By Joseph Abrams –FoxNews.com

Your kids may get a bang out of Bing – and that’s not a good thing, Internet safety experts warned on Monday.

Bing, Microsoft’s new search engine (www.bing.com), went live in the U.S. this weekend, aiming to challenge and possibly unseat industry titan Google.

But bloggers and Internet safety experts quickly discovered that one of Bing’s “features” is that it takes only a few clicks for anyone – of any age – to view explicit pornographic videos without even leaving the search engine.

In its bid to beat Google, Microsoft has unveiled a slate of convenient features for Bing, including an “autoplay” tool that lets users preview videos simply by hovering a mouse over them.

That asset may become a liability, because users can get a taste of porn videos on Bing instead of having to go to a smutty Web site – an innovation other search engines have yet to offer.

Technology blogger Loic Le Meur noticed the issue early Monday after testing video search on Bing.

What he found was a cornucopia of pornography that he said transformed the search engine into its very own pornographic Web site.

“You are now on a porn site without leaving Bing. Amazing,” Le Meur wrote on his blog.

Bing, like other major search engines, lets users set filtering preferences at one of three levels – strict, moderate or simply off.

Online safety advocates argue that search engines need to do much more to cut off underage access to pornography – because the filters can be circumvented easily with just one click.

“It’s a no-brainer for any kid,” said Donna Rice Hughes, president and chairwoman of Enough Is Enough, a group that works to help parents protect children from online porn.

“From the standpoint of the new state-of-the-art search engine, [the video preview] is a really neat thing of course,” Hughes said. “The flipside of that is that you’ve got an abundance of pornography out there.”

Content-filtering companies have also been reviewing Bing – and have found the same gaping problems.

With adult-content filters turned off, “Bing.com does at this point allow users to watch pornographic videos without ever leaving the site,” said Forrest Collier, CEO of InternetSafety.com.

Parental filtering software such as SafeEyes, which is produced by Collier’s company, can block any explicit or unwanted search results, he said.

CyberPatrol, another major safe software manufacturer, confirmed to FOXNews.com that its early tests had successfully blocked all illicit media during searches with Bing.

Hughes, the director of Enough Is Enough, said Microsoft and other search engines “need to make their filtered searches much more prominent and have an option for password protection” that parents could use to prevent kids from switching the controls around.

Microsoft said in a statement that it was up to users to turn off the filters, and provided instructions on how to toggle the settings on its blog.

“By default, Bing filters out explicit image and video results. Consumers must take action to turn off the Safe Search filter in their settings in order for explicit image or video content to appear in Bing’s results,” the statement read.

Other major search engines like Yahoo and Google come up with similar video and image results when electronic filters are turned off – but don’t provide automatic playing of videos within the search-results page.

The abundance of pornography is something child health experts say is simply a fact of life.

“Kids can access pornography on the Internet no matter what the search engine is,” Dr. David Walsh, president of the National Institute on Media and the Family, told FOXNews.com.

Walsh said it’s particularly important that kids be protected from the worst excesses of pornography during their formative years.

“Because they’re at the very age when they are developing their whole attitudes about sex and sexuality,” he said, it’s bad for them to be visiting porn sites, “where sex is basically a commodity to be bought and sold and where women are treated like objects. The attitudes that they’re going to pick up there are not the attitudes we want them to have for life.”

Protecting kids from pornography or other potentially harmful materials must ultimately rest with parents, Walsh added.

“I don’t know that search engines can be programmed to do the job that parents need to,” he said.

By Joe Matyas –London Free Press

Some Canadians have their “moral compasses screwed up” on the issues of pornography and prostitution, an RCMP officer who monitors human trafficking said in London yesterday.

If you use prostitutes or buy pornography, “you’re probably supporting human trafficking,” said retired superintendent Marty Van Doren.

And if you buy cheap knockoff products from abroad, you’re probably supporting human trafficking, too, Van Doren told participants in a one-day conference held by the Salvation Army.

Knockoffs are often made by poorly paid child labourers, sometimes sold into servitude, said Van Doren, human trafficking co-ordinator for Ontario division.

And make no mistake about it, most prostitutes are lured or forced into the life, he said.

“Are they victims? — yeah, absolutely,” Van Doren said.

The most vulnerable, economically challenged, socially dislocated women are often drawn into prostitution with promises of a better life, he said.

Instead, they find themselves abused and exploited by profiteers who beat them with “pimp sticks” (coat hangars) and other means, threaten them and sometimes brand them with lit cigarettes, scarring or tattoos, Van Doren said.

About 90% of visible sex trade workers in Canada are aboriginal girls under age 18, he said. “They’re sold like cattle and moved from city to city.”

Foreign women brought to Canada by sex merchants often enter the country illegally, he said. They don’t have identification papers, they can’t speak our language and they’re tightly controlled.

The United Nations estimates 10 million women, girls and boys are victims of the international sex trade, investigative journalist Victor Malarek, author of two books on the subject, told the conference.

