extended Prospective Follow-up Study, Law Hum Behav (2011) 35:466-478.

And remember, these studies only count repeat offenders who were caught. Given the huge and well-documented under-reporting of sex crimes by children, the recidivism numbers are likely to be much higher.

Clearly, sound public policy should not be based on "moral panic," supposition or shoddy evidence. Unfortunately for B4U-Act and Lancaster, the research is all too clear. Criminals who represent a clear and present danger to our communities need continued incarceration and close monitoring. That's reason enough for everyone.

The Free Market in Child Pornography

More than six years after the international law enforcement community began desperately searching for the child pornography victim known as the Disney World Girl, justice remains allusive for Masha Allen. Despite two Congressional investigations in 2006 and pressure from Nancy Grace and Oprah, none of the perpetrators involved with her international adoption have been brought to justice.

Despite the involvement of almost 30 lawyers since Masha was rescued from Matthew Mancuso in 2003 (including the prosecutor and lead investigator in the much-hyped Caylee Anthony investigation), not one of the many child welfare institutions and organizations who were involved with Masha's international and domestic adoptions have paid one dime for her care and recovery.

And despite a federal law named for her, not one case has been brought on her behalf under Masha's Law which guarantees $150,000 from each of the thousands of child molesters who collect and trade her images each year.

Neither a high-profile 2008 exposé in Wikileaks nor aborted investigations by ABC News in 2009 and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 2010 have been able to shed any light on the abject failure of the American justice system to vindicate the rights of one of the most notorious victims of child trafficking in this country's history.

Ms. Allen will turn 19 in just a few days. With each passing year, her ability to collect anything from anyone diminishes substantially. The tolling she enjoyed as a minor under the Pennsylvania statute of limitations ended when she reached legal adulthood last year. Law suits for intentional torts typically must be brought within a year. Claims for fraud, personal injury or professional malpractice must be brought before Masha turns 20. This includes a lawsuit under the Notice of Claim relating to her failed domestic adoption by Faith Allen which we filed back in 2007.

Masha's millionaire father also has somehow escaped civil liability for what he did to Masha. And while other victims are collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in mandatory restitution in the federal courts, Masha has sought and received nothing.

Now Masha's Law itself is under attack. In 2009, Jesse Walker, the influential editor of Reason magazine (which espouses "free minds and free markets"), wrote an editorial entitled The Blurry Boundaries of Child Porn. Walker correctly summarizes Supreme Court jurisprudence which makes child pornography outside the scope of First Amendment protection when he recognizes that "[t]he viewing [of child sex abuse images], in this analysis, is itself a perpetuation of the abuse."

Walker continues:

Such arguments undergird Masha’s Law, named for Masha Allen, a Russian orphan who was held prisoner, raped repeatedly on camera, and advertised in the kiddie porn world as “Disney World Girl.” The measure, which became law in 2006, allows adults who were victimized by pornographers as minors to sue people who download the resulting images.

Emotionally, it’s a compelling concept. And where invasion of privacy is the concern, civil remedies certainly make more sense than criminal prosecutions. But the idea opens a can of worms. If the issue is privacy, shame, and being haunted by ineradicable images, wouldn’t the same argument apply to the abused prisoners photographed at Abu Ghraib? To hostages filmed by their captors and aired on the news? To anyone humiliated in front of a camera? Should an inadvertent Internet celebrity, deeply embarrassed that people are chuckling at a clip of his light-saber dance, have standing to sue the viewers?

That last example might seem absurd, but it actually veers close to the pornography debate. Because the child porn laws set the age of maturity so high, they cover not just the victims of coercion but exhibitionists who voluntarily put photographs of themselves online. There also are people who post pictures that are salacious but don’t include the “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” invoked by the law. They do not necessarily intend for anyone but their friends to see the photos. But the Internet doesn’t always work that way.

After analogizing Masha's child sex abuse images to teen-aged girls in bikinis and equating them with a video clip of a "light-saber dance," Walker declares "Is it the role of the government to preserve her peace of mind? … I’m not convinced that’s reason enough to punish the people who merely see those recordings, as opposed to the people who actively participate in the abuse of prisoners like Allen."

