Sexting: How Did We Get Here?

by Katherine Scardino

Wikipedia defines sexting as the act of sending sexually explicit messages or photographs, primarily between mobile phones-- a combination of the words “sex” and “texting.” The term sexting was first published in Sunday Telegraph Magazine, a British broadcast newspaper, back in 2005. Most, if not all, states have laws against child pornography, so how can we allow sexually explicit photographs of our children to be sent across the Internet? And, more importantly, how and why is this happening?

Many states find themselves in a quandary about how to handle this issue. Teens sending nude pictures of themselves to each other is basically child pornography. If someone under the age of 18 takes a pornographic photo of themselves and then sends that photo to someone else, they are distributing child pornography. And, of course, the person who receives the photo is in possession of child pornography. These charges can potentially carry stiff criminal penalties. In some instances, the district attorney may determine that the acts involved in sexting constitute distribution or possession of child pornography and decide to prosecute. Others times they do not. Some states are interpreting the problem differently and coming up with various ways to deal with the problem, but it will most likely take a number of years for the laws to formulate and become even remotely consistent. 

In Texas, our state Attorney General has opined that adults with nude or semi-nude photographs on their mobile devices can be investigated and tried on felony child pornography charges. Teenagers with photographs of other teens aged 18 and under can be prosecuted, and face up to 10 years in prison. The recently proposed Texas Senate Bill 407 gives prosecutors an additional tool to use when prosecuting teens who engage in sexting by providing a more appropriate offense. 

Under Bill 407, charges for sexting for first-time offenders who are younger than 18 are considered a Class C misdemeanor instead of a felony child pornography charge. Those teen offenders, as well as their parents, may also have to participate in an education program. The proposed new law would also give teens the chance to apply to have the sexting charge expunged from their records. One of the good points of this proposed law is education. It requires school districts to provide information to students and parents including the legal and emotional impacts of sexting. If approved, this Texas statute would become effective in September 2011.

But, do you really think making parents go to some class to hear about their teenagers new “fun thing to do” and the evils of taking naughty pictures will make any impression on these kids? Is sexting going to be blamed on the parents? Surely there is something deeper going on here. Yes, parents need to watch over their children. Yes, parents need to teach their children to be responsible, law-abiding citizens. Do you think we just have kids who make dumb mistakes, or is this new craze reflective of the times? 

Sexting is simply a result of advances in technology enabling new forms of social interaction. Messages with sexual content have been exchanged over all forms of historical media. Newer technology allows for the recording and exchange of photographs and videos, which are intrinsically more explicit and have greater impact. But, one important risk to remember is that material can be very easily and widely propagated, over which the originator has absolutely no control. Once it is on the Internet, it is gone forever.

Sexting is popular with teenagers. It is a new thing to do. But it must be controlled. Whose job is it to intervene and make some changes? Is it the parents', schools' or law enforcement's job? Or a combination of all three? Obviously, in my opinion, all three must bear some responsibility. But, what bothers me is that parents get first shot at teaching their children morals, citizenship and respect. I cannot help but cringe at the thought of a young girl feeling so emotionally numb to believe that it is cute or cool to send a nude photograph over the Internet to a boyfriend, or just a friend, which is even worse.

We really should do something about this.

Tweet

America's Dumbest Pedophile vs. The U.S. Constitution

by Stacy Dittrich

We seem to be going backwards in our progress of protecting our children. Within the last two weeks we have seen a vile judge toss out parts of Jessica’s law, and a how-to-guide to victimizing and raping children appear on the internet. What is even more disturbing are the people who are defending this type of behavior, all for the sake of the good old United States Constitution.

Pueblo, Colorado resident Phillip Greaves, 47, created an international outcry when he began selling an e-book on Amazon titled, “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure.” Amazon faced a monstrous boycott from Facebook and Twitter campaigns for allowing the book to be sold. According to Greaves, the book was intended to help children adapt while being molested and that penetration was prohibited; utterly nauseating. Greaves even looks the part of the creeper-next-door.