An estimated 800,000 women a year are trafficked from country to country for sexual purposes, said Malarek.

Malarek, a Canadian newspaper and television journalist, has become a passionate defender of the victims of sex trafficking and a busy speaker on the subject.

“I’ve drawn a line in the sand on this and a lot of people don’t like it. I believe that when you see abuse, you have to take a strong stand.”

Malarek has called johns who buy sex and people soft on pornography “bozos” and “idiots.”

Pornography fuels prostitution and prostitution fuels the sex trade, he said.

Malarek opposes both decriminalizing prostitution and legalizing it.

Decriminalizing it would mean “it’s open season on women and children” for sexual exploitation, he said, and legalizing it hasn’t eliminated criminal activity in other countries.

Ruth Gillingham of the Salvation Army, a corrections and justice services worker who helped organize the one-day conference, said her work puts her in direct contact with sex trade workers.

“The majority are poor. They come from broken homes. Some have mental illnesses and drug and alcohol addictions.”

By Nicholas D. Kristof –NewYorkTimes.com

Jasmine Caldwell was 14 and selling sex on the streets when an opportunity arose to escape her pimp: an undercover policeman picked her up.

The cop could have rescued her from the pimp, who ran a string of 13 girls and took every cent they earned. If the cop had taken Jasmine to a shelter, she could have resumed her education and tried to put her life back in order.

Instead, the policeman showed her his handcuffs and threatened to send her to prison. Terrified, she cried and pleaded not to be jailed. Then, she said, he offered to release her in exchange for sex.

Afterward, the policeman returned her to the street. Then her pimp beat her up for failing to collect any money.

“That happens a lot,” said Jasmine, who is now 21. “The cops sometimes just want to blackmail you into having sex.”

I’ve often reported on sex trafficking in other countries, and that has made me curious about the situation here in the United States. Prostitution in America isn’t as brutal as it is in, say, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Cambodia and Malaysia (where young girls are routinely kidnapped, imprisoned and tortured by brothel owners, occasionally even killed). But the scene on American streets is still appalling – and it continues largely because neither the authorities nor society as a whole show much interest in 14-year-old girls pimped on the streets.

Americans tend to think of forced prostitution as the plight of Mexican or Asian women trafficked into the United States and locked up in brothels. Such trafficking is indeed a problem, but the far greater scandal and the worst violence involves American teenage girls.

If a middle-class white girl goes missing, radio stations broadcast amber alerts, and cable TV fills the air with “missing beauty” updates. But 13-year-old black or Latina girls from poor neighborhoods vanish all the time, and the pimps are among the few people who show any interest.

These domestic girls are often runaways or those called “throwaways” by social workers: teenagers who fight with their parents and are then kicked out of the home. These girls tend to be much younger than the women trafficked from abroad and, as best I can tell, are more likely to be controlled by force.

Pimps are not the business partners they purport to be. They typically take every penny the girls earn. They work the girls seven nights a week. They sometimes tattoo their girls the way ranchers brand their cattle, and they back up their business model with fists and threats.

“If you don’t earn enough money, you get beat,” said Jasmine, an African-American who has turned her life around with the help of Covenant House, an organization that works with children on the street. “If you say something you’re not supposed to, you get beat. If you stay too long with a customer, you get beat. And if you try to leave the pimp, you get beat.”

The business model of pimping is remarkably similar whether in Atlanta or Calcutta: take vulnerable, disposable girls whom nobody cares about, use a mix of “friendship,” humiliation, beatings, narcotics and threats to break the girls and induce 100 percent compliance, and then rent out their body parts.

It’s not solely violence that keeps the girls working for their pimps. Jasmine fled an abusive home at age 13, and she said she – like most girls – stayed with the pimp mostly because of his emotional manipulation. “I thought he loved me, so I wanted to be around him,” she said.

That’s common. Girls who are starved of self-esteem finally meet a man who showers them with gifts, drugs and dollops of affection. That, and a lack of alternatives, keeps them working for him – and if that isn’t enough, he shoves a gun in the girl’s mouth and threatens to kill her.

Solutions are complicated and involve broader efforts to overcome urban poverty, including improving schools and attempting to shore up the family structure. But a first step is to stop treating these teenagers as criminals and focusing instead on arresting the pimps and the customers – and the corrupt cops.

“The problem isn’t the girls in the streets; it’s the men in the pews,” notes Stephanie Davis, who has worked with Mayor Shirley Franklin to help coordinate a campaign to get teenage prostitutes off the streets.

Two amiable teenage prostitutes, working without a pimp for the “fast money,” told me that there will always be women and girls selling sex voluntarily. They’re probably right. But we can significantly reduce the number of 14-year-old girls who are terrorized by pimps and raped by many men seven nights a week. That’s doable, if it’s a national priority, if we’re willing to create the equivalent of a nationwide amber alert.

by Childrens Hospital Boston

Longitudinal study tracked content viewed during childhood and adolescence

Early onset of sexual activity among teens may relate to the amount of adult content children were exposed to during their childhood, according to a new study released by Children’s Hospital Boston. Based on a longitudinal study tracking children from age six to eighteen, researchers found that the younger children are exposed to content intended for adults in television and movies, the earlier they become sexually active during adolescence. The findings are being presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies meetings on Monday, May 4 in Baltimore.