Perhaps what Walker desires is a "free market" in child pornography which will "free the minds" of the tens of thousands of child molesters and pedophiles who actively collect and trade child sex abuse pictures and videos.

Walker's vision, however, is hardly "free" or fair to the victims. Until the legal system insures that victims like Masha Allen can recover for the very real harms caused by the horrific abuse inflicted on them by the production, distribution and collection of child sex abuse images, the "market" is neither free nor fair.

And as we've seen in the Masha Allen case, if Congress, Oprah and 30 lawyers can't bring justice to one victim, then deregulating the market for child pornography is hardly the answer. Sadly, Walker's unfettered "free market free mind" is currently much closer to reality than the victims' "peace of mind." Unfortunately, for Masha Allen and thousands of other victims of child pornography, justice remains long in coming.

DOJ Video - Sexual Exploitation of Children

More PR than facts, this Department of Justice video discusses the Department's national strategy to prevent and combat the sexual exploitation of children. (For some bizarre reason, the video's imagery exclusively shows Black males as offenders. In reality, the vast majority of defendants who produce, distribute and collect child pornography are White males between the ages of 35 and 60. The video also mixes child prostitution, the online solicitation of children, and child pornography; they are all very separate problems with different perpetrators and victims.)

­Francey Hakes, National Coordinator for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction, talks a lot about prevention, hyping the oft-lauded "public-private" partnerships as a "solution" to these problems. I have yet to see any peer reviewed studies of programs or initiatives which can hinder or stop an adult pedophile child molester from raping and sexually abusing a child (often to produce child pornography).

In answering the question, "can we persuade them not to do this sort of stuff," Dr. Michael Bourke, U.S. Marshals Service Chief Psychologist, provides the most honest assessment when he states "I think the answer is fairly multifaceted, but the short answer is that there is no cure for pedophilia, there is no cure for these fantasies and these drives per se. There is however, for any of these individuals, a possibility of managing that behavior …"

In response, the moderator declares "so treatment does work, that's one of the things I did want to get across, treatment does work … treatment does work! We can meaningfully intervene." In response, Bourke explains "Right, well there are individuals who with those proper things in place, have a choice not to re-offend."

Sounds like a successful strategy to me. If you carefully consider Bourke's words: pedophiles cannot be cured, some of these guy might be able to manage their illicit behavior, and some of these might choose not to re-offend. Note he said "re-offend." Given the secretive nature of this crime, just how many of these perpetrators will get caught? And who would ever advocate or accept that an "incurable" murderer be released with the hope that they will successfully "manage" their homicidal urges?

Perhaps Ashley Natoli, Community Supervision Officer in the DC Sex Offender Unit, says it best when she notes that "a lot of these offenders, they are masters of manipulation and deception, and that's, in most instances, in a lot of instances, how they ended up offending in the first place, because they have an incredible ability to groom these victims and they have mastered the art of manipulation."

Thank goodness the probation officers get it.

Unfortunately most of federal judges don't. Each year thousands of white middle-aged men who produce, distribute and collect child pornography are arrested and sentenced in the federal court system. (Almost 100% plead guilty.) Most of these men will eventually be released. And most of them will not receive any peer reviewed treatment for their incurable pedophilia. Some of these men will be monitored at various levels by probation for a few years or for life.

The outcome of this social policy is untested and impossible to predict. Unfortunately, however, the federal justice system regards a few years of incarceration along with a determinate period of probation supervision as a "solution" for the child molesters and pedophiles who appear before them daily. And incredibly, there is a vigorous effort happening right now before the United States Sentencing Commission to REDUCE sentences for child pornography.

In truth, it's not really the judges' fault. There is scant information about these offenders and treatment in peer reviewed journals. (Unfortunately what few studies exist are often overlooked or ignored.) The "lock-up, release and monitor" paradigm—which is the only real option right now—is untested and unchallenged. Until we have more data and better answers on recidivism rates, treatment methodology and peer reviewed outcomes, the federal justice system will continue to engage in a dangerous social policy with offenders who everyone agrees are incurable.

