JUST LIKE THE RECENT INTERVIEW WITH PETRA LUNA WHERE IT WAS SELECTIVELY EDITED, DECEPTIVE AND DISTORTED, HERE IN THIS ARTICLE BELOW ARE A FEW MORE REPORTED CASES OF SUCH PROPAGANDA TYPE "INVESTIGATIVE NEWS" THAT 20/20 HAS SHOWN IN THE PAST:
Extra! March/April 2003
The Stossel Treatment
Selective editing and other unethical tactics
By Rachel Coen
Sometimes John Stossel's technique is no different from the sensationalism of any other tabloid TV entertainer. Witness his report on "dwarf tossing" (20/20, 3/8/02), in which he professed indignation at "busybodies" who want to stop the practice. "Dave Flood is a dwarf who is angry because his rights are being violated," declared Stossel. "He wants to be tossed."
But Stossel's approach can transcend the merely embarrassing, becoming careless or unethical. His reports are billed as news, but they sometimes rely on questionable methods such as deceptive editing that distorts arguments made by interviewees, the exclusion of facts that might conflict with his personal opinion, and the provocation of guests so as to broadcast their reactions out of context.
"We were hoodwinked"
One controversy that caught mainstream media's attention concerned Stossel's interview of a group of grade-school students for his ABC News special "What's Wrong With Tampering With Nature?" (6/29/01). The children's parents had signed releases for them to appear on the show, but after witnessing Stossel's methods, several withdrew their consent and protested to ABC.
The special caricatured environmentalists as "preachers of doom and gloom" whose fanaticism would have us all "running around naked, hungry for food, maybe killing a rabbit with a rock, then dying young." A key theme was Stossel's claim that U.S. schools have become an "environmental boot camp" to indoctrinate children with green propaganda, when in fact the environment is doing just fine.
To illustrate his point, Stossel arranged an interview with a group of California kids, asking what parents described as leading questions to try to show that the children had been taught environmentalist lies. Several parents said they hadn't known about this slant when they granted permission for the interviews. They complained that ABC had "misrepresented" the segment by telling them simply that it was an Earth Day special, and by concealing Stossel's involvement (L.A. Times, 6/26/01).
One father, Brad Neal, told the Washington Post (6/26/01) that Stossel's questioning was "entirely misleading," and that "he'd repeat the questions until he got the answer he wanted…. We knew we were hoodwinked." Parents said Stossel even tried to lead the children in chant suggesting that "all scientists agree there is a greenhouse effect" (L.A. Times, 6/26/01).
As a result of the negative publicity, ABC pulled the interviews before the show aired, though the network stood by Stossel's work. Stossel's own response was instructive. He found new kids to interview, apparently with the same techniques: On the special, they responded in well-coordinated unison to Stossel's questions. He also went on the attack against the parents, saying that they had been "brainwashed" by environmental activists, whom he characterized as "the totalitarian left" (O'Reilly Factor, 6/27/01).
Tricky editing
Little kids aren't the only ones who should beware of Stossel's tactics. During his one-hour special "Is America No. 1?" (9/19/99), Stossel used tricky editing to misrepresent the views of James K. Galbraith, a leading economist at the University of Texas.
Rife with factual inaccuracies (Extra!, 11-12/99), the show attempted to demonstrate that laissez-faire economics are "what makes a country work well for its people." Stossel claimed that Europe has high unemployment rates because of policies that provide benefits such as paid parental leave and make it "very hard" to fire workers.
The facts are so persuasive, said Stossel, that "many economists who once argued that we could learn from Europe, like James Galbraith, have now changed their minds." Stossel then played a clip from his interview with Galbraith: "There might be a moment for the European to learn from us, rather than for us to be studying them." The implication was clear: Galbraith believes Europe should follow the U.S.'s lead and require fewer protections and benefits for workers.
In fact, Galbraith is an outspoken opponent of the adoption of U.S.-style laissez-faire policies in Europe. "My point is quite different from the one Stossel makes in the lead-in," Galbraith told Extra!'s Seth Ackerman (11-12/99). Galbraith explained that he had actually told Stossel that "Europe could, in short, benefit from adopting some of the continent-wide transfer mechanisms, such as Social Security, that we have long enjoyed in the United States." In other words, Galbraith did feel Europe could learn from the U.S. by expanding social benefit programs--the opposite position, essentially, from the one implied by Stossel's editing.
After FAIR issued an Action Alert (9/28/99) critiquing this and other distortions in "Is America No. 1?," Stossel issued an evasive rebuttal (11/6/99)--signed, oddly, by Stossel and "some of his staff"--which insisted that Galbraith's "views on this particular matter were not misrepresented," but hedged that "we did not intend anyone to think he endorsed every statement made in the hour."
Despite Stossel's claim that he had done no wrong, the sentence introducing Galbraith's soundbite had been changed when ABC rebroadcast "Is America No. 1?" a year later (9/1/00). "Even economists who like Europe's policies, like James Galbraith," said Stossel the second time around, "now acknowledge America's success."
Some facts are better than others
Sometimes Stossel responds to uncomfortable facts not by spinning them, but by omitting them. In one instance, producers resigned from a Stossel special after their findings were dismissed because they cast doubt on Stossel's "preconceived notion" of the truth. The show was "Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?" (4/21/94), a 90-minute special about the evils of government regulation.
