Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Science and Technology » Google in China: Corporate Censorship

Google in China: Corporate Censorship

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Whilst many have blasted Google’s decision to cooperate with Chinese authorities by censoring its offering to Chinese visitors to its pages, others are now calling for Google to act the part of censor on its home turf in the Evil Empire. Surprisingly — alarmingly, in fact — Google has given in to these demands. At stake is a blog written by a number of boy-lovers. For those of you who don’t know, a boy-lover is an adult who is sexually attracted to boys.

One may argue that it is a good thing for people who think that pedophilia is disgusting to have a compliant corporate citizen on their side, ready to quash speech that they find offensive and morally reprehensible, a serious question emerges: If the primary companies that offer Internet services begin to act the part of the censor by denying individuals with views considered anathema by much of the public, does this not amount to a de facto denial of those individuals’ First Amendment right to free speech? This leads to another, even more disturbing question: do the people who advocate this form of corporate censorship really wish to undermine the Bill of Rights by inviting for-profit corporations with a commitment only to their shareholders to be the guardians of ‘acceptable speech’?

In an age where large corporations already control such a vast amount of what is seen, read and heard in the world, I am quite frankly alarmed at the prospect that they are being invited to take an even larger role in controlling access to information and I think that everybody else who values freedom ought to be alarmed as well. To many, it may now seem like a good idea to prevent pedophiles from expressing their opinions, but what about tomorrow when some other group falls from grace and comes under persecution from mainstream society? And what if you happen to be a member of that group? How will you respond when it is your religion or ethnicity or body type or language or political views that are deemed unworthy of the first amendment by society and then by corporations with no commitment to freedom of speech? Will you then be so eager to jump on the bandwagon of corporate censorship? Probably not. More likely, you will be reminded of the words of Martin Niemöller, a protestant clergyman in Nazi Germany.

They came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Unfortunately, corporate censorship is not limited to Google or to the suspension of blogs. Other forms of this censorship that are even more insidious are the refusal of ISPs to host sites they find objectionable (even if there is nothing illegal on them) and registrars who suspend the domain registration of sites they find objectionable. I have personal experience with the latter, having had my domain suspended by GoDaddy for an alleged violation of its acceptable use policy. Fortunately, I managed to recover the domain after I filed a complaint about the suspension with ICANN. During this process, I discovered that whilst GoDaddy found my website to be offensive and in violation of its acceptable use policy, it apparently does not feel the same about several neo-nazi and white supremacist websites, still registered with it to this day.

I can accept the fact that a company has a right to offer or deny service to whomever it pleases, I also believe that the First Amendment is not served if things progress to the point where no company is willing to provide service to people holding particular points of view. Yet this is precisely the state of affairs the crusaders against pedophile blogs would like to see. At which point, then, do we allow companies to hide behind acceptable use policies to the point of excluding speech considered to be offensive?

I think that it is time to begin considering universal service provisions for certain Internet services to ensure that everybody has a place they can go to receive service, irrespective of their political or social views. Just as universal service requirements have protected individuals considered undesirable by public utilities and insurers, similar protections need to be instituted to ensure that all individuals have equal access to the informational resources that allow them to express their freedom of speech. Otherwise, we may well end up with a Bill of Rights rendered useless by corporate self-interest, hijacked by an increasingly intolerant ‘mainstream’.

Powered by

About LA

  • RedTard

    “We have simply been dealt a particular sexual orientation, and that does not imply we participate in any activities one way or another. We cannot change our orientation at will to please society, and many of us wouldn’t even if we somehow could. We refuse to accept society’s suggestion that we should start to hate ourselves, because self hate is unhealthy and could have dangerous consequences.” – linked pedophile site.

    It looks like the pedophiles are starting to use the same argument that gays used to gain acceptance. Claiming anyone that opposes is a bigot or a Nazi. Morality, like drinking, has many defenders and no defense.

    I am impressed with the amount of web traffic your site gets, I had no idea there were that many “child lovers” on the web. I noticed you moved to Latin America, is it legal or acceptable for you to act out your desires there?

  • sal m

    particularly disgusting is invoking the image of the nazis in your quest to further the rights of pedophiles to trawl the internet.

    just as bad is invoking the bill of rights and co-opting the ideals of the US’s founders to make the case that pedophiles should be free to roam.

    only someone confused enough to think freedom includes the right for adult males to be sexually attracted to boys – or to think this should be allowed – can compare these child predators to those persecuted for religious or ethnic reasons.