The 'Secret' - the key to understanding child sex abuse

The 'Secret' is the bond established by the abuser with the child victim. It ensures that nobody knows of the abuse other than the abuser and the abused. It is kept in place by embarrassment, fear or respect.

Embarrassment that friends or family will find out what happened. An emotion sometimes secured with photographs.

Fear for the safety of the child and their family should they disclose anything - fear that the abuser will inform - parents - friends, about the behaviour their child has been pulled into and subjected to.

Respect or love for the abuser - strange as this may seem - for the attention and concern that they have shown the child that the child craves and does not receive at home. Over time, absent a good relationship between child and parents,
the abuser seduces the child, earning their trust and friendship.

For this reason the child will keep the secret intact out of a need for the attention received from the abuser and the fear of losing a friend should the abuser be caught.

Check out AbuseWatch.eu for more information on how to understand and stop child sex exploitation.

Caylee Anthony - killed for child pornography?

Child advocate Wendy Murphy has a compelling blog entry about the Casey Anthony acquittal entitled "Not Guilty Verdict is the Right Result - But We're Not Done Yet."

Murphy argues that "Justice for Caylee is still possible, notwithstanding the acquittal, if people call for full disclosure of the entire investigative file - including an unsealing of the evidence thus far hidden from public view. Release of the photographs of Caylee that were seized from the Anthony home and placed “under seal” by the court would be a good place to start."

Law enforcement may have discovered "sexualized" images of Caylee on the Anthony family computers which were placed under seal to avoid prejudicing the jury. Murphy believes that "The style of Caylee’s death was more mob hit than parental homicide."

Murphy's most powerful argument for the Caylee Anthony child-sex-ring-victim theory is:

In fact, while a child might die after having her mouth taped shut, the most rational view of the duct tape evidence suggests the child died before the duct tape was applied and that the tape was meant only to hold in decomposition fluids. When a dead body beings to decompose, fluids emanate from places like the nose and mouth, and they emit putrid odors. The best way for a killer to delay detection is to seal the nose and mouth.

It’s certainly possible that at age 19, a high school dropout like Casey with no experience as a killer, nonetheless knew how to seal a dead body like a master murderer. And it’s true that her failure to report Caylee missing for more than a month is powerful evidence of her consciousness of guilt. The question is - guilt about what? It’s just as possible Casey did not kill her child; that she was afraid to call the cops - and that her fear was related to those sealed photographs.

As Casey’s brother Lee testified at trial, Casey was told that Caylee was taken from Casey to “teach her a lesson”. If, as I wrote in an earlier column, Casey knew the people who had Caylee, and stayed quiet in the hope they would give her child back, her failure to report Caylee missing makes sense.

Child pornography can be a big business which is much cheaper and safer than drug smuggling or human trafficking. A vulnerable mother with a drug debt and a small child is the perfect target for child pornography producers. There are hundreds of cases in which parents "sell" their children for drugs or cash. The children of prostitutes often end up involved in prostitution and child pornography. It's tragically easy to dispose of the "evidence" in a country where hundreds of thousands of children go missing each year.

Murphy has surprisingly taken some heat for her theory, but anyone who knows the reality behind the sordid world of child pornography and exploitation will find her analysis neither far-fetched nor hyperbolic.

In an interesting aside, the prosecutor in the Anthony case is also the prosecutor who vowed to send Masha Allen's rapist, Matthew Mancuso, to the Florida death chamber. Mancuso initially faced eight counts of capital sexual battery which could have made him eligible for the death penalty. Despite the fact that there were pictures of him raping his 10 year old adopted daughter at Disney World, Mancuso was allowed to plead guilty to attempted sexual battery. According to Florida law, "criminal attempt" means a person who attempts to commit an offense but fails in the perpetration of that offense. Inexplicably, Mancuso was allowed to plead down from a death sentence to just 14 years in prison.

The Mancuso case also contained controversial sealed evidence in the form of two highly unusual video-taped depositions of Faith and Masha Allen. Shortly after the depositions, the Florida state's attorney agreed to the lowest possible plea. Maybe having pictures as evidence doesn't matter after all.