Positing that America's ability to "compete in a world economy" could be compromised if we worry too much about "dangerous-sounding" things like "pesticides, pollutants, bioengineering, electromagnetic fields" and so forth, Stossel reassures us: Today, "we live longer than ever." Therefore, advocates like Ralph Nader--who is portrayed as a fear-monger who "screamed about everything"--have it all wrong. The real danger is regulation, since "regulations may shorten lives by making people poorer."
It's tough to argue with such relentlessly simplistic logic, as Stossel's own staff found out. As reported by Karl Grossman (Extra! Update, 6/94), a source close to ABC said that two of the three producers hired to work on the special resigned because their findings were unwelcome.
Producer Jan Legnitto found that government product-safety regulation was cost-effective, while Vicky Sufian's research on comparative risk indicated that some regulations actually served to protect people. Neither finding supported Stossel's anti-regulatory stance, so their research was dismissed. Both producers asked to be released from their contracts and left the program.
Similarly, in the 1995 special "Boys and Girls Are Different" (2/1/95), Stossel's team seems to have discarded evidence that complicated the show's biology-is-destiny slant.
Claiming that men and women think differently "because our brains are different," Stossel argued that "trying to fix these differences will be pointless, expensive, even hurtful." On this basis, Stossel attacked remedies for inequality such as sex discrimination laws and affirmative action, saying they force unnatural outcomes.
As documented for Extra! by Miranda Spencer (5-6/95), Stossel featured a variety of scientists supporting biological explanations for gender traits and roles. Instead of contrasting these views with the numerous scientists who disagree with that approach, Stossel set up feminists without scientific backgrounds to refute them.
Spencer found that Stossel's staff had in fact talked to some of the scientific authorities who were left out of the program, including Brown University biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling, a prominent figure in gender studies.
Fausto-Sterling--whose research has found more overlap than difference in male and female abilities--was contacted by fact-checkers for the program before the show aired. Her input, however, didn't seem to pass the litmus test. One ABC producer told Fausto-Sterling that interviews were already "set up" and that it was too late to restructure the show to introduce more balance.
Joan Bertin--then co-director of Columbia University's Program on Gender, Science and Law, now a professor at Columbia and executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship--was also called by an ABC staffer who had no interest in material that didn't confirm Stossel's preconceived notions. "She left me with the clear impression she had explicit marching orders to find material to support gender differences," Bertin told Extra! (5-6/95).
Part of the story
Particularly troubling is Stossel's 1997 report about a rape allegation at Brown University. The controversial sexual assault charge was prominently covered by Brown's newspaper--it also generated stories in the Associated Press, Boston Globe and USA Today, among other outlets--and sparked rallies on campus, along with intense debate about sexual assault and Brown's disciplinary system.
In 1996, Brown student Sara Klein charged that she had been raped by a fellow student, Adam Lack, while she was too drunk to consent or remember the event. Lack maintained that the sex had been consensual. Klein filed a complaint with Brown's disciplinary council and Lack was suspended for sexual misconduct. On appeal, the judgment was reduced to "flagrant disrespect" and the suspension reduced to probation (Providence Journal-Bulletin, 1/30/97). Lack later sued both Brown and Klein, a case which was settled in December 1997 (Brown Daily Herald, 10/25/00).
The facts behind the Lack/Klein case remain unclear, but Stossel's 20/20 report about it--"When Yes Means No" (3/28/97)--exploited the incident to make some disturbing claims about sex and rape. The way 20/20 told it, the questions about consent and assault raised by the case were problematic primarily because of Brown's "political correctness."
"There is something of an authoritarian atmosphere surrounding women's issues on this campus," Stossel announced, adding this memorable bit of wisdom: "If nobody had sex except when they were totally sober, I bet there would be a lot less sex on this campus."
The report consisted of an extensive interview with Lack (Klein reportedly declined to be interviewed) and footage of a verbal fight between Stossel and students at a campus rally against sexual assault.
As portrayed in the segment, the rally was angry and combative. "I got a feeling for the intolerance when the activists asked if anyone else wanted to speak," Stossel said, introducing his own entrance into the story, in which he took the stage to ask the crowd to define rape. According to Stossel's report, students were unwilling to consider his questions even though he was "just trying to educate" himself, and so drowned out his innocent inquiries with hostile chanting.
An article in a local paper, the Providence Journal-Bulletin (1/30/97), told a different story. According to the paper, the "orderly rally" degenerated into a "free-for-all" only after Stossel stepped out of his journalistic role to take the microphone.
Stossel reportedly "responded with an obscenity" when a student questioned his journalistic integrity, mocked a student who quoted Brown's discipline code--"I'm glad for $30,000 you learned to read"--and tried to provoke one woman by asking her, "If I were dating you, and put my arm around you and put my hand on your breast…."
Stossel's cursing and innuendos were not included in his 20/20 report.
When all else fails, fabricate
In 2000, revelations about Stossel's shoddy journalism caused a brief media furor that ended with an on-air apology by Stossel for having cited non-existent test results in a report.