“Television and movies are among the leading sources of information about sex and relationships for adolescents,” says Hernan Delgado, MD, fellow in the Division of Adolescent/Young Adult Medicine at Children’s Hospital Boston and lead author of the study. “Our research shows that their sexual attitudes and expectations are influenced much earlier in life.”

The study consisted of 754 participants, 365 males and 389 females, who were tracked during two stages in life: first during childhood, and again five years later when their ages ranged from 12 to 18-years-old. At each stage, the television programs and movies viewed, and the amount of time spent watching them over a sample weekday and weekend day were logged. The program titles were used to determine what content was intended for adults. The participants’ onset of sexual activity was then tracked during the second stage.

According to the findings, when the youngest children in the sample–ages 6 to 8-years-old–were exposed to adult-targeted television and movies, they were more likely to have sex earlier when compared those who watched less adult-targeted content. The study found that for every hour the youngest group of children watched adult-targeted content over the two sample days, their chances of having sex during early adolescence increased by 33 percent. Meanwhile, the reverse was not found to be true-that is, becoming sexually active in adolescence did not subsequently increase youth’s viewing of adult-targeted television and movies.

“Adult entertainment often deals with issues and challenges that adults face, including the complexities of sexual relationships. Children have neither the life experience nor the brain development to fully differentiate between a reality they are moving toward and a fiction meant solely to entertain,” addsDavid Bickham, PhD, staff scientist in the Center on Media and Child Health and co-author of the study. “Children learn from media, and when they watch media with sexual references and innuendos, our research suggests they are more likely to engage in sexual activity earlier in life.”

The researchers encourage parents to follow current American Academy of Pediatrics viewing guidelines such as no television in the bedroom, no more than 1 to 2 hours of screen time a day, and to co-view television programs and have an open dialogue about its content with your children. They also suggest that–while the results demonstrate a longitudinal relationship–more research needs be done to understand how media influences children’s growing awareness of human relationships and sexual behavior.

“Adolescent sexual behaviors may be influenced at a younger age, but this is just one area we studied,” adds Dr. Delgado. “We showed how adult media impacts children into adolescence, yet there are a number of other themes in adult television shows and movies, like violence and language, whose influence also needs to be tracked from childhood to adolescence.”

###

The study was funded by support by grants from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau and the Center on Media and Child Health.

Children’s Hospital Boston is home to the world’s largest research enterprise based at a pediatric medical center, where its discoveries have benefited both children and adults since 1869. More than 500 scientists, including eight members of the National Academy of Sciences, 11 members of the Institute of Medicine and 13 members of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute comprise Children’s research community. Founded as a 20-bed hospital for children, Children’s Hospital Boston today is a 397-bed comprehensive center for pediatric and adolescent health care grounded in the values of excellence in patient care and sensitivity to the complex needs and diversity of children and families. Children’s also is the primary pediatric teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School. For more information about the hospital and its research visit: www.childrenshospital.org/newsroom.

by –ParentsTV.org

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in FCC v. Fox.The Court found in favor of the Federal Communications Commission, stating that the FCC acted properly in citing the Fox network for airing the f- and s-words during awards shows. (Click here for a full history of the case and the treatment of indecency by the FCC.)

This ruling is a victory for every American family, and the Parents Television Council praises the Supreme Court for taking the case and the FCC for pursuing its appeal. Parents have a right to expect that their children will not be exposed to profanity; and by its decision, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the broadcast airwaves do indeed belong to the American people, not the broadcast networks which use them, free of charge, to make billions of dollars in profit every year.

Both by their past actions in airing profanity and in the brief they filed with the Court, America’s broadcast networks have made it clear that they don’t want any rules against indecency at all. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s timely decision, the networks now know that they are still subject to laws against indecency on the people’s airwaves.

The Fox network has tried for years to evade the law and has avoided paying fines even while it has aired even more indecent material…and the other networks followed suit. Unfortunately, until this case was settled, the FCC was paralyzed legally, unable to act on other citizen complaints of indecent material.

But now that the case has been settled, we urge the FCC to act quickly on its backlog of indecency complaints. The PTC also demands that from now on, the broadcast networks obey the law, rather than fight it and push the boundaries with profanity and disgusting TV content at every turn.

By Gail Dines –Baltimore Sun

Showing adult films on campus debases both men and women

So the porn industry is now in the business of educating our youth. A spokesman for Digital Playground expressed disappointment with the cancellation of a public screening of one of the company’s porn movies at the University of Maryland, College Park, claiming that showing such a movie “opens up a discussion, a discourse on sexuality and gender roles.”