Understandably, Pueblo law enforcement went on full alert and immediately honed in on Greaves. During an interview with The Smoking Gun, Greaves was asked if he had ever molested a child. While blatantly admitting he had sexual intercourse with young children up until the age of 15, his answer to the question about his current sex life was "could have,” followed by a quick denial when he realized he had just publicly announced committing a heinous crime against children. Some columns are announcing Greaves as harmless because he has never been arrested or convicted of any crimes. Fact check: just because he has never been arrested or convicted does not mean he has never committed a crime, he simply hasn’t been caught. This happens to be the case with many, many pedophiles.

For example, a pedophile I investigated that inspired my book, “The Devil’s Closet,” was in his 50’s and had never gotten so much as a speeding ticket his entire life. However, with one minor slip up, I was able to obtain a search warrant for his home and found what was no less than a house of horrors in the area of child pornography, including modified dolls that he engaged in sex with. Sure, it’s not illegal to have sex with inanimate objects, but he also had a plethora of grossly obscene pornography involving children. Unless Greaves confesses to possessing such material, Pueblo law enforcement is going to have a tough time obtaining a search warrant for his home. But I’d be willing to bet that Greaves has an abundance of child pornography in his home. If so, every time he possesses or views child porn he is committing a crime, he just hasn’t been caught.

I get it that the First Amendment prohibits the United States Congress from prohibiting the right to free speech. But, I missed where it said that a private company like Amazon cannot do whatever the hell they want, including refusing to sell a book. Secondly, in New York vs. Ferber, it was established that child pornography is not considered protected speech even if it is not obscene. Most are making the argument that Phillip Greaves’ book is not child pornography because there are no pictures. The definition of pornography is the depiction of erotic behavior, in picture or words, intended to cause sexual excitement. Yes indeed, it’s a stretch, but I believe that law enforcement could make a strong enough argument to at least obtain a search warrant for Greaves’ home.

Unfortunately, police in Pueblo have to spend equal amounts of time investigating Greaves and protecting him from death threats, etc. Apparently, this imbecile didn’t foresee the uproar his disgusting piece of filth would cause when he began to sell it. Greaves also wrote another revolting “manifesto” titled “Our Gardens of Flesh: From the Seeds of Lust Springs the Harvest of Love.” Gawker posted excerpts of the book on its site and it is truly stomach-churning. However, the title clearly didn’t catch anyone’s eye like “The Pedophile’s Guide…”

Regardless, say what you want about censorship but Amazon undoubtedly took the right action in refusing to sell this garbage.

Tweet

Images of War

by Lisa Cohen

Last week's announcement that Delaware pediatrician Dr. Earl Bradley was charged with 471 separate counts of child molestation shocked the public. It seemed to throw even Delaware's Attorney General Beau Biden for a loop. He told reporters this might be the worst case of abuse the state had ever seen. So far, Biden's office has identified more than 100 victims from 13 hours of videotape Bradley allegedly shot -- victims ranging in age from 14 years down to 18 months. Eighteen-month-old babies.

Biden knows he's got to be careful not to say more than he can. But this father of two young children was pretty clear. "The reality is that as a prosecutor, the rules prohibit me from telling you exactly how I feel -- and I'm feeling a great deal today."

Almost two dozen prosecutors and other staffers are being tapped to track this case, as well as resources borrowed from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, working together in the seaside town of Lewes, as well as Wilmington, and a crime lab in Dover. Delaware State Police detectives are going door-to-door in Lewes, asking parents of Bradley's patients the painful questions that might determine whether their children are yet more victims to add to the long list.

Biden (right) said the search is also aimed at uncovering how this "physician could lurk in our midst for as long as he did." And how he could have recorded his heinous acts?

I can't look into his mind, nor, frankly, would I want to if I could. But clearly, if Bradley is guilty of such monstrosity slash stupidity, he is not alone. Child porn is everywhere, exploding on the internet. Julian Sher, author of "One Child at a Time: the Global Fight to Rescue Children from On-line Predators," says that via computers, porn thrives in an environment of the 3As: anonymity, access, and acceptance. Bradley might have recorded himself for his own private pleasure ... or to blackmail his victims into silence -- at least, the ones who were old enough to talk (!!??). He might have intended to share -- or already has shared -- his recordings across the globe.

According to Michelle K. Collins, Director of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's Exploited Child Unit, writing in an issue of "The Police Chief," general trends in recent years point to that third option. Offenders are self-reporting more and more that they collect and trade these images to enhance their stature amongst their online "peers." It's a community that supports and justifies each others' actions. Not to mention the money there is to be made.