The report was "The Food You Eat," originally aired by 20/20 on February 4, 2000. In it, Stossel warned that organic produce may be more dangerous than conventional produce, saying that tests commissioned by ABC found increased levels of E. coli bacteria in organic sprouts and lettuce. He also stated that the tests found no pesticide residue "on either organic or regular produce," thereby obviating a key reason for buying organic food.
But, as the Organic Trade Association pointed out in a letter sent to ABC before the report aired (11/8/99), Stossel's E. coli tests were non-specific, meaning that they did not distinguish between dangerous and benign strains of the bacteria. The distinction is crucial to a story about food safety, but the 20/20 report omitted it, leaving the impression that the presence of any E. coli whatsoever could prove fatal.
OTA also pointed out that although one of their representatives was interviewed on the show and asked to comment on the study, Stossel's producer replied evasively to their "numerous" requests that he "clarify what types of E. coli were tested for." The group says that they learned the details of the test only after they were interviewed.
What's more, the pesticide tests Stossel cited were never done. In July, a story brought to light by the Environmental Working Group was picked up by the New York Times (7/31/00): The scientists that ABC commissioned--Michael Doyle and Lester Crawford--said that they never tested any of the produce for pesticides, only for bacteria.
In addition, Crawford told the Times that he did perform similar tests on chicken, and found pesticide residue on the conventional poultry but not on the organic poultry. That data is nowhere in Stossel's report, which suggests that, true to form, he took a selective approach to reporting scientific evidence.
Prior to these revelations, several groups--including FAIR, EWG and OTA--had voiced concerns about other aspects of "The Food You Eat," including its failure to disclose a primary source's ties to the chemical industry. At the time, ABC dismissed the questions, and rebroadcast the report uncorrected on July 7.
After the news about the non-existent test was picked up by mainstream media, ABC announced that it would reprimand Stossel and suspend his producer, and Stossel issued a lengthy on-air apology (8/11/00). FAIR wrote to ABC News urging them to take the occasion to investigate Stossel's overall record on accuracy, and to consider whether it lived up to the network's journalistic standards. The network, however, seemed to have decided to treat the debacle as an isolated incident. FAIR never received a response.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1134
____________________________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel
Televangelist Lifestyle
In a March 2007 segment about finances and lifestyles of televangelists, 20/20 aired a clip of a TV minister originally broadcast by the Lifetime Network in 1997. The clip made it seem that the minister was describing his wealth in extravagant terms, when actually, he was telling a parable about a rich man. ABC News twice aired a retraction and apologized for the error. The minister filed a lawsuit against Stossel, his source for the clip, 20/20, and ABC for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/1309570171.html?dids=1309570171:1309570171&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jul+25%2C+2007&author=Alana+Semuels&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=C.1&desc=TELEVISION%3B+Preacher+sues+%6020%2F20%2C%27+alleging+defamation
TELEVISION; Preacher sues `20/20,' alleging defamation
The Rev. Frederick K.C. Price may have two Bentleys, but a spokesman for his 22,000-member church says his Palos Verdes house doesn't boast 25 rooms and he definitely doesn't own a helicopter. A lawsuit Price filed Tuesday claims that ABC's "20/20" defamed him when it suggested otherwise, portraying him as a "hypocrite and thief" who financed an extravagant lifestyle with church funds.
Price, founder of the Crenshaw Christian Center, was featured in a "20/20" segment about well-heeled televangelists titled "Enough!" that the suit says "devastated, embarrassed and greatly humiliated" the 75-year-old. The suit also names Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, and "20/20" co-anchor John Stossel.
In the March 23 segment, "20/20" ran a clip from a sermon Price delivered 10 years ago and displayed a still photo of the preacher as Stossel interviewed an activist who keeps tabs on how ministries spend congregants' donations. The suit calls the use of the clip "one of the most outrageous instances of 'out of context' editing in the history of television."
Showing posts with label Pedophile Activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pedophile Activism. Show all posts
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Friday, March 7, 2008
Child porn suspect wanted reform ~ Obligations and Boundaries
Child Porn Suspect, James Freeman.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/12657/1
Child porn suspect wanted reform
James Freeman was co-founder of a group for changing sex offender tracking laws
Andrew Gant
Friday March 7th, 2008
SANTA ROSA BEACH — Before he was indicted in a global child porn ring, James Freeman was a registered sex offender leading a campaign to reform Megan's Law.
"It is illogical to present a system that tracks non-violent, one-crime one-victim, lowest-risk sex offenders as a benefit to public safety," reads a statement at SOhopeful.org, where Freeman was listed as executive director until his indictment Tuesday.
The group emphasizes it does not excuse sex offenses or abuse. With the 47-year-old Freeman indicted on a slew of federal child porn charges, his name has been erased from the Web site. SOhopeful's executive director position was listed as "unfilled" Friday.
Phone calls and e-mails to Carolyn Ferguson, a SOhopeful representative, were unanswered Friday. Meanwhile, a message posted on the group's public Web forum said members were "horrified and disheartened" and Freeman was removed from the organization.
"The Board of Directors is addressing internal structure and security issues," the message explained.
A message board for another sex offender law reform group — Reform Organization Attitude Restoration (ROAR) — contains posts from users who acknowledge the connection, but apparently had hoped to keep it secret.