  • Gordon Hauptfleisch

    “We want to be judged not for the ring of the name of our orientation, but for the content of our character. We care about the safety and welfare of children at least as much as anybody else.”

    What unmitigated crap. Who are you trying to fool? We’ll skip past the “content of character” ruse (as well as the slippery-slope fallacy for this particular argument in your post here), and go straight to the the latter contention: exactly how do you “care about the safety and welfare of children”? You don’t seem to go into any detail this? Oversight? What exactly do you do to assure this? Specifically?

  • http://www.electronsea.com/ Matt Largo

    Smooth move wrapping issues like Google, Censorship, and the First Amendment around your core issue of pedophilia advocacy. It might sound convincing to much younger folk, but not I.

  • Dave Nalle

    only someone confused enough to think freedom includes the right for adult males to be sexually attracted to boys

    Whether you like it or not, freedom DOES include the right to be sexually attracted to boys, girls, house cats or trees. What it does not include is the right to act on that attraction in violation of the rights of others and the laws of the state. What goes on in one man’s head or even his written musings on his sexuality is none of our business until he crosses the line and violates the righs or person of another individual, especially a minor. End of story.

    Dave

  • http://dracutweblog.blogspot.com Mary K. Williams

    It looks like the pedophiles are starting to use the same argument that gays used to gain acceptance. Claiming anyone that opposes is a bigot or a Nazi. Morality, like drinking, has many defenders and no defense.

    Red – Not that I am condoning anything in this post – trust me, I’m not – but I am concerned about your linking of gays and pedophiles in this argument.

  • gonzo marx

    comment #5 sez…
    *Whether you like it or not, freedom DOES include the right to be sexually attracted to boys, girls, house cats or trees. What it does not include is the right to act on that attraction in violation of the rights of others and the laws of the state. What goes on in one man’s head or even his written musings on his sexuality is none of our business until he crosses the line and violates the righs or person of another individual, especially a minor. End of story.*

    Quoted for Truth

    much as i would like to personally…ahem…confront…these individuals who have acted on their proclivities, those who have the prediliction but have NOT violated the Law are not criminals, nor should their Rights be curtailed…

    a fine line about an abhorrent matter…but there is a line

    that being said…a private corporation has the absolute Right to refuse service as their perogative…

    you get no joy from me for Google taking such a site off their INdex, same as Mr Real Estate…

    you don’t like it…make yer own search engine

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • RedTard

    Excellent pont GM.

    “Red – Not that I am condoning anything in this post – trust me, I’m not – but I am concerned about your linking of gays and pedophiles”

    I’m just pointing out the obvious parallels in the arguments, if that makes you uncomfortable then that is your issue. I’m not going to censor the facts in order not to offend someone.

  • http://lindsay.puellula.com/Blog.html Lindsay Ashford

    To answer a few of the concerns raised here so far:

    No, I do not have the opportunity to “act out my desires” here in Latin America. I am here primarily because of the pleasant weather.

    Whether you think I am wrapping free speech issues around my ‘core issues’ ought to be irrelevant. I believe that my concerns are valid. Encroachments on freedom of speech and expression are not being carried out only against pedophiles. The fact of the matter is that anytime these encroachments take place, regardless of who is being acted against, all freedom loving people should be concerned. A lot can change in ten or twenty years. Who knows who will be next?

    I am not asking you here to allow me to act upon my sexual orientation, I am saying that you should respect my right to have my sexual orientation and to express my thoughts about it. Just because you do not like it does not mean that I should be deprived of the write to talk about it.

    GM, the issue is not inclusion in Google’s index. That is not of any consequence to me. The issue is the suspension of blogs — the Internet equivalent of having one’s microphone turned off. My point is that if all of the major providers of blog services were to refuse access to certain individuals, those persons would lose their freedom of speech regardless of the Constitution.

  • http://dracutweblog.blogspot.com Mary K. Williams

    I’m not going to censor the facts in order not to offend someone.

    No, I understand. Facts should not be censored.And I wish my brain were a little more awake to explain my point. Maybe I’ll just mumble cheerfully in a corner until I can express why your comment didn’t sit right with me.