Harvard's Berkman Center Sells Out to the Man - AGAIN

Once again, Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society has sacrificed the public good for the large corporate interests which fund this so-called "academic research center." Fed at the special interests trough by some of America's most powerful Internet corporations such as AT&T, Google, Microsoft, and AOL, Berkman has been openly hostile to victims of online exploitation and child pornography. (See this blog's Cyber Conflict of Interest - Harvard Law School's Berkman Center Calls Online Threats to Children Overblown)

Not surprisingly, Berkman is at the forefront in criticizing French President Nicolas Sarkozy's effort to impose Internet regulation through the framework of the Group of 8 industrialized countries.

Early next week, G-8 leaders will urge the adoption of measures to protect children from online predators, to strengthen privacy rights and to crack down on digital copyright piracy. This effort is fiercely opposed by some Internet companies and apparently their main academic spokesperson, the not-so-independent Berkman Center.

Before an audience that included top executives of some of the world’s largest Internet companies, including Google, Facebook, Amazon and eBay--all of whom underwrite the Berkman Center--Sarkozy explained: “The universe you represent is not a parallel universe. Nobody should forget that governments are the only legitimate representatives of the will of the people in our democracies. To forget this is to risk democratic chaos and anarchy.”

Yochai Benkler, Berkman Center's faculty co-director, told Finance Minister Christine Lagarde of France that he thought the French approach to online copyright protection was “the wrong way to go.”

“You can make the Internet safe for Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber, or you can make it safe for the next Skype or YouTube,” he said, asking her to relay that message to the G-8 leaders in Deauville.

Making the Internet "safe" for Skype or YouTube also means maintaining an unregulated and perversely open Internet where child molesters thrive and child sex abuse images--and increasingly movies--are widely available with little impunity for the perpetrators and consumers of such material. ISPs are free to delete logs and records of illegal activity, Facebook and other online content providers are immune from liability for assembling limitless archives of child pornography, and cutting edge technology like Google Hello is employed to facilitate the online exploitation of children.

France has gone further than many other Western countries in pushing for what Mr. Sarkozy has called a “civilized Internet.” Among his initiatives are a so-called three-strikes law that threatens persistent digital pirates with the suspension of their Internet connections. Another new French law authorizes the government to filter out Web sites containing illegal content like child pornography.

The G-8 communiqué, which is still being finalized by the G-8 leaders’ sherpas, or policy emissaries, is not expected to contain specific prescriptions like these. Instead, it will include broad pledges to deal with privacy, piracy and child protection, the people with knowledge of the talks said.

Berkman's presumed objection to such inherently broad and oblique international policy statements perhaps says the most about its true motives; a world in which its rich and powerful patrons can continue to act with impunity, free from regulation and the scrutiny that only democratically elected governments can provide.

Berkman, whose motto is "We seek to be an honest broker in the conversations about the future of the Internet and related technologies" is truly a gilded fox guarding a big and powerful chicken coop. Berkman underwriter Eric E. Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, echoed his apparent lackey, Berkman's Yochai Benkler, when he argued that technology, rather than regulation, could take care of many of the challenges facing the Internet: “Before we decide there is a regulatory solution, let’s ask if there’s a technological solution,” Schmidt said. “We will move faster than any of these governments, let alone all of them together.”

Shame on you Berkman and all the esteemed academics who feed at your richly stocked table, including apparently the entire oligarchy of the Harvard Law, Business and Divinity schools listed here.

More on this issue can be found in the New York Times here.

Sexting: "Most people don't think it's that big of a deal anymore"

The New York Times ran a thoughtful and extensive series of articles on sexting during the weekend. According to one of the stories, sexting is now mostly a middle school phenomenon. By the time they reach high school, most teens are more interested in dirty text messages. With that thought in mind, here are some highlights:

But adults face a hard truth. For teenagers, who have ready access to technology and are growing up in a culture that celebrates body flaunting, sexting is laughably easy, unremarkable and even compelling: the primary reason teenagers sext is to look cool and sexy to someone they find attractive.

Indeed, the photos can confer cachet.

“Having a naked picture of your significant other on your cellphone is an advertisement that you’re sexually active to a degree that gives you status,” said Rick Peters, a senior deputy prosecuting attorney for Thurston County, which includes Lacey. “It’s an electronic hickey.”

