Sunday, January 28, 2018

Donna Zink's Law: Washington State looks to allow all Level 1 registry info to be accessed by the public

We can just call this bill what it really is, the Donna Zink law. This bill MUST be opposed.

(a) For all registered offenders ((classified as risk level I)),
15 the agency shall share information with other appropriate law
16 enforcement agencies and, if the offender is a student, the public or
17 private school regulated under Title 28A RCW or chapter 72.40 RCW
18 which the offender is attending, or planning to attend. The agency
19 may disclose, upon request, relevant, necessary, and accurate
20 information to any victim or witness to the offense, any individual
21 community member who lives near the residence where the offender
22 resides, expects to reside, or is regularly found, and any individual
23 who requests information regarding a specific offender((; (b) for
24 offenders classified as risk level II,)). The agency may also
25 disclose relevant, necessary, and accurate information to public and
26 private schools, child day care centers, family day care providers,
27 public libraries, businesses and organizations that serve primarily
28 children, women, or vulnerable adults, and neighbors and community
29 groups near the residence where the offender resides, expects to
30 reside, or is regularly found;

Thursday, January 25, 2018

Pandering judge Rosemarie Aquilina just advocated prison rape from her bench to the cheers of millions of rabid Feminist MeToo supporters

I think we've seen the ugly hypocrisy of victim cult movements like #MeToo on full display here. This unethical judge not only bragged of signing the defendant's "death warrant," she suggested she would sentence the defendant to repeated rapes in prison if that pesky US Constitution wasn't in the way.

[The site Ethics Alarms has a very detailed breakdown of this judge's statements and why this is a very unethical thing for her to say.]

Where Nassar's Judge Went Wrong
By endorsing vengeance from the bench, the judge sentencing the disgraced Olympic doctor crossed an important line.

Brendan McDermid / Reuters

In 2001, I went to Xipamanine market, a huge open-air bazaar in Maputo, Mozambique, where you can buy everything from clothes to traditional medicine. A Mozambican friend told me how to keep safe from pickpockets. “If someone takes something from you, yell Ladrão! Ladrão!”—Thief!  Thief!—“and point to him.”

“What happens next?” I asked.

“People will grab him,” she said, “and possibly beat him to death.” She said the ultimate punishment was reserved for habitual thieves, and that the hardware section would be especially dangerous for them, because so many heavy objects were available.

I was learning Portuguese at the time. Ladrão is the only word in any language that I have ever wished I could unlearn. If a thief scampered away with my passport, my camera, and all my money, would I be able to resist yelling it out?  I couldn’t be sure, but I knew I would regret it immediately, and possibly for the rest of my life, if I did yell ladrão, and knew there was a possibility of brutal punishment being carried out in my name.

I thought of this incident Wednesday when Rosemarie Aquilina, the judge in the case of serial sexual assailant Larry Nassar, delivered the disgraced U.S. Olympic doctor what she called his “death warrant,” after a week of extraordinary testimony by his victims. Nassar begged the judge earlier this week to be spared having to hear all his victims speak. Judge Aquilina observed that a few days of emotional discomfort for Nassar would barely begin to even the score between him and the over-150 women he molested. She sentenced him to a prison term that will probably consume the rest of his life.

The dignity of the proceedings was diminished by a few words, though, that the judge offered by way of regret. If the U.S. Constitution didn’t forbid cruel and unusual punishment, she said, she “might allow what he did to all of these beautiful souls—these young women in their childhood—I would allow someone or many people to do to him what he did to others.”

Subjecting Nassar to a lifetime of rape is not my idea of justice, and fantasizing about it is not my idea of judicial temperament. On social media, civil libertarians have piped up to protest her, and many who followed the trial have expressed outrage at the sympathy for Nassar that this sentiment supposedly reveals. Their outrage is outrageous, and itself reveals twisted sympathies that are, for supposed advocates of victims, unfortunate.

Does Nassar deserve to be raped 150 times? Quite possibly: To be honest, when crimes approach the magnitude of his, I stop trusting my ability to keep tabs on just deserts, except to say that what he deserves is—whether it’s a lifetime in a dark hole, or years-long gang rape—beyond my ability to fathom. But to admit that he deserves inconceivable punishment is not to defend the judge’s remarks. Some crimes are bad enough that no remedy exists for them in civilized society. I am reminded of C.S. Lewis’s famous line that some men are indeed fit only to be slaves, but none is fit to be a master.

I don’t know what Nassar’s victims think about the judge’s comments. I have never been subjected to a crime as traumatic as theirs, but it isn’t at all obvious that they would smile on her thirst for violent revenge. Would it be comforting to know that a horrific act of abuse, one whose very mention would nauseate me in any other context, is being done to correct the wrong against me? Or that my testimony provoked people to fantasize about punitive rape? Would it comfort me to know that a judge had shared my pain enough to voice unjudge-like wrath on my behalf?