    Carry on for now : )

  • gonzo marx

    Lindsay…blog sites are also NOT any kind of “right”…again, managemewnt has the absolute right to deny services…

    now…if you register your own Domain, and put up your own website for your blog…

    THAT is a horse of a different Color…and cannot be censored

    see the difference?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Good point on corporate right to refuse service, Gonzo. Just like an individual a company can shoose who it does business with.

    If the author is concerned about censorship he could buy a Mac or a Linix box and host the site on his own computer. Then he’d be relatively free from interference.

    BTW, what does the reference to China in the title of this post have to do with the actual content? It seems like a bait and switch.

    Dave

  • RedTard

    That free expression and association stuff doesn’t always work. Blacks were oppressed by businesses who refused to serve them as well once. We decided that was wrong and needed to be changed. Are you arguing that was the wrong decision, that businesses should have the right to discriminate?

    I doubt Mr. Ashford could change his sexual preference any easier than a gay man could change his, or a woman could change her gender, or a black man could change the color of his skin. Why are 2 of the above protected by law from discrimination and not the others? Isn’t it all sort of arbitrary trying to legislate morality?

  • gonzo marx

    well Red…it has to do with the fact that our Laws state that there is an “age of consent”…

    this varies from state to state, but all states have such a Law on the books

    now, i do agree that discrinimation against a “type” is bad…with the notable exception of when such a “type” runs afoul of the Law

    now..i know you are going to bring up good olde Jim Crowe…and the point is excellent…but the analogy falls apart due to the fact that those black folks were discriminated against for being who they are, but that had NOTHING to do with anyone else but them

    in the case of a pedophile…there IS a another person…a minor, protected by our Law

    and there’s the distinction, anyone has the Right to be who they are…the line is crossed when their behavior impacts/harms another person…by definition such behavior is detrimental to the minor

    agree or not, such is the Law in the US

    Excelsior!

  • RedTard

    GM,

    That’s true, and yes I would have brought up Jim Crowe very quickly. It’s easy to dismiss issues such as this offhand because it doesn’t fit into one’s idea of what is normal.

    When you really consider it, all these things come down to loosely defined and very difficult to defend morals. On these birthdates between 16 and 18 and 21 and even 35 for president you go to bed one night ineligible and then the next morning you magically awake with new rights. There is nothing scientific or logical about it, just an arbitrary line drawn in the sand as what the collective we is comfortable with.

    Whether or not an action effects anyone else is not always clear. A homeless person, a single mother, an illegal immigrant, a drug addict, a smoker with emphysema all made individual choices that seem bad to some in society and all come with a price. But we learn to accept and deal with them because by not doing so we push them to the extreme and exasperate the problem.

    In a pedophile’s consentual relationship, who is the victim? Is the child injured by the sex or by the stigma and guilt put on them by a judgemental society? Do we drive pedophiles to violence and by marginalizing them and forcing them to hide their actions?

  • gonzo marx

    well now Red..you pose the classic Questions…

    the currently accepted Answer is that the minor under the age of Consent, is not qualified to “consent” to such a relationship…thus rendering your point moot

    of course, as i pointed out earlier…the age varies from state to state

    as it stands, due to there being an “age of consent” sexual relations with anyone under such an age would be commiting a crime, de facto

    and NONE of this has to do with the original Post’s headline…

    which i DO consider a “bait and switch”

    and thus, while i am more than happy to discuss much of this with your Red…i will not be doing so on this thread any further…not wanting my perceived inherent dishonesty of the Poster to gather any google-juice

    your mileage may vary

    Excelsior!

  • fuzznuts

    It seems we still have a problem. Speaking about the unspeakable, does not constitute a crime. However, when any of us steps across that line, and acts on those unspeakable topics, we should face the consequences. And, those consequences should be equal to the crimes we commit.

  • Ed

    I could never stress enough how freedom itself and freedom of speech can not have gray tints. Anyone has the right to speak their minds even if what we consider garbage comes out of it.
    Censorship DOES infact violates this right.

    In case you care to go this far, the solution for very evil crimes like child molestation is EDUCATION, KNOWLEDGE AND NO CENSORSHIP. Open your eyes, open you mind. Be free. Be GOOD.

    More taboos and dark-underground mysteries mean more ignorance, intolerance and malice.

    Pedophilia IS a sexual orientation not an action.
    Currently, Pedophilia is synonym for Child Abuse, Rape, etc.,

    This is WRONG.