NCMEC estimates they review some 250,000 images a week depicting abused children online, available at the click of mouse. In many cases, it's not the pseudo-pubescent, pigtailed adults posing in schoolgirl uniforms, but actual acts of extreme violence perpetrated on younger and younger children. NCMEC's Collins cites data showing 58% of child victims seen were prepubescent, with some 6% of them infants. Often they are faceless, the better to hide their identities and to minimize their humanity.

It boggles the mind.

There are combatants fighting the perpetrators, who, even if they appear in the videos, are largely faceless and elusive themselves. In the Delaware case, the perp is presumably a known entity. But even now, after two months with the damning video in hand, investigators are still looking to identify victims. Biden's office has appealed to parents to come forward with any clues, as they work to amass the strongest possible case against Earl Bradley.

On a nationwide level, NCMEC's Child Victim Identification Program (CVIP) marshals the talents of a dozen federal law enforcement agents who, among others, spend their days perusing the most egregious video and photos with two major goals. They're looking for clear-cut evidence for prosecutors, and in many cases they're looking to identify locations -- what hotel room or basement in what city -- to literally track down and rescue tiny victims.

As a former television news producer who's spent years in edit rooms watching the same five second clips over and over during an interminable edit, I can't imagine a more discomfiting activity than watching such horrific content repeatedly. But the work has yielded results. NCMEC reports more than 900 cases where the CVIP team has aided in a rescue, simply by scrutinizing the smallest of details.

For example, "MINNEA...," the partial revelation on a school uniform draped over a chair in the background, gave away the city and helped liberate six prepubescent girls in Minneapolis. The video producer in that case was convicted of over two dozen counts of making, possessing and distributing pornography. The team looks for details of a room, the specific make of camera used, anything to narrow the search.

CVIP isn't the only one with vigilant eyes out there. Paul Gillespie (left), a veteran Toronto police detective, spent months analyzing web images for clues in the distinctive wallpaper or the soda cans at one young victim's crime scene. Finally, the distinctive logo on a piece of jewelry sent cops to find her, not abducted by strangers, but held captive and tortured by her own father, who passed images of her abuse around online for his friends to enjoy.

Gillespie eventually turned to Bill Gates (below right). "Your technology helped create this mess," he wrote the Microsoft founder in a 2003 email. "Help us clean it up." Gates responded with millions of dollars and some creative minds to build CETS, (Child Exploitation Tracking System). The tracking system took clues from different web images and synthesized them. Its first case was an immediate success -- a four-year-old girl whose abuse was being viewed by a 1,200-strong ring of paying online customers.

Beyond using the images as part of the investigation, there's also the important effort to purge them from sight. Victims describe the proliferation as an eternal, endless sense of being abused over and over again. But rounding up all the copies is a tough task, especially if material is altered in any way -- cropped, re-sized, re-colored -- because then the image can't be searched for online in any uniform way. Most of what appears on the Internet has been changed from its original form. But in December, Microsoft introduced, and then donated to NCMEC, something called PhotoDNA.

Developed along with Dartmouth professor Hany Farid, the new technology manages to identify a photograph's innate signature, its "DNA," regardless of modification. An offending image can then be submitted to online service providers, who in turn can delete all versions from their sites. One added plus: PhotoDNA may be helpful in tracking down "invisible" copies of the illegal photos, which could lead authorities to offenders.

It's a David v. Goliath effort, but it offers some hope amidst the bleakest visions of mankind. It's a world view that is no doubt burned into the minds of these helpless children, subjected to the very worst, often by those very adults -- parents, priests, a family doctor -- who were supposed to keep them safe.

Tweet

Child Pageant TV Shows: A Pedophile's Heaven

¿

by Stacy Dittrich

Clearly, I’m behind the times on this one. Many arguments have been waged against airing child beauty pageants on television -- or so I discovered after a little digging. Since I don’t watch much TV, I was flipping through the channels one day, and I came upon a small blonde child wearing more makeup than I've ever worn in my life. I assumed the show was a another documentary on the JonBenét Ramsey case.

Then I realized I was watching WE tv — which I believe stands for women’s entertainment. I was so far from being entertained I don’t know where to begin. The words "appalling" and "nauseating" come to mind.