---

The school was buzzing. “When I opened my phone I was scared,” recalled an eighth grader. “I knew who the girl in the picture was. It’s hard to unsee something.”

Meanwhile, another middle school principal had begun investigating a sexting complaint that morning. Ms. Rae realized that Margarite’s photo had gone viral.

Students were summoned to Ms. Rae’s office and questioned by the police. Their cellphones were confiscated.

When Jennifer, who works for an accountant, arrived at the school, she ran to Isaiah, a tall, slender boy with the startled air of an unfolding foal. He was weeping.

“I was in shock that I was in trouble,” he recalled during a recent interview. “I didn’t go out of my way to forward it, but I felt responsible. It was bad. Really bad.”

He told the police that the other girl had pressured him into sending her Margarite’s photo, vowing she just wanted to look at it. He said he had not known that their friendship had disintegrated.

How had the sexting from Margarite begun? “We were about to date, and you’ll be like, ‘Oh, blah blah, I really like you, can you send me a picture?’ ” Isaiah recalled.

“I don’t remember if I asked her first or if she asked me. Well, I think I did send her a picture. Yeah, I’m pretty sure. Mine was, like, no shirt on.

“It is very common,” he said. “I’d seen pictures on other boys’ cellphones.”

After school had been let out that day in late January, the police read Isaiah his rights, cuffed his hands behind his back and led him and Margarite’s former friend out of the building. The eighth graders would have to spend the night in the county juvenile detention center.

The two of them and a 13-year-old girl who had helped forward the photo were arraigned before a judge the next day.

Officials took away Isaiah’s clothes and shoes. He changed into regulation white briefs and a blue jumpsuit. He was miserable and terrified.

When that sexually explicit image includes a participant — subject, photographer, distributor or recipient — who is under 18, child pornography laws may apply.

“I didn’t know it was against the law,” Isaiah said.

---

Adults in positions of authority have been debating how to respond. Many school districts have banned sexting and now authorize principals to search cellphones. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 26 states have tried to pass some sort of sexting legislation since 2009.

“The majority of states are trying to put something in place to educate kids before and after the event,” said Justin T. Fitzsimmons, a senior attorney at the National District Attorneys Association who specializes in Internet crimes against children. “We have to protect kids from themselves sometimes. We’re on the cusp of teaching them how to manage their electronic reputations.”

But if the Lacey students were convicted of dissemination of child pornography, they could be sentenced to up to 36 weeks in a juvenile detention center. They would be registered as sex offenders. Because they were under 15, however, after two years they could petition a court to remove their names from the registry, if they could prove they no longer posed a threat to the public.

Read the complete story, A Girl’s Nude Photo, and Altered Lives, here.

Then read States Struggle with Minor's Sexting here.

Next check out Professor Susan Hanley Duncan's law review article entitled A Legal Response Is Necessary for Self-Produced Child Pornography: A Legislator’s Checklist for Drafting the Bill here

Finally, read the kid's views about sexting, What They’re Saying About Sexting, here ("There’s a law? I didn’t know that. How would you catch somebody when everyone does it?")

As always, if you have any time or energy left after reading all this stuff, post a comment here!

Fifth Circuit Issues Landmark Ruling for Child Victims

Late yesterday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans adopted my longstanding position that there is no general proximate cause requirement governing restitution for victims of child pornography.

Since the New York Times wrote this story last year about our firm's effort to obtain restitution for a child pornography victim known as "Amy," hundreds of federal district courts across the country have denied restitution or issued de minimus restitution orders on her behalf.

The Fifth Circuit's unprecedented decision held that proximate cause is not a general requirement when deciding restitution and only applies to one open ended provision in the list of enumerated damages in the restitution law written by then-Senator Joe Biden as part of his landmark 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

What makes this decision exceptional is that it was decided under a higher standard of review which is limited to mandamus - a rarely used procedural mechanism to bring an appeal. Mandamus requires that the lower court’s decision be “clearly and indisputably wrong” instead of standard “de novo” appellate review.

In December 2009, we sought both mandamus and standard appellate review of an adverse restitution decision issued in the Eastern District of Texas. The Fifth Circuit initially ruled 2-1 against our position, but consolidated and reconsidered our appeal last year.