    The fact that most pedophiles out there feel ostracized and that there is hardly any information out there about what is considered the “ultimate taboo” is the vicious circle that keeps people from coming out of the closet.

    Pedophile’s needs for love and intimacy are not anyless legitimate than those of an Heterosexual or an Homosexual whether you like to accept it or not.

    Unfortunately our current ethical grounds for “regular relantioships” (aka hetero adult) leave a lot to be desired (ie. divorce rate going up) let alone relationships among age-disparate partners. But this doesn’t mean this orientation exists and has nothing to do with child abuse.

    Condemning and demonizing this orientation is proportionally equal to saying kids are abhorrent and despicable.

    Children and adolescents DO have a sexual drive but most importantly, they have a capacity to LOVE and be LOVED. But that’s another story for another time.

    I could never stress enough how freedom and freedom of expression can not have gray tints. Anyone has the right to speak their minds even if what we consider garbage comes out of it.
    Censorship DOES infact violates this right.

    In case you care to go this far, the solution for very evil crimes like child molestation is EDUCATION, KNOWLEDGE AND NO CENSORSHIP. Open your eyes, open you mind. Be free. Be GOOD.

    More taboos and dark-underground mysteries mean more ignorance, intolerance and malice.

    “It’s not about right or wrong. It’s a question of TRUTH – Many currently accepted values and social norms are out of sync with reality and will be viewed by future generations in much the same light as we now look back upon burning witches at the stake”

  • Ed

    Sorry,a little repetitive copy-pasting mistake while arranging the text over.

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Lisa McKay

    Condemning and demonizing this orientation is proportionally equal to saying kids are abhorrent and despicable.

    That is quite possibly the most self-serving and self-excusing load of bullshit I’ve ever read. Demonizing an ‘orientation’ that depends on the victimization and objectification of children for its expression is in no way equal to saying that kids are abhorrent and despicable. It’s equal to saying that children are in need of protection from predators that would do them irreparable harm in the pursuit of their own pleasure, with no regard for the damage they leave in their wake.

  • Kyle91

    That is quite possibly the most self-serving and self-excusing load of bullshit I’ve ever read. Demonizing an ‘orientation’ that depends on the victimization and objectification of children for its expression is in no way equal to saying that kids are abhorrent and despicable. It’s equal to saying that children are in need of protection from predators that would do them irreparable harm in the pursuit of their own pleasure, with no regard for the damage they leave in their wake.

    That is quite possibily the most closed minded, stereotypical, non-thinking, load of total bullshit I’ve ever read. If love is considered “demonic” then God must be a real hateful bastard.

    Who said anything about victimization and objectification of children in that post? Ed most certainly didn’t. In fact he spoke out against it.

    “irreparable harm”, yeah, I could see a rapist causing that, but not a loving consentual relationship. The only hard done from that is the stigma that society will attach to it, it’s society itself which is causing the harm. You’re the sick ones.

    Love is not evil, nor is sexual behaviour. You can try to justify your ignorance, your prejudice, your closed minded hated, in whatever form you like. Say that’s it “in the best interest of the children”. But the only interests you’re really protecting are your own self-delusional ideals of morality which date back to a code of ethics written when people thought that the world was flat, the sun rotated around the Earth, and that it was appropriate to stone gays and witches to death just for being themselves.

    All I can say to that is, if you want to see the one whose sick, look in the bloody mirror.

  • ZL

    Our ‘orientation’ (despite what Lisa thinks) most certainly does NOT depend “on the victimization and objectification of children for its expression.”

    As a Girl Lover, I am able to express my love of little girls in many ways. I am just prohibited by law from expressing that love physically even with a willing participant.

    Anyway, one of the key points of this blog was that we (child lovers) deserve freedom of speech just as much as do others with unpopular views. Censoring the speech of a child lover who obeys the law is logically no different than censoring the speech of a religious fundamentalist or censoring the speech of a communist.

  • Gordon Hauptfleisch

    Oh Gawd the creeps are closing in. Pedophile apologist Kyle equates his kind of “love” with progress and megalomanic ZL has delusions of grandeur in which he sees a logical link between his “love of little girls” and freedom of speech and civil rights struggles.

    Oh, excuse me–I mean the “expression” of “love of little girls” or boys. I don’t believe for a second that they haven’t and don’t act upon their urges, and the recidivism rate is considerable for these pukes. Censorship and stricter laws? Yeah, I’m for it in this case. These people don’t don’t even warrant the argument for the “slippery slope” line of reasoning.