Actually, it does no such thing. Showing porn movies on campus creates a hostile and dangerous environment for its female students, it distorts how students think about sex and it debases both men and women.

This generation of college students has grown up with hard-core porn just a click away, and the men who use it (the average age of first downloading porn is 11.5 years old) begin to see the world through a pornographic lens.

Whereas previous generations had to go to seedy porn shops or movie theaters to view porn, today there are thousands of porn sites that depict anything from images of couples having sex to violent and degrading images of women being verbally and physically abused as they beg for more. The porn industry has reported that more-violent porn is the most popular among male users and that porn fans are demanding harder and harder images. This is not good news given what we know about the ways that porn shapes how men think about themselves, about women and about sex.

Over the last 30 years or so, there has been a wealth of research into the effects of porn, and the weight of the evidence suggests that men are negatively affected by the images. Pamela Paul interviewed hundreds of men in her book Pornified and found that regular users reported desensitization and habituation to porn and boredom with their sex life and their sex partners. Some even admitted to pushing women into doing sex acts that they were uncomfortable with.

In my own interviews, I have found that college-age men are increasingly becoming addicted to porn, often spending huge amounts of time and money they could ill afford surfing the porn Web sites.

Psychologists Wendy Maltz and Larry Maltz state that therapists are increasingly seeing porn addicts become a major part of their practice.

One of the main problems with porn is that it presents unreal images of men and women. Women are reduced to a series of body parts, devoid of any humanity, bodily integrity or free will. They exist only for sex. Women are eager to do whatever men want to do to them. Men, on the other hand, are shown as totally lacking any empathy or connection to other human beings. Porn images transmit the message that women like to be sexually brutalized and debased and that sex for men is a way to conquer women. These images are potentially lethal in a society where women are the victims of male violence.

It is no surprise that college students want to see porn; they have grown up in a world saturated with pornographic images. Turn on MTV, flick through a fashion magazine or just watch the ads on television, and what you see is a barrage of hyper-sexualized images of young, barely clothed women gazing provocatively at the camera.

Discussions about sex and gender roles should take place at a university because, after all, this is where students learn – or ought to learn – to become critical thinkers about the world they live in. Classes need to focus on the pop culture images that form our visual landscape, and the ways that pornography is seeping into our mainstream culture. What we don’t need is to add legitimacy to the porn industry by showing one of their movies just for fun.

By James Gilbert, Sun Staff Writer

A retired FBI agent who specialized in obscenity and sexual crimes against children for 23 years while with the bureau, said the investigation and prosecution of illegal adult pornography in many instances could reduce the number of children getting sexually exploited.

Roger Young, who now serves as a consultant to law enforcement agencies and nonprofits, said in almost every child sex crime case he investigated, hard-core illegal adult pornography was involved in some way.

“Illegal hard-core adult pornography and sexual exploitation of children are closely connected because it is often shown to children in order to seduce them,” he said during a recent visit to Yuma. “Child pornography grew out of adult pornography and it is now difficult to separate the two.”

He added that what’s on the Internet now is some of the worst material he has seen in 23-1/2 years of conducting investigations for the FBI.

One way to help combat the problem, Young said, is for states where pornography laws are only misdemeanor offenses to change their laws to increase them to felonies.

“It could prevent untold amounts of instances of children being sexually exploited.”

Young called the Internet one of the most dangerous places for a child, and with more and more children getting online, it has caused a huge increase in crimes against children.

He added that two out of every five children are unwantingly exposed to hard-core porn on the Internet.

Before, molesters who were seeking children for sexual purposes, Young said, would have to go where children hang out. But now with the Internet, it is much easier because they are using it for their stalking ground, according to Young, who has posed online as a child while working with the FBI.

According to Young, a majority of the porn on the Internet is created by a small group of pornographers in northern California.

Young, now a part-time professor at the University of Nevada, Reno for the Criminal Justice Department, said he believes there is a way for people to stem the proliferation of Internet porn.

He and another retired law enforcement officer investigate complaints about online obscenity, such as pornography, that are filed with Morality in Media’s (MIM) Web site, www.obscenitycrimes.org (no longer a valid website).

Young said people can file a complaint with the Web site and he and the other retired officer, who also has experience in handling obscenity crimes, will fully investigate it.

Once they have completed their investigation, Young said, they file a detailed report with the National Obscenity Prosecution Task Force in Washington, D.C., and to every U.S. Attorney’s Office and FBI bureau within the jurisdiction of where the focus of the complaint was based for investigation, follow-up and potential prosecution.

“Many, many people just don’t see the big picture of obscenity and the problems that it causes,” Young said.

Young added he has even investigated three of four complaints made to the Web site from the Yuma area but did not know the outcome of any of those cases.

Young also investigated a complaint made to the obscenity crimes Web site about the Web site Whitehouse.com, which helped bring it to the attention of authorities, who eventually shut it down in 2004.

—
James Gilbert can be reached at jgilbert at yumasun.com or 539-6854.