Oral argument was held in early November with former federal judge Professor Paul Cassell skillfully presenting Amy's case.

In issuing its decision, the Court adopted our long-established argument that proximate cause does not apply to the entire restitution statute, just to one subsection of the statute.

This decision will make it much easier for victims of child pornography and exploitation to hold each and every criminal defendant liable in restitution for the “full amount” of their damages.

Writing for the three judge panel, Chief Judge Edith H. Jones conclusively held that even under heightened mandamus review, the district court’s decision to deny Amy restitution because the government failed to prove what losses, if any, were proximately caused by the defendants possession of two pornographic images, was “clearly and indisputably wrong.”

The structure and language of § 2259(b)(3) impose a proximate causation requirement only on miscellaneous “other losses” for which a victim seeks restitution. . . . Comparing the language of § 2259 with other restitution statutes affirms the conclusion that proximate causation applies only to the catchall category of harms.

The Court concluded that:

Restricting the “proximate result” language to the catchall category in which it appears does not open the door to limitless restitution. The statute itself includes a general causation requirement in its definition of a victim: “For purposes of this section, the term ‘victim’ means the individual harmed as a result of a commission of a crime under this chapter . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 2259(c). (emphasis added). . . . Given the statute’s built-in causation requirement and the volume of causation evidence in the context of child pornography, fears over excessive punishment are misplaced. . . . Incorporating a proximate causation requirement where none exists is a clear and indisputable error. Amy is entitled to receive restitution under the Crime Victim Rights Act.

We do not yet know if either the United States or the defendant will seek review by the full court or appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court.

CA Family Courts Helping Pedophiles Get Child Custody

According to this article in SF Weekly,

Looking out for the children who find themselves in the middle of bitter divorces is the most important function of the state's family courts, and arguably one of the most significant duties of the judiciary as a whole. Yet evidence has mounted in recent years that it is a responsibility in which family court officials are sometimes failing dramatically.

Interviews with dozens of parents, activists, lawyers, judges, children, and former family court employees, as well as a review of hundreds of pages of family and criminal court documents, indicate that the system's methods for assessing whether child sexual abuse or spousal battery has taken place — findings that are critical to deciding whether a parent should retain custody of or visitation rights with a child — fall short of the standards accepted by domestic-violence experts and the criminal-justice community.

The results can be tragic. In some cases . . . abuse allegations have been confirmed decisively, in the form of criminal convictions, after a poor custody decision was made. In others, court officials have ignored existing domestic-violence convictions, sending children to live with admitted batterers. In at least one case, an infant boy lost his life because of a judge's refusal to take seriously warnings about an unstable parent.

Compounding these issues, critics say, is a lack of accountability for judges, attorneys, custody evaluators, and other court personnel, who enjoy immunity from lawsuits even in cases where they make decisions that do obvious harm to children and parents.

The article focuses exclusively on cases, both in the San Francisco Bay Area and the rest of California, where allegations of domestic violence or child molestation were backed up by criminal convictions — and, in one case, a murder-suicide. The SF Weekly concludes that in all of the cases reviewed "the courts seem to have failed to follow basic procedures, including some dictated by state law, for weighing evidence of a parent's abusiveness before making crucial custody decisions."

The Character of Facebook

I was wondering why so many cartoon characters started appearing as Facebook profile pictures during the past week or so, especially among children and teens. Here's an answer, according to FoxNews.com and other media sources:

Swirling rumors that pedophiles are behind a viral Facebook campaign are unfounded, according to a company spokesman.


The campaign, which has been actively gaining momentum in the past month, urges users to swap a cartoon character for their usual profile picture and boasts more than 150,000 "likes" among its Facebook pages. The campaign was originally thought to be the work of a children’s advocacy group, but rumors sweeping across the web suggest it's actually a front for pedophiles, said London tabloid The Daily Mail.


Kids are especially vulnerable, since Facebook users can message one another so easily, said Hemanshu Nigam, co-chairman of President Obama's Online Safety Technology Working Group and a member of the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.


"It would give just another interesting topic for an offender to talk to a young teenager about," he told FoxNews.com.


Whether or not the rumors prove true, an inherent security issue remains, Nigam told FoxNews.com.


"The core of the issue isn’t whether the campaign was created by pedophiles or not. None of that is as significant as the ability to directly message underage children."

I agree with Nigam. The bigger concern is Facebook's ability or willingness to monitor and investigate this kind of activity on their site. We already know there are some pretty bad people and things happening on Facebook. In fact, we've added a new section to this blog entitled Blogs to Watch (just scroll down the right-hand column) highlighting the excellent ongoing work of an amateur FB sluth named Watching Facebook.


Check it out and then re-consider your impulse to dismiss the cartoon hoax as mass hysteria. Everyone should be asking, just who IS watching Facebook??


Read more at FoxNews.com


Watching Facebook

Can Child Pornography Prevent Child Sex Abuse?

A controversial study published today in the Archives of Sexual Behavior suggests that free and legal child pornography can prevent child sex abuse. University of Hawaii professor Milton Diamond reviewed a study finding that the rate of child sex abuse fell dramatically in the Czech Republic when child pornography was legalized in 1990. Apparently researchers observed a similar phenomenon with the decriminalization of child porn in Denmark and Japan.


According to Diamond, "in those three countries where child porn is legal the sex abuse against children is very low and it has gone down compared to when it was illegal."


Diamond said child pornography gives would-be abusers a different outlet to channel their desires.


"We think the perpetrator is more likely to use pornography to masturbate and not go after kids, so we think it's better for kids," said Diamond.


As part of his research Diamond also looked at countries that have recently made child pornography illegal and said the rate of child sex abuse there is rising.


According to Salon.com:

The study certainly raises interesting philosophical questions about promoting objectionable material to prevent real-world crimes -- but it's also majorly flawed. A couple of big-time caveats: Diamond's research finds a correlation between child pornography and sex abuse, which is not the same as causation; and in the Czech case, pornography in general (including kiddie porn) was legalized, not just kiddie porn. It's also worth noting that the observed drop is in reported child sex abuse. Beyond even those concerns, there is the fact that his research doesn't explicitly study the impact of faux child porn. I find it hard to believe that those who seek out child pornography -- and who are at risk for abusing actual children -- will be satisfied by "pretend" pictures. Imitation child porn that convincingly passes for the real thing might do the trick, but then how would we tell the difference between real abuse and simulated abuse?

Future treatment for pedophiles might involve a "prescription" for child pornography. Or a therapist directed trip to the playground, day care center or swimming pool locker room. A primary goal of the pedophile movement is the normalization and decriminalization of child sex abuse images and movies. Like medical marijuana, child pornography as "treatment" is the first step to making this material more acceptable and less stigmatized. As Salon.com recognizes, however, if child pornography is the cure, how terrible must be the disease??

Amazon Presents a Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure

There simply are not enough hours in the day to smack down all the pedo material on Wikiepdia, Facebook and now Amazon. For once the mainstream media scooped this blog by reporting on a recently listed self-published e-book entitled The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct by "I-am-not-a-pedophile" author Philip R. Greaves II.


There's lots to digest in this story which MSNBC has been following closely. I'm not sure where the story first originated, but needless to say it has spread quickly around the globe. According to this excellent story on MSNBC:

The book, The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct by Philip R. Greaves II, includes graphic "first person" descriptions of a child's sexual encounters with an adult, "presented as an adult's recollection of his youthful experience," as well as advice to pedophiles afraid of becoming the center of retaliation. The electronic book, which is not illustrated, was available for $4.79 from Amazon.com's Kindle e-reader.


Amazon had initially defended the sale of the book, issuing a public statement that said, "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."


Speaking in a "TODAY" show segment about the "Pedophile's Guide" before it was removed from the site, Greaves said protesters "are free to think whatever they want to think about the book."


"Every time you see (pedophiles) on television, they are either murderers, rapists or kidnappers," he said as reason for writing and publishing the book. "And you know, that's just not an accurate presentation of that particular sexuality."