"I think by now most of you know about the horrible story of Mystic of SOhopeful being charged in a large disgusting peodphile (sic) ring," writes one user. "I can only pray that this is some kind of misunderstanding or government 'fix.' "
Freeman's user name in the enterprise was "Mystikal," according to the 35-count indictment.
"… NO press release should be made unless the media picks up on a connection between Jim and Sohopefull (sic) and a big deal is being made of it first," the ROAR user writes.
SOhopeful's message was posted at 3 p.m. Friday, a day after The Daily News called for information.
Freeman was found guilty in March 1997 for lewd and lascivious acts with a 16-year-old in Georgia.
His registered address is 821 N. Church St. in Santa Rosa Beach.
SOhopeful International was established in 1999 to support changes in sex offender registration requirements, according to its Web site. Its materials claim existing legislation vilifies harmless offenders and floods a system that should track only dangerous predators.
A grand jury Tuesday decided Freeman and 11 others should stand trial on a number of federal charges: engaging in a child exploitation enterprise; conspiracy; advertisement of child pornography; transportation of child pornography; receipt of child pornography; and obstruction of justice.
Prosecutors say the men used vast file-sharing networks to use child porn as Internet currency and trade more than 400,000 images and videos of child sex abuse.
The indictment alleges Freeman shared at least two folders of child porn and then thanked the others for participating in the long-running enterprise.
"My thanks to you and all the others that together make this the greatest group of pedos to ever gather in one place," he wrote, according to the indictment. "I'm honored just to be a part of it."
Other users added their own files, including one who advertised videos of girls under 10 years old who were "heavily drugged" and abused.
If convicted, Freeman and the others each face 20 years to life in prison plus fines.
Some of the men also have been charged with producing the pornography — meaning they had contact with the abused children, according to the FBI.
Lawmen have identified and rescued 20 of those children, according to the FBI.
A spokesman with the U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment on the case.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
____________________________________________________________
NOW A CROSS POST FROM ABSOLUTE ZERO AT:
http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2008/03/obligations-and-boundaries.html
BUT PLEASE VISIT THAT LINK ABOVE FOR THE IMAGE'S AND MORE INFORMATION FROM THIER CLICKABLE LINKS!
Friday, March 07, 2008
Obligations and Boundaries
Have you ever noticed how similar the rhetoric of sex offender activists and pedophile activists is?
I have. I've noticed it a lot.
Of particular interest is their mutual desire to abolish age of consent laws. We don't need to ask why, we know why, don't we? Instead, let's talk about their reasoning.
On the one hand you have the pedophile group who say that children should be able to make their own decisions. We have Unico who says:
"There exist sexually-active 4-year-old girls who enjoy vaginal intercourse. What you or I think, is irrelevant to that fact.
Even first-time vaginal intercourse can be enjoyable, when preceded by several months of stretching
Anybody who would obstruct a prepubescent person from her inherent right to choose to have sexual intercourse is neither a true youth liberationist nor human rights advocate.
Access to sex education specific to prepubescent people should be mandated."
And here we have Lindsay Ashford being interviewed on the radio. What does he say about that issue?
Scott: Do you think that a 5 year old grasps what's going on well enough to be able to consent to sexual activity?
Lindsay: A 5 year old understands friendship. A 5 year old understands affection.
Scott: So can a 2 year old?
Lindsay: A 2 year old understands pleasure.
Scott: So they can consent to sex?
Lindsay: They can consent to pleasurable activity
Scott: Can a 6 month old do that?
Lindsay: I'm sure that 6 months old also have nerve endings and understanding and an understanding of what is pleasurable to them, yes
Scott: So a 6 month old can consent to sex
Lindsay: A 6 month old can consent to activity that it finds pleasurable
What does the petition we've talked so much about say? The one Jan Kruska and so many of her activist associates signed?
"Support broad sex education for children, and empower them to make their own decisions and stand up for their rights"
It then goes on to define 'children'
"Children should be defined as persons under the age of puberty."
And yes, many RSO activists signed it. So where do you draw the line? As far as age of consent goes? Is it 18? 16? 14? And with the age of consent law in place whatever that age is, what do you do when someone breaks that law? Slap them on the wrist? What I DO know for sure, is that the activists who are pushing for abolishment of age of consent laws and abolishment of punishment and registration for sex offenders were NOT convicted of having teenaged consensual sex. Their crimes were far worse than that and they are further exploiting children by trying to argue that the very RARE case of teenagers who end up on the registry is representative of their entire population. The vast majority of teens who find themselves convicted of a crime are not on the registry because of a consensual act. They may be listed as statutory rape, but you can bet your bottom dollar that it was a plea deal that gave them that listing.
Furthermore, if the crime was a felony charge, and the offender plead guilty and accepted a plea deal reducing the conviction on the books to a misdemeanor. Does that mean their crime was less than when they committed it? Absolutely not. The actual crime remains the same, but their legal maneuver reduced their penalty.
Let's look at an example of the propaganda. Jan Kruska said last year on a podcast with Tom Madison, that 95% of those on the registry are not dangerous people. She says they were convicted for things such as drunken mooning, or children "playing doctor". Does anyone know where she got this made up "fact"? Or how about Tim from Sosen, who says that 73% of all offenders on the sex offender registry committed their crimes against someone who was over the age of 18, while the fact is that 87% of victims were UNDER the age of 18. Why does Tim say that 40% of offenders were under the age of 18 upon conviction while the true number is that less than 10% were minors? Why would these people lie to you in an attempt to bring about social change?
Here are a couple of things you can do besides just hit and miss searching on a registry. Go to the Illinois sex offender registry and download it in entirely into an Excel document_ Sort and resort by the information that's on there. Say for example the age of the offender at the time of conviction along with the age of the victim. It's quite interesting. Did you know that the average age at conviction was mid thirties?
Georgia is another state that allows you to download their registry although it doesn't list the age of the victim. What you'll find is that the average age at conviction was 32 years old. You'll also find that less than 10% of those registered in Georgia were under the age of 20 at conviction. And in fact, at the present time in Georgia there are only 39 offenders under the age of 20. Even more interesting is the fact that 4 months ago there were a total of 70 teenaged sex offenders in Georgia. If these new laws are soooooo "draconian", if they are sooooo over broad, why is that number going DOWN instead of UP?
It's because it's not true what they say. It's also not true when they say their primary interest is child safety, and a desire for the laws to be 'effective'. The real truth is they are all pissed off sex offenders who don't want to accept responsibility for their actions. Tom Madison proved that when he rallied to gain support for releasing violent repeat sexual predators from their court imposed civil commitment. His primary interest was certainly not safety, his concern was the sex offenders wasting their time and the cost to non-sex offenders. LOL Well he DID say that after all.
And let us not forget one of the ring leaders of the RSO activists. Jim Freeman, co-founder and executive director of SoHopeful. Read more about that HERE, read also how Cheryl Griffith tried to cover it up.
And while you're at it, read what Dr. Gene Abel had to say from a study he did which included 16,109 adults who admitted sexually molesting at least one child.
40% of child molesters, who were later diagnosed as having pedophilia, had molested a child by the time they were 15 years old. An estimated 88% of child molesters and 95% of molestations (one person, multiple acts) are committed by individuals who now or in the future will also meet criteria for pedophilia. Pedophilic child molesters on average commit 10 times more sexual acts against children than nonpedophilic child molesters.
There may be innocent people imprisoned for murder who truly are innocent. But we don't lobby to abolish all laws regarding murder as a result. The same is true for sex offenders. ***IF*** these activists motives were truly about teenagers, THAT is what they would be addressing. But they are only further exploiting kids to further their own agenda. Very, very few teenagers are convicted for having consensual sex, it is rare, and it is the exception. But adults convicted for manipulating young teens is far too common. We understand this completely. They don't.
Graphics courtesy of Jacey
Labels: Age of Consent, Cheryl Griffiths, Gene Abel, girl chat, Jan Kruska, Jim Freeman, Pedophile Activism, pedophiles, SoClear, SoHopeful, SOSEN, Tom Madison
Stitches77 posted
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/12657/1
Child porn suspect wanted reform
James Freeman was co-founder of a group for changing sex offender tracking laws
Andrew Gant
Friday March 7th, 2008
SANTA ROSA BEACH — Before he was indicted in a global child porn ring, James Freeman was a registered sex offender leading a campaign to reform Megan's Law.
"It is illogical to present a system that tracks non-violent, one-crime one-victim, lowest-risk sex offenders as a benefit to public safety," reads a statement at SOhopeful.org, where Freeman was listed as executive director until his indictment Tuesday.
The group emphasizes it does not excuse sex offenses or abuse. With the 47-year-old Freeman indicted on a slew of federal child porn charges, his name has been erased from the Web site. SOhopeful's executive director position was listed as "unfilled" Friday.
Phone calls and e-mails to Carolyn Ferguson, a SOhopeful representative, were unanswered Friday. Meanwhile, a message posted on the group's public Web forum said members were "horrified and disheartened" and Freeman was removed from the organization.
"The Board of Directors is addressing internal structure and security issues," the message explained.
A message board for another sex offender law reform group — Reform Organization Attitude Restoration (ROAR) — contains posts from users who acknowledge the connection, but apparently had hoped to keep it secret.
"I think by now most of you know about the horrible story of Mystic of SOhopeful being charged in a large disgusting peodphile (sic) ring," writes one user. "I can only pray that this is some kind of misunderstanding or government 'fix.' "
Freeman's user name in the enterprise was "Mystikal," according to the 35-count indictment.
"… NO press release should be made unless the media picks up on a connection between Jim and Sohopefull (sic) and a big deal is being made of it first," the ROAR user writes.
SOhopeful's message was posted at 3 p.m. Friday, a day after The Daily News called for information.
Freeman was found guilty in March 1997 for lewd and lascivious acts with a 16-year-old in Georgia.
His registered address is 821 N. Church St. in Santa Rosa Beach.
SOhopeful International was established in 1999 to support changes in sex offender registration requirements, according to its Web site. Its materials claim existing legislation vilifies harmless offenders and floods a system that should track only dangerous predators.
A grand jury Tuesday decided Freeman and 11 others should stand trial on a number of federal charges: engaging in a child exploitation enterprise; conspiracy; advertisement of child pornography; transportation of child pornography; receipt of child pornography; and obstruction of justice.
Prosecutors say the men used vast file-sharing networks to use child porn as Internet currency and trade more than 400,000 images and videos of child sex abuse.
The indictment alleges Freeman shared at least two folders of child porn and then thanked the others for participating in the long-running enterprise.
"My thanks to you and all the others that together make this the greatest group of pedos to ever gather in one place," he wrote, according to the indictment. "I'm honored just to be a part of it."
Other users added their own files, including one who advertised videos of girls under 10 years old who were "heavily drugged" and abused.
If convicted, Freeman and the others each face 20 years to life in prison plus fines.
Some of the men also have been charged with producing the pornography — meaning they had contact with the abused children, according to the FBI.
Lawmen have identified and rescued 20 of those children, according to the FBI.
A spokesman with the U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment on the case.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
____________________________________________________________
NOW A CROSS POST FROM ABSOLUTE ZERO AT:
http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2008/03/obligations-and-boundaries.html
BUT PLEASE VISIT THAT LINK ABOVE FOR THE IMAGE'S AND MORE INFORMATION FROM THIER CLICKABLE LINKS!
Friday, March 07, 2008
Obligations and Boundaries
Have you ever noticed how similar the rhetoric of sex offender activists and pedophile activists is?
I have. I've noticed it a lot.
Of particular interest is their mutual desire to abolish age of consent laws. We don't need to ask why, we know why, don't we? Instead, let's talk about their reasoning.
On the one hand you have the pedophile group who say that children should be able to make their own decisions. We have Unico who says:
"There exist sexually-active 4-year-old girls who enjoy vaginal intercourse. What you or I think, is irrelevant to that fact.
Even first-time vaginal intercourse can be enjoyable, when preceded by several months of stretching
Anybody who would obstruct a prepubescent person from her inherent right to choose to have sexual intercourse is neither a true youth liberationist nor human rights advocate.
Access to sex education specific to prepubescent people should be mandated."
And here we have Lindsay Ashford being interviewed on the radio. What does he say about that issue?
Scott: Do you think that a 5 year old grasps what's going on well enough to be able to consent to sexual activity?
Lindsay: A 5 year old understands friendship. A 5 year old understands affection.
Scott: So can a 2 year old?
Lindsay: A 2 year old understands pleasure.
Scott: So they can consent to sex?
Lindsay: They can consent to pleasurable activity
Scott: Can a 6 month old do that?
Lindsay: I'm sure that 6 months old also have nerve endings and understanding and an understanding of what is pleasurable to them, yes
Scott: So a 6 month old can consent to sex
Lindsay: A 6 month old can consent to activity that it finds pleasurable
What does the petition we've talked so much about say? The one Jan Kruska and so many of her activist associates signed?
"Support broad sex education for children, and empower them to make their own decisions and stand up for their rights"
It then goes on to define 'children'
"Children should be defined as persons under the age of puberty."
And yes, many RSO activists signed it. So where do you draw the line? As far as age of consent goes? Is it 18? 16? 14? And with the age of consent law in place whatever that age is, what do you do when someone breaks that law? Slap them on the wrist? What I DO know for sure, is that the activists who are pushing for abolishment of age of consent laws and abolishment of punishment and registration for sex offenders were NOT convicted of having teenaged consensual sex. Their crimes were far worse than that and they are further exploiting children by trying to argue that the very RARE case of teenagers who end up on the registry is representative of their entire population. The vast majority of teens who find themselves convicted of a crime are not on the registry because of a consensual act. They may be listed as statutory rape, but you can bet your bottom dollar that it was a plea deal that gave them that listing.
Furthermore, if the crime was a felony charge, and the offender plead guilty and accepted a plea deal reducing the conviction on the books to a misdemeanor. Does that mean their crime was less than when they committed it? Absolutely not. The actual crime remains the same, but their legal maneuver reduced their penalty.
Let's look at an example of the propaganda. Jan Kruska said last year on a podcast with Tom Madison, that 95% of those on the registry are not dangerous people. She says they were convicted for things such as drunken mooning, or children "playing doctor". Does anyone know where she got this made up "fact"? Or how about Tim from Sosen, who says that 73% of all offenders on the sex offender registry committed their crimes against someone who was over the age of 18, while the fact is that 87% of victims were UNDER the age of 18. Why does Tim say that 40% of offenders were under the age of 18 upon conviction while the true number is that less than 10% were minors? Why would these people lie to you in an attempt to bring about social change?
Here are a couple of things you can do besides just hit and miss searching on a registry. Go to the Illinois sex offender registry and download it in entirely into an Excel document_ Sort and resort by the information that's on there. Say for example the age of the offender at the time of conviction along with the age of the victim. It's quite interesting. Did you know that the average age at conviction was mid thirties?
Georgia is another state that allows you to download their registry although it doesn't list the age of the victim. What you'll find is that the average age at conviction was 32 years old. You'll also find that less than 10% of those registered in Georgia were under the age of 20 at conviction. And in fact, at the present time in Georgia there are only 39 offenders under the age of 20. Even more interesting is the fact that 4 months ago there were a total of 70 teenaged sex offenders in Georgia. If these new laws are soooooo "draconian", if they are sooooo over broad, why is that number going DOWN instead of UP?