By Allie Martin –OneNewsNow

The Parents Television Council (PTC) says the U.S. Supreme Court should hear the Janet Jackson broadcast decency case to maintain the integrity of the broadcast decency law.

Last summer, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the fine levied by the Federal Communications Commission against CBS for airing the so-called “wardrobe malfunction” during the 2004 Super Bowl. On Monday, the Supreme Court was asked to hear the case, which occurred during halftime festivities at the game and involved Jackson and her co-performer, Justin Timberlake.

Dan Isett with the PTC says the high court should act in the best interest of the public — not the corporate interest of broadcasters.

“That’s the really the issue at stake — whether or not the owners of the public airwaves have any say at all in terms of what the appropriate use of those airwaves are,” states Isett. “If you can’t say that a striptease in the middle of the Super Bowl is inappropriate, then that opens up the door for all manner of things.”

PTC president Tim Winter adds: “Families should not have to worry that their children will be sucker-punched with indecent material on the public airwaves before 10 p.m. — and certainly not during a Super Bowl broadcast.” PTC calls the decision handed down by lower courts “flawed” and “misguided.”

It could be several weeks before justices announce whether they will hear the case.

by Lawrence Jones, Christian Post Reporter –ChristianPost.com

A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a law that requires pornographers who take photos of people engaged in sexually explicit acts to provide “proof of age,” a ruling that strengthens prevention on the exploitation of children by pornographers.

A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a law that requires pornographers who take photos of people engaged in sexually explicit acts to provide “proof of age,” a ruling that strengthens prevention on the exploitation of children by pornographers.

The full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, after a three-judge panel ruled it unconstitutional in October 2007.

The law requires pornographers who take photos of people engaged in sex acts to keep records of their names and ages to prove they are not minors.

In an opinion handed down Friday, the court found the law in compliance with the First Amendment.

“Congress singled out these types of pornography for regulation…because doing so was the only way to ensure that its existing ban on child pornography could be meaningfully enforced,” stated the court opinion.

“That objective not only is independent of the content of the regulated speech, but it also is a concern of the highest order, one that relates to a category of speech that the government may regulate, indeed completely suppress, based on its content.”

The law’s author, Alan Sears, president and general counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, said the court made “the right call” upholding the law.

“Children should not be fodder for the profits and perverse desires of pornographers,” said Sears, who wrote the law during the Regan Administration, while serving as executive director of the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography.

“Today’s ruling once again affirms that no conflict exists between the protections of the First Amendment and this law, which simply exists to protect our nation’s most vulnerable citizens: our children.”

According to the court, the law applies to both primary and secondary producers of sexually explicit images.

A primary producer, one who takes photos or videos of the subject, must “create and maintain” records relating to all of the visual depictions they produce, indexed by performer and publication, while a secondary producer is required to obtain a copy of the primary producer’s records.

In addition, no one may knowingly sell, transfer or offer for sale in interstate commerce materials containing covered images unless they contain the required labels.

In July 2006, Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the federal statute, calling it a modest but important effort to protect children from sexual abuse.

By Charlie Butts –OneNewsNow

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to revive the Child Online Protection Act, designed to protect children from sexual material and other objectionable content on the Internet.

Pat Trueman, who was a pornography prosecutor in the Ronald Reagan administration, is now special counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. He objects to the decision by the nation’s highest court on Wednesday not to revive the federal law that would have barred websites from making harmful content available to minors over the Internet.

“Why is it that the Constitution allows adults to give pornography to children?” he asks. “Point me in the direction of that provision in the Constitution. It does not exist.”

Trueman believes the decision means America has a crisis on its hands. “At least two generations of children getting hardcore pornography on the Internet, and the Supreme Court looks the other way,” he points out. “I think this is a travesty of justice — and the First Amendment certainly does not require this result.”

He notes the Justice Department will continue to prosecute producers and adult consumers. “Isn’t that an odd thing? You can prohibit an adult from buying it, but you can’t prohibit an adult from giving it to a child,” he concludes.

The case is Mukasey v. ACLU.

Presentation at Kings College (NYC,) January 2009

By way of a brief introduction, I would like to say the following. My father had three stashes of smut in the basement: a stash of Playboy magazines, a stash of “men’s magazines,” and a small stash of hardcore pornography. The latter was under lock & key. I got into all of it while still in grade school.

My primary modus operandi was to connect in my mind (fantasize about) what I read in the “men’s magazines” to the Playboy foldouts that I was most attracted to. I find it amazing that I started writing my own pornography when I was a freshman or sophomore in high school, which is an indication to me of how strong the grip of pornography can be on a boy’s life, or a teen’s life, or a young adult’s life.

Like many “boomers,” I fell away from the Lord when I went to college. When by His grace I came back to a faith in Jesus at the beginning of my second year in law school, I was smoking like a steam locomotive, drinking like a fish, and going to Times Square on a regular basis to buy hardcore pornographic magazines. It would take about one year to stop drinking; two years to stop smoking; and seven years to stop going up to Times Square to buy porn. This is another indication of how addictive pornography can be.

I will conclude with this. I did not seek a job at Morality in Media so that I could fight pornography. In April 1985, Morality in Media’s then general counsel,Paul J. McGeady, called me “out of the blue” and offered me a job as a staff attorney. I had met Paul previously but had never said I would like to work for MIM. If anything, my past experience with pornography was a good reason to then say, “No thanks.” When I accepted the job, I planned on staying two or three years.

Going on 24 years later, I must say that part of what now motivates me to stay in this fight is my experience with pornography. I know what it can do to a person. With this introduction, I now turn to the social costs of pornography.

Harm to female participants in the production of hardcore pornography

As with prostitution, so with pornography, there are individuals who seem to adjust to the “lifestyle.” We often hear from these “success stories” in the mainstream media, as they defend or promote their livelihoods. But the reality for most women in pornography is not positive. During my early years at MIM, I wondered why a beautiful young woman would choose to be in pornography. I have since come across many sources indicating that most of these women were sexually abused or otherwise badly damaged as children.

One source in particular that surprised me was an article in the Adult Video News (K. Smith, “Awful Truth,” Feb. 1999) about sexual harassment in the production of hardcore pornography. The author stated, “A huge number of people come to the adult industry already disenfranchised, their bodies and their sexuality rendered worthless to them by an abuser.” Mr. Smith also readily acknowledged that sexual harassment was a problem.

Contrary to the perceptions of some, most hardcore pornography is not “just two (or perhaps three) people having sex.” Most hardcore pornography is produced for males, and when males become addicted to pornography, they begin to seek out, in the words of psychologist Dr. Victor B. Cline, “rougher, more explicit, more deviant, and ‘kinky’ kinds of sexual material to get their ‘highs’…”

To gratify these increasingly perverse sexual desires, women in pornography are penetrated by two or more males at the same time, gang banged, slapped, choked, spanked, whipped, tied up, tortured, urinated and defecated on, etc. While the women are often paid to look like they enjoy degradation and violence, the reality is often very different. Some take drugs to kill the pain or numb their sensibilities.

Many of these women also contract one or more STDs; and for all of them, there is a permanent record of the degradation. I also think sexual trafficking is part of the explanation for why there is so much extreme hardcore pornography available on the Internet – content that depicts rape and torture and other horrific sexual behavior. Not all these women are being paid for their efforts. Some (perhaps many) are forced into it.

And when teens and adult males seek this abominable material out, we help create the market that ensures that more of it will be made.

Harm to children who view pornography

Many (most) men who are addicted to pornography were first exposed to pornography as children. Exposure to pornography can lead to an addiction that robs children of the opportunity to develop in a healthy manner psychologically, morally, and spiritually. Apart from sexual addiction, children are also harmed when they receive a “sex mis-education” from viewing hardcore pornography, which depicts promiscuous, perverse, degrading, and violent sexual behaviors.

And with the advent of the Internet, children are being exposed to pornography at earlier ages and to more extreme content. According to a recent study, C. Sabina, J. Wolak & D. Finkelhor, “The Nature and Dynamics of Internet Pornography Exposure for Youth,” CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol. 11, No. 6, 2008:

Overall, 72% of participants (93.2% of boys, 61.1% of girls) had seen online pornography before age 18…Most exposure began when youth were ages 14 to 17, and boys were significantly more likely to view online pornography more often and to view more types of images. Considerable numbers of boys and girls had seen images of paraphilic or criminal sexual activity, including child pornography and sexual violence, at least once before the age of 18…Some boys had repeated exposure to sexual violence…

I should add that while male children are more likely to become addicted to pornography than are female children, female children can get wrong ideas from pornography about what is expected of them or about how to please a boy.

“Children” are also harmed when their addiction to pornography follows them into adulthood and prevents or ruins their marriages, costs them their jobs, or contributes to them becoming sex offenders. I would add that the effects of addiction do not necessarily end when an individual breaks the habit of viewing and masturbating to pornography. The longer the addiction lasts, the more it can shape an individual’s sexuality.

Harm to children who are sexually abused

Children are harmed when adult predators use hardcore “adult” pornography to entice, arouse, desensitize and instruct their child victims (a common practice).

There is also evidence that many adult predators begin their downward spiral not by viewing child porn but rather “adult” porn. See, e.g., L. Michel & D. Herbeck, “Confessions of a child porn addict” (Buffalo News, 10/17/07), where we read:

“Clarence once enjoyed the adult pornography sites he viewed on the Web. But after a while, the thrill was gone. So he started clicking on some of the ads that popped up on his computer above the naked adults he was watching. He was seeing something new – young teenagers and even young children, posing in the nude, having sex with each other, or being molested by adults. At first, he was appalled. But once the shock wore off, he couldn’t get enough. Like thousands of other men…he was hooked.”

I would add that last year Congress passed a law authorizing the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars to combat sexual exploitation of children.

Children are also harmed when they are sexually abused by other children who imitate behavior that they viewed in hardcore pornography. See, e.g., K. Kurtis, “Sex Offenders Younger, More Violent,” AP, 6/9/07 (“And 42 % have been exposed to hardcore pornography, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, said in a 2001 report.”).

Children are also harmed when they are deceived by pornography into thinking that it is OK to send to others photos or video that they have taken of themselves while nude or partially nude or while engaging in sexual conduct. See, e.g., S. Jayson, “Nude Photos: A new way for young people to flirt?”USA Today, 2/16/08. Apart from causing great embarrassment, it can also be a crime.

Click here to read the entire presentation

I love Chicago Shakespeare Theater. I have seen half a dozen productions at their Navy Pier location and loved every one. I try to attend at least one play a year-as money permits. But this year, I wasted both my time and money.

For any of you who may be thinking of attending Chicago Shakespeare Theater’s production of Macbeth — be forewarned. We attended opening night on Friday, and here’s what to expect from this modernized travesty:

• In the early scene just after Lady Macbeth has read the letter from Macbeth, Lady Macbeth removes her top and performs topless. When Macbeth arrives home, she mounts him and they simulate sex whilst the actor playing Macbeth fondles the actress’ bare breasts.
• After Macbeth becomes undone by the vision of Banquo’s bloody head, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth retreat to their bedchambers where she simulates an act of oral sex.
• The three scenes in which the three witches meet Hecate; Lenox and another Lord discuss the state of Denmark; and the witches make their last prophecies are set in a strip club. There is no nudity, but one of the witches wears a top which conceals little, and fishnet stockings and a leather thong over her posterior that she gyrates like a professional stripper.

Take ACTION: Contact Chicago Shakespeare Theater to let them know that you will not be attending this production by calling the theater directly at 312-595-5656.

Objections to the vulgarity in this interpretation of Macbeth do not constitute provincial philistinism. And the performance of the actress who played Lady Macbeth was not a brave performance. The actress was degraded and objectified. Her exhibition of her body and her willingness to be publicly fondled was disgraceful and distracting. If it is brave and justifiable to so exhibit and exploit one’s body, then we best stop telling our children that the parts of their anatomy that are inherently sexual are their “private parts.”

For an actress to be willing to bare her breasts in front of hundreds of strangers night after night and allow a man who is neither her husband nor even a boyfriend to fondle her suggests a Gnostic view of the human person-one which separates the physical body from the spiritual self. This is a deeply troubling and erroneous dualistic view of the human person. Our physical selves are inextricably linked to our immaterial spiritual selves.

Despite what many within our “artistic” communities may claim, “art,” or rather some contemporary misconception of art, is not an ultimate value. It does not transcend or supersede the objective truth that our bodies are not for public display or public consumption.

Clearly, the artistic staff at Chicago Shakespeare Theater does not concern itself with the possibility that viewers may be deeply offended by such obscenity. They evidently have no concern that parents may bring their middle school or high school age children to the play. Nor do they seem to take into account the real possibility that there may be people who struggle mightily against porn addiction and consciously avoid graphic sexual imagery.

For those community members who wish to participate in some minimal way in shaping the culture in which we all have a stake, here are two other concrete steps that Illinois Family Institute is recommending:

• Chicago Shakespeare Theatre performs matinees for only students. I asked the staff if they were including the soft-core porn scenes in the student matinees. They responded that “There are going to be some changes.” If you know any schools that are taking students to this production, IFI is urging you to either call Chicago Shakespeare Theater yourself or ask the school sponsors to call and ask pointed questions about how specifically these scenes will be changed.
• Email your friends to do likewise.

by – Family Research Council

Today, the Family Research Council joined leading pro-family and pro-decency organizations at the National Press Club, in urging the United States Department of Justice to vigorously enforce obscenity laws. Cathy Ruse, Senior Fellow for Legal Studies at Family Research Council had the following comments at today’s press conference:

“The porn industry and their friends at the ACLU seek an America where there are no legal limits on pornography – no limit to how graphic it may be, no limit to the people it can exploit for profit, including children. And they’re winning. Not because what they’re doing is legal, but because they’re getting away with it.

“There is no First Amendment right to make or sell hard-core pornography that’s ‘obscene.’ That’s a legal battle the other side lost a long time ago. And without the law on their side they’ve turned to ridicule, obfuscation, and intimidation to get their way. They mock the word ‘obscenity’ and make fun ofPotter Stewart saying it’s hard to define but ‘I know it when I see it.’ They aim their hired guns at townships threatening to bankrupt them. And they personally and viciously attack anyone who upholds the law.

“But the law says obscene material is that which a jury finds: appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive, and lacks serious value.

“So it doesn’t matter what the porn industry or what the ACLU thinks. All that matters is what a jury thinks, and that means ultimately it’s up to the American people to decide what’s illegal or not. The people become disenfranchised when obscenity laws are not vigorously enforced.