  • Ed

    “Demonizing an ‘orientation’ that depends on the victimization and objectification of children for its expression”

    There you said it. This orientation is in fact not dependant on such horrible acts like victimization and objectification.

    Read the facts, get informed firts, judge later, thanks :)

  • gonzo marx

    as stated previously…the “orientation” is entirely based around those legally defined as “children”

    as such, they are underdeveloped, physically, mentally and emotionally…this becomes problematic (read:victimization) by definition in that the underdeveloped child does not have the adult Judgement to truly give “consent” in either an ethical nor legal definition

    hence the mere fact of sexual attraction towards children places those with this “orientation” into the role of “predator”

    all of this is under the assumption that the child in question is at least 14 or so and has reached puberty…attraction of this nature to anyone younger than that should seek professional help….no matter what

    the problem this “orientation” has in general perception revolves around the fact that an adult is considered to be “taking advantage” of the younger, less experienced person who is unable to effectively decide for themselves on an adult level

    that is about as Objective and dispassionate as i can be on this topic…

    now, for my own mental well being, i am going to punch a few small trees until they fall over…

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • Ed

    Let’s be excelsior for once and get some knowledge and information.

    What you people don’t know is that regardless of what you think or say, for each abominable case of a real case of coercion, abuse and violence on the news regarding an age disparate couple there are thousands of this type of relationships (mostly just romantic and physical, not sexual) going on at any given time around the globe. Very especially those regarding adolescents and older children.

    We have a horrible misconception regarding love, affection and sex surrounding kids that we insist in deny them that right.

    I’ll tell you one more thing, in most countries around the world there are age of consent laws, supposedly to protect the kiddies when this has proven time after time to be useless to stop abuse from occurring. What this actually prevents is real, good intentioned people wanting to have a fully consensual relantionship.

    We are just too lazy and mentally obfuscated to get to work on the real solutions like knowledge and information.

    Just as a kid can say NO a kid can also say YES. The issue is whether he is properly informed to give or deny consent. And this is regardless of physical or emotional development. Because you are too obsessed with the word ‘sex’ you think sex is ONLY penetrative sex and that is wrong.

    Again read the facts, get informed, judge later.

    nuff said?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Kids are not psychologically independent enough nor are they emotionally developed enough to make a responsible decision to say yes or no to a sexual relationship. That’s a psychological fact and that’s the basis for laws restricting the age of consensual sex.

    I’ll defend to the death your right to have thoughts about sex with children, to write about it, and to deal with it in any way which does not involve the actual exploitation and sexual involvement of children, willing or not.

    Now go watch some anime porn and get your jollies. That’s the relatively healthy solution to your problems.

    Dave

  • http://lindsay.puellula.com/Blog.html Lindsay Ashford

    Dave wrote: “If the author is concerned about censorship he could buy a Mac or a Linix box and host the site on his own computer. Then he’d be relatively free from interference.

    BTW, what does the reference to China in the title of this post have to do with the actual content? It seems like a bait and switch.”

    No, actually in such a case one is not necessarily free from intereference. Like I mention in the article, part of this corporate censorship also includes ISPs refusing service, even registrars refusing service. And that is my whole point. Corporations are the gatekeepers of the Internet. How much are we going to allow them to use their self-interest determine what is or is not allowed on the Internet.

    Gonzo wrote: “now, i do agree that discrinimation against a “type” is bad…with the notable exception of when such a “type” runs afoul of the Law”

    My type does not run against the law. Although I have a particular sexual orientation does not mean that I practice that sexual orientation. I have not broken the law, so I do not “run afoul of it”.

    Gonzo wrote: “now..i know you are going to bring up good olde Jim Crowe…and the point is excellent…but the analogy falls apart due to the fact that those black folks were discriminated against for being who they are, but that had NOTHING to do with anyone else but them”

    Yes, Jim Crowe is the perfect analogy. And when laws begin limiting the speech, actions and well-being of people who have not even broken the law then we are into the realm of punishing thought.

    Gordon wrote: “and the recidivism rate is considerable for these pukes.”

    Actually, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the recidivism rate is extremely low. Do not confuse re-offending with being re-arrested (for something else) or committing a different, unrelated offense.