It's because it's not true what they say. It's also not true when they say their primary interest is child safety, and a desire for the laws to be 'effective'. The real truth is they are all pissed off sex offenders who don't want to accept responsibility for their actions. Tom Madison proved that when he rallied to gain support for releasing violent repeat sexual predators from their court imposed civil commitment. His primary interest was certainly not safety, his concern was the sex offenders wasting their time and the cost to non-sex offenders. LOL Well he DID say that after all.
And let us not forget one of the ring leaders of the RSO activists. Jim Freeman, co-founder and executive director of SoHopeful. Read more about that HERE, read also how Cheryl Griffith tried to cover it up.
And while you're at it, read what Dr. Gene Abel had to say from a study he did which included 16,109 adults who admitted sexually molesting at least one child.
40% of child molesters, who were later diagnosed as having pedophilia, had molested a child by the time they were 15 years old. An estimated 88% of child molesters and 95% of molestations (one person, multiple acts) are committed by individuals who now or in the future will also meet criteria for pedophilia. Pedophilic child molesters on average commit 10 times more sexual acts against children than nonpedophilic child molesters.
There may be innocent people imprisoned for murder who truly are innocent. But we don't lobby to abolish all laws regarding murder as a result. The same is true for sex offenders. ***IF*** these activists motives were truly about teenagers, THAT is what they would be addressing. But they are only further exploiting kids to further their own agenda. Very, very few teenagers are convicted for having consensual sex, it is rare, and it is the exception. But adults convicted for manipulating young teens is far too common. We understand this completely. They don't.
Graphics courtesy of Jacey
Labels: Age of Consent, Cheryl Griffiths, Gene Abel, girl chat, Jan Kruska, Jim Freeman, Pedophile Activism, pedophiles, SoClear, SoHopeful, SOSEN, Tom Madison
Stitches77 posted
Thursday, February 14, 2008
JACK ASKS, "Is Montel encouraging vigilantism against me?"
OH SHOOT, just read the first sentence and totally LOLed
I KNEW Jack was going to have something to say, he did storm off stage on that show! HA HA HA HA HA
Asking people to watch Jack and to report him to the police even if he spits on the sidewalk is not vigilantism, it is being vigilant and a model citizen ; )
Thanks to a new special friend for sending me this message on myspace!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the annabelleigh boards:
Is Montel encouraging vigilantism against me?
Posted by Jack McClellan on Tuesday, January 29 2008 at 09:57:34pm
I taped my segment of the show on Nov 1, and didn't know that Williams added an appeal at the end of the show, urging "America" to "shut me down" somehow (this was in addition to similar threatening statements he made at the end of my segment). Since I was not in a motel at the time the show aired yesterday, I had to listen to the audio only on a TV-sound radio, so I did not see the pictures he was apparently flashing on the screen during the last couple of minutes of the hour. Surely he knows that the police, prosecutors, district attorneys, and state legislators have not been able to "shut me down" to date (and I doubt they ever will, legally) -- so his appeals to do so struck me as a borderline call for extra-legal action on the part of vigilante-type citizens.
All of this raises the larger question of why so many people want to exterminate us just because of our beliefs. Anyone who bothers to do a quick Internet check knows I've never been convicted or even arrested of any crime against a child, yet I receive regular e-mails and telephone messages from people who threaten to kill or mutilate me (or burn me for eternity in their imaginary hell) just because I have a differing view of pedophilia than theirs, and dare to speak about it via my Web site and media appearances. I thought one of the great things that separates the US from many other countries is that we can debate and disagree on controversial topics without ripping each other to shreds, but there seems to be a significant segment of the population that considers the topic of pedophilia exempt from this courtesy: in their view, there can be no dissenting opinions from the majority's that all sexual contact between adults and children (or with some of these critics, all minors under 18) is harmful -- and anyone who dares to challenge that orthodoxy should be booted off the Internet, hounded out of their jobs and home, and beaten or killed
.
Jack McClellan
Re: Is Montel encouraging vigilantism against me?
Posted by Jack McClellan on Wednesday, January 30 2008 at 08:04:09pm
In reply to Re: Is Montel encouraging vigilantism against me? posted by cody on Tuesday, January 29 2008 at 11:15:08pm
"Have you spoken with the ACLU.. Or better yet have you thought about suing any of these people for defamement?"
Ha Ha. The ACLU and other "civil liberties" lawyers outfits apparently don't want anything to do with me: they wouldn't fight that blatantly unconstitutional court order I'm under in California (I had to accept help from an attorney who specializes in Social Security disability appeals because he was the only one in the state who offered). Likewise, no one offered to help me fight a similar absurdly overreaching transit system suspension I was under in Portland for 2 months recently (I've been back legally using that system for the last week, and haven't any additional hassles yet).
As for how much danger I'm really in (I just received another e-mail threatening me with castration), it's hard to say. I think most of the people who threaten me are just blowing off steam, and because of the volume of these threats I receive I've decided not to bother reporting them to the FBI or local police (though some of them have come in through Yahoo and Gmail boxes -- which I understand may be more traceable than the companies most of us use like Fastmail and Hushmail). I think living in a big city like Portland makes it difficult for anyone to assasinate me and easily get away with it because there are so many witnesses, surveillance cameras, and cops around (marked and plainclothes). I'm more mindful of my surroundings when I'm in relatively deserted parts of town at off hours, but otherwise I'm not looking over my shoulder much. Short of wearing a bulletproof vest everywhere, there isn't really any way I can protect myself from some nutcase who is intent on killing me and doesn't care if he is imprisoned for the rest of his life or executed for it. Another thing I think that helps make me a more difficult target is that I don't work -- so I'm not tied to any daily or even weekly schedule, and can hole up in an apartment or motel room for days on end.
I KNEW Jack was going to have something to say, he did storm off stage on that show! HA HA HA HA HA
Asking people to watch Jack and to report him to the police even if he spits on the sidewalk is not vigilantism, it is being vigilant and a model citizen ; )
Thanks to a new special friend for sending me this message on myspace!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the annabelleigh boards:
Is Montel encouraging vigilantism against me?
Posted by Jack McClellan on Tuesday, January 29 2008 at 09:57:34pm
I taped my segment of the show on Nov 1, and didn't know that Williams added an appeal at the end of the show, urging "America" to "shut me down" somehow (this was in addition to similar threatening statements he made at the end of my segment). Since I was not in a motel at the time the show aired yesterday, I had to listen to the audio only on a TV-sound radio, so I did not see the pictures he was apparently flashing on the screen during the last couple of minutes of the hour. Surely he knows that the police, prosecutors, district attorneys, and state legislators have not been able to "shut me down" to date (and I doubt they ever will, legally) -- so his appeals to do so struck me as a borderline call for extra-legal action on the part of vigilante-type citizens.
All of this raises the larger question of why so many people want to exterminate us just because of our beliefs. Anyone who bothers to do a quick Internet check knows I've never been convicted or even arrested of any crime against a child, yet I receive regular e-mails and telephone messages from people who threaten to kill or mutilate me (or burn me for eternity in their imaginary hell) just because I have a differing view of pedophilia than theirs, and dare to speak about it via my Web site and media appearances. I thought one of the great things that separates the US from many other countries is that we can debate and disagree on controversial topics without ripping each other to shreds, but there seems to be a significant segment of the population that considers the topic of pedophilia exempt from this courtesy: in their view, there can be no dissenting opinions from the majority's that all sexual contact between adults and children (or with some of these critics, all minors under 18) is harmful -- and anyone who dares to challenge that orthodoxy should be booted off the Internet, hounded out of their jobs and home, and beaten or killed
.
Jack McClellan
Re: Is Montel encouraging vigilantism against me?
Posted by Jack McClellan on Wednesday, January 30 2008 at 08:04:09pm
In reply to Re: Is Montel encouraging vigilantism against me? posted by cody on Tuesday, January 29 2008 at 11:15:08pm
"Have you spoken with the ACLU.. Or better yet have you thought about suing any of these people for defamement?"
Ha Ha. The ACLU and other "civil liberties" lawyers outfits apparently don't want anything to do with me: they wouldn't fight that blatantly unconstitutional court order I'm under in California (I had to accept help from an attorney who specializes in Social Security disability appeals because he was the only one in the state who offered). Likewise, no one offered to help me fight a similar absurdly overreaching transit system suspension I was under in Portland for 2 months recently (I've been back legally using that system for the last week, and haven't any additional hassles yet).
As for how much danger I'm really in (I just received another e-mail threatening me with castration), it's hard to say. I think most of the people who threaten me are just blowing off steam, and because of the volume of these threats I receive I've decided not to bother reporting them to the FBI or local police (though some of them have come in through Yahoo and Gmail boxes -- which I understand may be more traceable than the companies most of us use like Fastmail and Hushmail). I think living in a big city like Portland makes it difficult for anyone to assasinate me and easily get away with it because there are so many witnesses, surveillance cameras, and cops around (marked and plainclothes). I'm more mindful of my surroundings when I'm in relatively deserted parts of town at off hours, but otherwise I'm not looking over my shoulder much. Short of wearing a bulletproof vest everywhere, there isn't really any way I can protect myself from some nutcase who is intent on killing me and doesn't care if he is imprisoned for the rest of his life or executed for it. Another thing I think that helps make me a more difficult target is that I don't work -- so I'm not tied to any daily or even weekly schedule, and can hole up in an apartment or motel room for days on end.
Wikisposure on KPTV
CROSSPOSTED FROM ABSOLUTE ZERO AT:
http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2008/02/wikisposure-on-kptv.html
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Wikisposure on KPTV
Xavier was interviewed by this news team on the Wikisposure Website! great interview!
Watch the coward Gabe refuse an interview! LOL!!!
Labels: Pedophile Activism, Pedophilia, Wikisposure
~**Violet Leaves**~ posted at 6:31 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=vrZ5oWKEsE0
http://www.wikisposure.com/
Wikisposure is a website that collects information about pedophiles online.
Here is an interview on FOX12 KPTV Oregon news report.
http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2008/02/wikisposure-on-kptv.html
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Wikisposure on KPTV
Xavier was interviewed by this news team on the Wikisposure Website! great interview!
Watch the coward Gabe refuse an interview! LOL!!!
Labels: Pedophile Activism, Pedophilia, Wikisposure
~**Violet Leaves**~ posted at 6:31 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=vrZ5oWKEsE0
http://www.wikisposure.com/
Wikisposure is a website that collects information about pedophiles online.
Here is an interview on FOX12 KPTV Oregon news report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