“Our voice is the jury verdict. Without obscenity prosecutions there are no juries, and no juries mean no verdicts, and no verdicts mean the people have no voice.

“And that leaves the porn industry to set the standards for the culture.

“We call on the Bush Administration and on the next President of the United States to give us back our voice, and vigorously enforce this nation’s obscenity laws.”

By David Stout –New York Times

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a 2003 federal law aimed at child pornography, concluding in a 7-to-2 opinion that a federal appeals court was wrong to find the law unconstitutionally vague.

“Child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of our citizens,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court. “Both the state and federal governments have sought to suppress it for many years, only to find it proliferating through the new medium of the Internet.”

The ruling scathingly rejected contentions that the 2003 legislation was so broadly written that it could make it a crime to share or even describe depictions of children in explicit sexual situations, even if the depictions are inaccurate, the children do not really exist and the intention is innocent.

Monday’s decision in United States v. Williams reinstated the conviction of Michael Williams of Florida, who was caught in a federal undercover operation in April 2004 and found guilty later of “pandering” child pornography, a charge defined in part as promoting or distributing real or “purported” material in a way that reflects the belief – or is intended to persuade another – that the material is indeed child pornography.

Mr. Williams was nabbed offering to trade nude pictures of his young daughter and other forms of child pornography in an Internet chat room. He did not actually have pictures of his daughter, but he did have 22 pornographic images of other children on his computer hard drive. He pleaded guilty to possessing that material, which has long been a crime, and was sentenced to five years in prison. That aspect of the case against him was not part of the Supreme Court argument.

Instead, lawyers on his behalf challenged the “pandering” charge, which also carries a five-year sentence, asserting that it was so “overly broad” as to violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit found that argument persuasive, reasoning that offering a copy of “Snow White” on false claims that it depicts minors engaging in sex could be construed as criminal behavior.

But Justice Scalia dismissed the 11th Circuit’s finding, its reliance on what he considered far-fetched hypothetical situations and the notion that the statute under review would cause all sorts of fact-finding problems. Judges and juries are routinely called upon to assess difficult issues of fact and intent involving charges like conspiracy, incitement and solicitation, he wrote.

In 2002, the court struck down a law that made it a crime to create, distribute or possess “virtual” child pornography that uses computer-generated images or young-looking adults rather than real children. But, as Justice Scalia noted on Monday, the Supreme Court has held that the government can criminalize the mere possession of actual child pornography, as distinct from mere possession of pornography involving adults.

Justice Scalia’s opinion not only swept aside the defendant’s contention that the law as written was too vague but said it made no difference whether the pornography was offered for sale or was promoted as being free. Consider a drug case, he suggested: “It would be an odd constitutional principle that permitted the government to prohibit offers to sell illegal drugs, but not offers to give them away for free.”

Joining the opinion were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices John Paul Stevens , Anthony M. Kennedy , Clarence Thomas> , Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, with Justice Souter writing that promoting images that are not real children engaging in pornography still could be prosecuted under the law at issue.

Text: Opinion (United States v. Williams)

From Concerned Women for America

It would be a tall order, but parents around the world may want to make every effort to keep their kids away from Wikipedia.com, the enormously popular, user-generated online encyclopedia. While doing homework, research for term papers, or for just plain fun, millions of kids visit Wikipedia every day. That’s why parents may be alarmed to learn that, as recently exposed by WorldNetDaily.com, Wikipedia features hundreds, if not thousands, of hardcore pornographic images and online sex videos, making them easily accessible to children.

Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA), said, “Perhaps Wikipedia should change its name to Pornopedia. Providing clinical images that may assist people in research is one thing, but many of the images and videos featured by Wikipedia are gratuitous and obscene. They’re entirely unnecessary and amount to hardcore pornography, plain and simple.

“These actions by Wiki founder Jimmy Wales and other executives with Wikipedia are reprehensible. By disseminating this obscene material, their misbehavior is no better than that of the sleazy smut peddler at the XXX bookstore down the street. They should be ashamed of themselves. In fact, the Department of Justice (DOJ) should look into whether Wikipedia may be in violation of federal obscenity laws.

“For this reason, we’re calling on Wikipedia to either pull the pornography from its Web page, or, as do many other porn sites, place a prominent warning on the home page indicating that it features pornography, and requiring visitors to affirm that they are at least 18 years of age or older before entering,” said Barber.

“People may notice that while searching a term using the Google search engine, a Wikipedia link is often the first to pop up. This makes Wikipedia one of the most visited websites on the Internet. With great power comes great responsibility. To willingly, if not intentionally, make pornography a mouse click away for kids is contemptibly low and represents the height of irresponsibility.

“Unfortunately, the federal government’s reticence to prosecute violations of federal obscenity laws has created a climate where disseminating hardcore pornography, even to children, is considered ‘no big deal.’ Perhaps now, knowing that millions of children are being readily exposed to obscenity on Wikipedia.com, the DOJ will finally step up its efforts,” concluded Barber.