MSNBC has hit on something very significant with their bold reporting on this issue. Thanks to author Greaves'
shameless declaration, MSNBC has publicized what people working in the field have known for years if not decades: there is a growing unabashed pedophile political action movement which equates "that particular sexuality" with civil rights. From the Dutch pedophile party to convicted child molester James A. Freeman's advocacy group SOhopeful, pedophiles increasingly see themselves as a persecuted and misunderstood minority struggling for civil and legal rights.


According to MSNBC:

Greaves' self-published work contains six academically titled chapters in which the author attempts to add cultural context and express sympathy's for his intended audience's cultural plight.


Excerpts from "Our Gardens of Flesh" posted on Gawker reveal text equally graphic and disturbing as that of "Pedophile's Guide."


"Besides an extended defense of pedophilia, (the author) includes a long account of one adolescent boy's sexual encounter with an adult ice-cream man," writes Gawker's Max Read. "The whole book functions as a kind of manifesto, a theory of sexuality and a creepy declaration of principles."

If anyone has any doubts about the seriousness and extent of "the movement," a brief segue through Wikisposure should remove any doubts.


If the pedophile manifestos weren't bad enough, Amazon's naturist videos are now the latest rage, highlighted again through some great reporting by MSNBC (made even g r e a t e r from some prominent quotes from this tireless ChildLaw blogger!)


Enough of all this commentary. Check out the primary materials at the links below.

• The Creepy Sex Manifesto by the Author of The Pedophile's Guide


• VIDEO: Why was Amazon selling pedophilia guide?


• 'Pedophile's Guide' gone from Amazon


• More trouble for Amazon, this time with photos

Facebook (STILL) Promoting Child Pornography

Infamous child pornographer Richard Steve Goldberg whose trademark r@ygold is a longtime, well-recognized tag for hardcore child pornography, has a Facebook interest group with almost 300 fans.



Unfortunately, there's lots more thanks to an anonymous reader of this blog who assembled a damning cornucopia of profiles and links to such Facebook interest groups as "incest," "preteen hardcore," "our little group," and "lolita."


Favorite activities ranged from "spanking kids," to "preteen hardcore lover," "incest," and "I like chubby boys." The well known East European child pornography studio, "LS Magazine," is also a frequently listed activity along with the seemingly benign "family fun."


All of this material was assembled in a few hours by an amateur slooth. Certainly the Friending professionals at Facebook could spend a bit of time checking out Google and Urban Dictionary in an even cursory attempt to keep child pornographers and avowed child molesters off their site.

Facebook's Child Pornography Problem

An ongoing FoxNews.com investigation has revealed that Facebook is failing to prevent child predators from posting suggestive and potentially illegal photographs of children on its website.


The world's largest social network employs content filters that automatically scan for basic keywords commonly associated with child exploitive material. Those filters, if they are properly employed, should flag much of the offensive material found on the site, cybersecurity experts say.


But in a lengthy telephone interview on Oct. 6, FoxNews.com took two Facebook executives on a click-by-click tour of their own website, bringing them face-to-face with some of its vile contents and forcing them to admit that their efforts to block child predators were not working.


During a 90-minute phone interview with Facebook spokesman Simon Axten and the company's chief security officer, Joe Sullivan, the two executives were guided by FoxNews.com through the site’s seamy subculture - an encounter that left Sullivan sounding dumbfounded, unaware of and unable to explain the extremely graphic content on the site.


FoxNews.com found an entire underworld of widely recognized terms, code words and abbreviations on Facebook -- hundreds of pages with "pre-teen hardcore" and “Incest” in their titles, and many others that are unprintable. Both terms were found on Facebook's public, private, group and profile pages. Many of those pages purported to host video links to child pornography, and many had been active for months.


But the mass of pedophile content on the site would have been rooted out if Facebook were doing its job properly, said Hemanshu Nigam, co-chairman of President Obama's Online Safety Technology Working Group.


“The fact that Facebook missed the most basic terms in the terminology of child predators suggests that they’ve taken a checkbox approach instead of implementing real solutions to help real problems facing children online,” Nigam said.


“To not be focusing in on a word like 'pre-teen hardcore' or 'Incest' means you’re not stopping the problem proactively.”


Read the entire FoxNews.com exclusive report here.