Within a matter of seconds, I watched a mother grab her 5-year-old by the chin and force the entire contents of a Pixie Stick down her throat -- to keep the girl “energized.” The whining, exhausted, crying child looked like a pimped-up version of an American Girl doll. I was horrified, actually. As tiny contestant after tiny contestant paraded across the stage, shaking her hips and blowing kisses at the crowd, a sinking, disparaging feeling came over me. With my years of experience pursuing and dealing with pedophiles, I suddenly realized they've found heaven on Earth in shows like “Little Miss Perfect” — right there in the comfort of their own living rooms.

The parents of the little girls only exacerbate this. At one point, I watched as a mother inserted a “flipper” in her daughter’s mouth. Apparently, this is pageant-speak for special dentures. As the mother beamed and spun her daughter towards the father for approval, the child smiled — blinding the camera with the overly white mouthpiece. The father’s response summed up the show perfectly. The unfortunate part is that he was smiling as he spoke.

“She looks like a child prostitute,” he said.

Well, then. By all means, pimp her out in every living room across America, buddy. The pedophiles will love you that much more for it when it's your daughter they picture in their sexual fantasies. With luck, maybe she won’t be one of the unfortunate children they decide to pursue in real life.

I thought back to several of the cases of extreme child pornography I'd investigated. In these crimes, the pedophiles had stumbled onto a South American syndicate that distributed videotapes featuring young girls just for men like them. These tapes didn't show full-on kiddie porn. But in them, young girl between the ages of four and nine years old paraded around sensually for the camera. Despite their sadly and highly inappropriate behavior, the girls were clothed in most of the movies. In others, the film show them undress down to their underwear and play with their dolls.

If memory serves, one family made a series of movies -- featuring their daughter -- titled “Brazilian Lolita.” Obviously, her family knew they were onto something when pedophiles from around the world paid them for these tapes. And, in their eyes, were they really doing anything wrong? Their daughter was dressed, not engaging in sex acts, and merely flirting in front of camera.

Pedophiles, as disturbed as they are, will resort to anything to fulfill their fantasies and sexual urges. I've seen homes with stacks upon stacks of tabloid magazines. Ripped out and taped to their walls were pages featuring child actors and actresses; and newspaper clippings of young boys in snowball fights, playing t-ball, and swimming at the local pool. They also favor LL Bean kids and JC Penney children’s catalogs, to name just a few. Their fantasies demand the image of that young, beautiful, innocent child to be permanently embedded in their minds.

One suspect in particular, who openly volunteered his daily rituals to me, noted: “I’m in my own home, and I’m not hurting anyone.” True. But if you ask any expert in the field of sexual behaviors, it will be crystal clear that such rituals only satisfy them for so long. They escalate and escalate until the image no longer does the trick. They want and need to touch, smell, and feel the real child. It’s some pretty scary stuff.

A prime example is the recent case of a murdered, 7-year-old Florida girl, Somer Thompson. Her alleged murderer, Jared Harell, 24, stuffed his computer with child porn. We don't know how long Harrell had been viewing it, but my instincts tell me it was likely years. He probably finally tired of settling for images and acted out his fantasy in flesh and blood.

We're talking about images of young girls dressing and acting like grown women while bounding around a stage. What immediately comes to mind when viewing something like this photo of JonBenet Ramsey (at left)?

Whether you’re on the Team Intruder or Team John Ramsey side of JonBenet theories doesn’t matter. The bottom line is that when JonBenet performed in child pageants, it clearly caught someone’s attention.

Now, with shows like “Little Miss Perfect” or a similar show, “Toddlers and Tiaras,” on TLC (which ironically stands for The Learning Channel) — we've made pedophiles' pursuit of their fantasies that much easier. No longer must they physically travel to child pageants to scope out the young girls for their fantasies. No longer do they have to do the tedious work of finding out the child’s name or where she lives. “Brazilian Lolita?” Sorry, you’re out of business! WE tv and TLC conviniently provide the entertainment, the girls' names and hometowns, and their parents’ information.

The best part for the pedophile: it's completely legal. It's on cable, for crying out loud.

WE tv, although still airing “Little Miss Perfect” and using it to top the list of shows on its website, made a soggy attempt to appease people like myself who are outraged by the show:

"Documentaries are an integral part of WE tv programming. These series provide an inside look into a variety of topics, allowing viewers to form their own opinions. The programming in no way represents or implies a position by the network on any of the content."