    The fact of the matter is that 95% of child sexual abuse is by people who have never been convicted before of any offense. The notion that sex offenders all re-offend over and over is a myth. (References available)

  • http://lindsay.puellula.com/Blog.html Lindsay Ashford

    Gonzo wrote: “and NONE of this has to do with the original Post’s headline…

    which i DO consider a “bait and switch””

    I would agree. My original headline was simply “Corporate Censorship” and that is the way it appears on my blog.

    The powers that be at Blogcritics added the “Google in China” bit. I am not responsible for it at all.

    Lindsay–

  • D.O.

    Lindsay, what exactly is your “sexual orientation” and how exactly do you deal with it if you don’t act on it?

  • http://lindsay.puellula.com/Blog.html Lindsay Ashford

    D.O. wrote: “Lindsay, what exactly is your “sexual orientation” and how exactly do you deal with it if you don’t act on it?”

    I am a girllover, which means I am sexually attracted to young girls. I am also attracted to women, but much less strongly. How do I deal with it? As best as I can. For starters, I do not break the law. These days, I am celibate.

  • D.O.

    What makes people who claim to “love” girls want to hurt them and take away their innocence?

    Do you feel that your orientation is wrong? Do you know it’s wrong? Have you ever acted on your impulses? Why do you think you have this tendency?

    Young girls are not sexual in any way – how can you find that appealing. I am not trying to be condescending or cruel, but I just can’t see how a person can rationally have these feelings.

  • http://lindsay.puellula.com/Blog.html Lindsay Ashford

    D.O.: You have raised too many questions to adequately answer them here. If you are really interested in my learning about my sexual orientation and how I cope with it, I would recommend you visit my site The Human Face of Pedophilia (http://hfp.puellula.com/Main.html). There you can learn about my thoughts, feelings and ethics.

  • Pedro

    You’re probably a cop trolling for an entrapment case.

    Enjoy the weather.

  • D.O.

    Lindsay – Okay I looked at your site and then I thought about the various aspects and I have another question.

    What age is too young to start grooming these children for “love”? I mean if you set an age, then that means that even in your view there are limits and if there are limits to what you think is “ethical” then you really can’t possibly think it’s acceptable to have a sexual relationship with a child of any age below that of consent.

    Also, the very nature of your sexual orientation as you call it limits your capacity to have a mutual and long lasting relationship.

    Let’s say you groom a young girl the age of twelve (I haven’t a clue what your target age is) but for argument’s sake we’ll say twelve. Eventually that child, even if by some strange twist of events accepts this relationship and her parents don’t kill you, then at some point she won’t be a young girl and you won’t find her appealing anymore – and you will have to groom some other child.

    It really is at it’s essence predatorial and unfair, not to mention manipulative and perverse.

    I don’t begrudge you your internal issues and “orientation” but please don’t try and pass it off as acceptable, normal and moral.

    Because it just isn’t. Anytime a relationship is uneven, one-sided and meant to rob the other of their very precious gifts for your personal sexual gratification, then a line has been crossed.

    The reason we have these laws and social mores are for the mental, physical and emotional well-being of the vulnerable and inexperienced. Carnal knowledge is frought with many consequences and to think and even promote childlove as a natural relationship is devious, cruel and selfish.

    You may not act on it, but plenty of people do. The only difference between a child molestor who rapes children and a pedophile who grooms a child for sexual relationship is the method – because the outcome is the same. A ruined and broken child and family.

  • http://lindsay.puellula.com/Blog.html Lindsay Ashford

    Hi D.O.

    I am willing to answer your questions and not here. I wrote an article about freedom of speech — not about my sexual orientation. Please write me an email and we can discuss this at length.

    Lindsay–

  • troll

    kids don’t need your love

    to an prepubescent child your sexual vibes can be both confusing and titillating…keep them and your obsession to yourselves – and have a good day

    troll

  • Joey

    Eric Olsen needs to kill the link in your article.

    It borders on unlawful.

  • gonzo marx

    here’s a “thought”…

    as soon as one of these folks begins the so-called “grooming” process, THAT is when the boundaries are crossed between their personal obsessions and outright abuse of a child

    i truly don’t care what you call it, or how one thinks about it in their own minds…

    THAT is the fine line being crossed, that is the exact moment when an adult is taking unfair and predatory advantage of a child who is not emotionally or intellectually capable of dealing with such interactions

    to those who do not see this Line of demarcation…seek professional help

    nuff said

    Excelsior!

%d bloggers like this: