The “hacktivist” group Anonymous has uncovered what it says was a massive child pornography ring, according to the Examiner.
The hackers targeted several websites, including “Lolita City,” which the Guardian says included 1,589 users.
The attack was part of Anonymous’ “Operation Darknet.” The Guardian explains that “Darknet websites are part of the Invisible Web, sometimes called the Deep Web, containing content that is not part of the Surface Web, which is indexed by standard search engines.”
Anonymous published the usernames of those who frequent Lolita City, which, the Guardian reports, had 100 gigabytes of child porn.
“We have been targeting them in secret for a while now, taking down their servers as much as possible,” one hacker named Arson told Gawker in a chat. “We decided to seek media attention for this operation so that we may get the resources needed to shut them down on a more permanent basis.”
Some of the username’s are explicit, while others are just creepy and ominous. Take the monickers “redhotchily”, “PantyhosePedo” and “PureEvil” as examples.
Unlike its reported attempts to “erase” the New York Stock Exchange, or its alleged involvement in the Playstation hack, the uncovering of an alleged child porn ring is unlikely to bring Anonymous much scorn.
Perhaps it is time to get churches out of the adoption business as well as tax them.
The New York times ran an op-ed piece by Robert George and Melissa Moschella that failed to mention their hard right wing Christo-fascist professional positions. This is not simply an unbiased opinion piece but is rather a hard right propaganda piece filled with lies.
What they fear is that education will undermine misogynistic right wing religious based indoctrination in “gender roles” and homophobia.
By ROBERT P. GEORGE and MELISSA MOSCHELLA
Published: October 18, 2011
IMAGINE you have a 10- or 11-year-old child, just entering a public middle school. How would you feel if, as part of a class ostensibly about the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, he and his classmates were given “risk cards” that graphically named a variety of solitary and mutual sex acts? Or if, in another lesson, he was encouraged to disregard what you told him about sex, and to rely instead on teachers and health clinic staff members?
That prospect would horrify most parents. But such lessons are part of a middle-school curriculum that Dennis M. Walcott, the New York City schools chancellor, has recommended for his system’s newly mandated sex-education classes. There is a parental “opt out,” but it is very limited, covering classes on contraception and birth control.
Observers can quarrel about the extent to which what is being mandated is an effect, or a contributing cause, of the sexualization of children in our society at younger ages. But no one can plausibly claim that teaching middle-schoolers about mutual masturbation is “neutral” between competing views of morality; the idea of “value free” sex education was exploded as a myth long ago. The effect of such lessons is as much to promote a certain sexual ideology among the young as it is to protect their health.
But beyond rival moral visions, the new policy raises a deeper issue: Should the government force parents — at least those not rich enough to afford private schooling — to send their children to classes that may contradict their moral and religious values on matters of intimacy and personal conduct?
Liberals and conservatives alike should say no. Such policies violate parents’ rights, whether they are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or of no religion at all. To see why, we need to think carefully about the parent-child relationship that gives rise to the duties that parental rights serve and protect.
by Elizabeth Schroeder
October 19, 2011
An op-ed in today’s New York Times, “Does Sex Ed Undermine Parental Rights?” by Robert George and Melissa Moschella, is not as much about sexuality education as it is an overt example of how deeply the socially-conservative agenda is pervading all aspects of our culture.
This is no accident; it is an intentional, widespread campaign against not only sexual and reproductive health, sexuality education, women’s rights, and the inclusion of LGBTQ youth in anti-bullying measures, but also against the rights of young people to dare to want to access information that will make them educated consumers of the world in which they live.
This campaign started gaining momentum with the Tea Party (you know, the folks who applauded “Let’s hear it for letting someone who doesn’t have health insurance die!”), formerly considered to be more on the fringe, but who are now, inexplicably and horrifyingly, gaining legitimacy.
I’d like to highlight several core elements of social conservative propaganda—some of which appear throughout the piece—that continue to be used to manipulate people into thinking there is a concerted effort being made by educators to contribute, as the authors claim, to “the sexualization of children in our society at younger ages:”
1. Lie blatantly. If history has taught us anything, it’s that social conservatives believe that the end justifies the means. In their view, it is completely appropriate to lie to young people. This is what ignited the years-long battle sexuality education experts have fought to ensure that abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula be, at the very least, medically accurate. These curricula lie to young people in order to scare and shame them out of having sex (even though research has shown that doing so is woefully ineffective). If in the end, a young person doesn’t have sex, social conservatives claim victory despite the fact that these young people may not have any self-esteem to speak of or know how to practice safer sex in the future.
October 20, 2011
WASHINGTON — Gay people have the political power to sway Congress to combat discrimination against them, so there’s no need for a court to overturn the federal ban on gay marriage, according to lawyers defending the Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the House of Representatives.
In an Oct. 14 motion filed with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, attorneys representing the House make the case that gay people “are far from politically powerless” and can’t say they face “discrimination [that] is unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative means” — unlike other groups of people who are discriminated against.
“The very significant gains made by homosexual-rights groups both in legislative terms and in popular opinion — and the phenomenal speed at which those victories have come — demonstrate that they have ample ability to attract the favorable attention of lawmakers,” reads the 36-page brief filed by Bancroft PLLC, the firm hired by House Republican leaders to defend the constitutionality of DOMA.
The document ticks off political victories by the gay rights community over the past few years, including Senate confirmation of the first openly gay male federal judge, New York’s legalizing gay marriage and, of course, repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” It also cites a recent Gallup poll that found more than two-thirds of Americans would vote for a “well-qualified gay candidate for president” if he or she were put up by their party.