This disclaimer is right at the top of the “Little Miss Perfect” web page. I’m sorry, but if the program is on your network, if you bought it and you air it, then in my opinion it certainly does represent your network. Still, I’ll give a slight nod to WE tv for even addressing the issue.

TLC did not.

Seriously, folks. Are we so desperate for reality-TV programming that this is the kind of show we have to resort to? Aren’t there enough other reality-show ideas floating around that don't put little girls at risk? We can't begin to identify all the pedophiles nationwide, but we continue to be vigilant, doing our best to protect our children. Do we really have to hand pedophiles their sick fantasies and evil acts on a silver platter, too?

Tweet

Victim or Cold-Blooded Killer?

by Diane Fanning

Under suspicion of first-degree murder, 15-year-old Jordan was arrested on July 13, 2009, by Colorado Springs Police. The lead detective, Lieutenant David Whitlock, described her as "a cold-blooded killer."

More than six months later, she remains in the custody of the state; her mother's rights as a parent have been terminated.  No charges have been filed yet against Jordan because prosecutors do not know what to do with her, even though she admitted to shooting Jon Hazard (below, right) to death.

Although I normally stand with murder victims, this case may be an exception.  Hazard is not a very sympathetic figure.  His wife didn't realize he had an obsession with underage porn until his fascination with their teenage babysitter brought it all out in the open.  She divorced him in 2001.

Hazard's sons lived with their mother in Texas, but traveled to Colorado to visit their dad.  He lived next door to Jordan and her mother.  During the summer of 2006, 11-year-old Jordan became friends with Hazard's 10- and 13-year-old boys.

At one point, when Jordan was in Hazard's home, he surreptitiously videotaped her making out with a boy her age.  He used that tape as blackmail.  He said he'd show it to her mother unless Jordan used her cell phone to take nude photos of herself and send them to him.  Soon pictures of this naked child weren't enough to satisfy Hazard's lust.

He used the images to pressure Jordan to meet him at the Hampton Inn, where he plied her with booze until she passed out.  When she woke up, he was fondling her.  She leaped out of bed and took refuge in the bathroom for the rest of the night.  It wasn't the last time they met in a hotel, though.  On later occasions, he used pills to ensure he got what he wanted.  When Jordan went to Grand Junction with Jon Hazard in July 2008, her mother found out and called the police.

In December of that year, Hazard was arrested on two counts of sexual assault with a pattern of abuse, sexual assault on a child from a person in a position of trust, and contributing to delinquency of a minor.  A forensic analysis of his computer uncovered more than 200 images and videos of Jordan, dating back to when she was 13 years old.

But there was even more evidence stored on his computer.  Analysts uncovered a video of Hazard administering pills to Jordan, a 23-page confession complete with a time-line, and inappropriate images of other underage girls.

You'd think that with all the digital evidence to back up Jordan's story of abuse, police should have confiscated Hazard's hand guns when he was released on bail awaiting trial.  But they didn't. 

According to a source close to the case, when Hazard went to Palmer Park on the evening of May 31, he took two of his guns with him.  Was it mere happenstance that those weapons were in his car when he went to meet the young girl?  Or did he intend to use them to intimidate Jordan?  Or did he bring the weapons because he planned to take his victim's life to prevent her from testifying against him at his trial on June 9?

Whatever his intentions, Hazard died that night from multiple gunshot wounds.  His body was found near the picnic area in the park.

If he threatened Jordan that night, and she managed to get the gun away and turn it on her attacker, it is clearly self-defense.  But even in the worst-case scenario for Jordan -- if she took the gun from the car and shot Hazard dead without immediate provocation -- is a first-degree murder charge appropriate?

Opinions run the gamut.  On one side: Hazard deserved it, let the girl go.  On the other: victims can't take the law into their own hands; she took a life, her own was forfeit.  I think truth and justice lies somewhere in between those two extremes.

If Jordan saw her situation as one of perpetual victimization, a nightmare with no end, isn't it understandable that she would take action to end it?

The state finally moved her to a treatment facility last week.  But since she's being held on suspicion of first-degree murder, is she really there for psychological help for her past trauma? Or is the state using that methodology to build a first-degree murder case against her?

Hazard stole this child's dignity and destroyed her childhood. Now the state is holding the threat of lifetime incarceration over her head. Prosecutors need to file charges against this girl or set her free. The limbo Jordan is living in now adds to the trauma of her short and difficult life and prevents her from getting the help she needs to rebuild her life and heal her soul.

Tweet

Children Deserve Better

by Diane Fanning

Richard McFarland murdered his wife Susan (left) during Thanksgiving week, 2002 and burned her body at an abandoned farm in rural Bexar County. He told their three sons, ages 5, 9, and 11, "Mommy needed a break from you because you are so bad."

After Richard went to prison, the oldest boy was adopted into one home and the other two children were adopted by their fundamentalist, evangelical foster parents, Roy and Judi Block. The world wished the boys well--they deserved a safe and loving environment.

Unfortunately, all was not well in the Block home. The two youngest boys gained a dangerous sibling, Sean Michael Block (below left), the biological child of Roy and Judi. Sean was a married adult but he had free and easy access into his parents' house.

On May 29, 2009, after a short two-hour deliberation, the jury found Sean Block guilty of aiding and abetting his girlfriend, Jennifer Richards, in an attempt to sell her five-year-old daughter for sexual purposes. He also was found guilty on another charge of distributing pornography.

Sean first came to the attention of authorities in 2004 when he made contact with a Los Angeles Police Department detective who was posing as a teen aged girl on-line. Block popped up on investigators' radar again in 2006. But it wasn't until August, 2008, that they had gathered sufficient evidence to arrest Block and his girlfriend, a former Phoenix stripper.

Sean Block came to the attention of William Gholson, owner of Billy Bob's Beds in San Antonio, who was working as an FBI informant in their crack down on child pornography. Gholson played the role of an older man seeking sex with children. He received a text message from Block: "Nice piece 5 yrs old belongs to my gf and she wants to sell it." In another message, Block referred to the little girl as "our little play toy."

Jennifer Richards met with William Gholson and agreed to grant sexual access to her 5-year-old because she wanted to train her daughter how to perform sex acts "'cause I want her to be comfortable with it all." Jennifer also said that her 10-month-old girl might be available later.

Block and Richards negotiated a filthy bargain: Jennifer's daughter would be available for sex acts, photographs and videotape in exchange for $300, a used Toyota Corolla and rent payment on the two-bedroom apartment where the young child would be victimized.

The relationship between Block and Richards was dark and violent. Prosecutors revealed the contents of their on-line chats and emails discussing their sado-masochistic sex preferences, their desire to have sex with both of Jennifer's daughters, Sean's scheme to blackmail Gholson after the assault of the 5-year-old and his plan to abduct, rape and cut up the face of a female teenage runaway.

Jennifer Richards (right) pled guilty, testifying that she only agreed to the sale of her daughter because of pressure from and fear of Block. The prosecution supported her statement saying that Block "...found someone broken, pathetic with children and who is open sexually..." and browbeat her into submissiveness. He made Jennifer drink his urine and have sex with other men for money. "He was grooming her to deliver her children to.." a predator. In court, Prosecutor Wannarka backed this up by reading one of Block's messages to Richards: "Don't ever for a second forget who owns you."

In return for her plea, Jennifer received a reduced sentence of twenty years in federal prison--where typical convicts serve 85% of their time--followed by ten years of probation and registration as a sex offender when she is released. Sean Michael Block faces thirty years to life on the attempted sale of the child along with five to twenty years on the child pornography distribution charge. Judge Harry Lee Husdpeth will sentence him at the end of this month. We can only hope he will give Block the maximum on both counts.

Prosector Wannarka told the San Antonio Express News, "Children are safer because Sean Block and Jennifer Richards are in jail." And she is right.

But what about Sean Block's parents? Did they demonstrate poor judgment when they allowed their son Sean to be a frequent visitor to the home where they cared for a number of foster children and adopted others including Susan McFarland's two sons. Wouldn't staunch believers with strong moral recognize his moral depravity? And yet, these children under their roof--kids who were already harmed by previous tragedy or abuse in their lives--were exposed to this dangerous man. Is that responsible parenting?

Who knows what damage may have been done to Susan's boys or the other children? Did the Blocks turn a blind eye to their son's disturbed and violent desires? The presence of Sean in their home raises questions about their fitness to foster and adopt children. It also raises concerns about Roy Block's position as the Executive Director of the Texas Foster Family Association. The message that connection delivers is troubling.

I wrote about Susan McFarland and her sons long before this problem with the Block's son came to light. If you are interested in their story, you'll find it in Gone Forever from St. Martin's Press.

Tweet

Should I Report Child Pornography?

by Heather Steele, Child Sexual Abuse Advocate

There is almost nothing that can provoke despair and shock as powerfully as the discovery of child sexual abuse images on a computer, iPod, or cell phone of a loved one. Women often confide to me—at presentations, networking events, and cocktail parties—that they have found in their own homes disturbing and revolting images of children being sexually abused.

Apparently, finding child pornography happens to a lot of women.

Many confront their loved one, who is ready for such a circumstance with just the right words of persuasion. Maybe he says the images came from a virus. Or he viewed them just once, they have to do with his abuse as a child, or that he was lured from adult porn sites into child pornography sites progressively. Or perhaps he confesses that he knows his behavior was wrong and will do anything, including therapy, to become healthy. Of course, he swears, he would never touch a child or harm one in any way.

Some women choose to believe these manipulations, preferring to deny the truth of what they have seen. Others remove themselves through separation or divorce.

Yet few find the courage to report the images to the police.

They feel like they can’t bear the public shame, the shock and horror of friends and neighbors, or the pain of seeing a loved one arrested. After all, he was just looking, right? And the children in the pictures are thousands of miles away in Russia or Thailand, right?

Right?

As painful as discovering the images may have been, the truth is far more agonizing.

In fact, those images are evidence photos of children, mostly American children, some as young as infants, in the act of being raped, often brutally.

The U.S. produces 55% of child pornography in the world, and demands even more than it manufactures, making it by far the largest producer and consumer of child sexual abuse images in the world.

Those kids in the photos? They could be yours, or your friends’, or your neighbors’. They are definitely American children, children we as adults are responsible for protecting.

Their abusers? Their fathers, uncles, grandfathers, teachers, coaches, babysitters, youth pastors, troop leaders, or a variety of other trusted adults in our communities.

If child pornography is reported to the police, those kids have a chance of being rescued from the most heinous abuse known to man.

If it’s not, these American kids may never have another chance to escape their living hell.

And viewers of these rape images of our children? There’s a 98% chance he’s taking part in exactly the same type of abuse he loves to watch.

Studies of child pornography possessors in Butner Federal Prison (pictured right) in North Carolina in 2000 and 2006, by Drs. Andres Hernandez and Michael Bourke, show beyond the shadow of a doubt that the vast majority of child sexual abuse image possessors molest children:

Eighty-five percent of possessors in the study admitted to having undiscovered child sexual assault victims; 13% denied having victims, but failed a polygraph at the end of the study; and 2% denied having victims, and passed the polygraph—but admitted if the opportunity had presented itself, they would have sexually abused a child.

Those 85% admitting victims had on average 14 victims before they were incarcerated for child pornography. In the 2000 study, 31 child victims were the average for child pornography possessors, three times as many as those incarcerated for child molestation.

So reporting child pornography saves American children, perhaps even children you know and love.

But even more than that, reporting child pornography saves you. It saves you from a life of shame and guilt, knowing that you could have stopped some child’s nightmare and you didn’t. It saves you by knowing that you did the right thing by helping put a child predator out of commission. And it saves you from becoming an accessory to the rape of even more children in the future.

Because if you don’t report child pornography, you enable child molesters to continue to do what they do best unencumbered and without fear of punishment. And you will never be able to wash away that knowledge. Who should you tell? No matter where you live, you can contact the FBI, which heads up the Innocent Images International Task Force. Click here for the Cyber Tipline or call 1-800-843-5678.

Believe me, as one who knows. No matter what I do, no matter how hard I work to rescue more kids through Innocent Justice, it will never wash away. I experience that unclean feeling every day of my life. I hope you will never have to.

Heather Steele earned her MBA from the University of Chicago and is a passionate advocate for children in the fight to prevent child sexual abuse and provide justice for child victims. Heather is President of the Innocent Justice Foundation, which works to support law enforcement in investigating and prosecuting child pornography crimes.

Tweet