I watched only three of the witness testimonies against Nassar, and it sickened me to hear how he had affected these women’s lives. It pleased me to know that Nassar was sickened, too, and indeed it settled my stomach a little to read his feeble, tortured plea to be spared more. I like to think the denial of that mercy to Nassar was the most delicious vengeance for his victims, since it required nothing of them but honesty and dignity. It did not require that heinous acts—the same heinous acts committed on them—be committed on their behalf. Sadly, it may have required them to relive their own abuse. That so many had the fortitude to bear that ongoing trauma was one of the reasons the court’s proceedings inspired and awed so many. That the judge would undermine this dignity at the last minute is regrettable.

This is an old problem. In Rwanda and elsewhere, survivors who endured even worse than Nassar’s victims have had to accept that justice is sometimes inaccessible, and the next-best thing is honest dignity somewhat akin to what we saw in the last week. What does one do when the magnitude of crimes means that their only fitting punishment would be cruel beyond our norms of civil liberties and human rights? Does retributive justice fly out the window, or instead, civil liberties and human rights? It is natural to find this question a hard one, but I strongly suspect it has only one even remotely satisfying answer. In the aftermath of the Second World War, George Orwell watched a Jew abuse a Nazi:

It is absurd to blame any German or Austrian Jew for getting his own back on the Nazis. Heaven knows what scores this particular man may have had to wipe out; very likely his whole family had been murdered; and after all, even a wanton kick to a prisoner is a very tiny thing compared with the outrages committed by the Hitler regime. But what this scene, and much else that I saw in Germany, brought home to me was that the whole idea of revenge and punishment is a childish daydream. Properly speaking, there is no such thing as revenge. Revenge is an act which you want to commit when you are powerless and because you are powerless: as soon as the sense of impotence is removed, the desire evaporates also. … Who would not have jumped for joy, in 1940, at the thought of seeing S.S. officers kicked and humiliated? But when the thing becomes possible, it is merely pathetic and disgusting.

For most of these proceedings, there was only one pathetic and disgusting figure in that courtroom. One was more than enough.

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Miami-Dade County Ordinance 18-01 allows the arrest of homeless registrants made homeless by previous county ordinances

It is official, FAC has reported the gutless wonders at the Miami-Dade County Board of Commissioners unanimously passed the local ordinance designed to arrest the homeless registrants for being forced into homelessness by the very laws they passed. Since this revelation hasn't hit the news, I decided all I can do is share my letter to the commissioners, as if they were going to listen.

[Note, at the time I wrote the letter, the ordinance had a different number.]

From: Derek W. Logue of
To: Members of the Miami-Dade Council
Subject: Ordinance 172445

To the Miami City Council,

My name is Derek Logue, and I represent OnceFallen, an activist and support site for Registered Citizens. I have been trying to assist those who are forced to live at the Hialeah homeless registrant camp. In Christmas 2016, I spend Christmas at the camp. I have also documented the effects of the Lauren Book law on my website.(1)  I have also endured homelessness and the difficulty of finding housing as a registered citizen.

I’d like to share that personal experience as a registrant. I have lived in a couple of states since my release. My conviction took place in Alabama, and they have a 2000 feet restriction. I could not find any housing in the state because those newly released from prison have no resources to find housing. I ultimately found a program in Ohio willing to take me. Now, in Ohio, we had a 1000 foot residency restriction in place. Still, it took me seven months and 131 individual phone calls to find a place to live. In 2011, residency restriction laws were deemed to be punitive and could not be applied retroactively. I had to move a few years after this decision came out, and it only took me 4 weeks and 31 calls to find a place to live.

The point of all this is to address the dubious claim this Lauren Book 2500 foot restriction ordinance has no impact on housing availability. I think the difficulty of all these county agencies, especially the Homeless Trust, cannot find sufficient housing with their vast amount of resources condemns this denial of the Book ordinance as the root of the problem as absurd. It was found in 2012 that 22.7% of the total number of homeless registrants in the state of Florida live right here in Miami-Dade County.(2)  The only other county coming close to this number is Broward County, which, not-so-coincidentally, also has 2500 foot living restrictions.

The people who have been missing from this narrative are the camp residents. I have heard a number of absurd statements, such as the one where someone suggesting homeless registrants roll up in a Mercedes demanding benefits. It is entirely possible that statement could be true but it is because some of those living at the camp in Hialeah aren’t there because they cannot afford a place; many the camp are there because they are trying to obey a draconian law and it is the only known option to them. If a nationally recognized activist for the rights of registered persons struggled for months just to find a single residence in a location of 1000 foot residency restriction laws that apply to only schools and day care centers, then what hope is there for those who have to navigate a nearly half-mile restriction from even more places?

If you were placed in a situation where 99.9% of available housing, you have two choices: One, you obey the law and establish residence in the 0.1% of remaining real estate, or two, you take your chances and break the law in order to live like the rest of the human beings. It is quite amazing that so many choose option 1, but it really isn’t, since many want to obey the law, no matter how barbaric it may be. This Ron Book ordinance (and be honest, it was Ron, not Lauren, who spearheaded this law and thus should be named for him) is the root cause of this dilemma.

The Book family claims they have tried to help the camp residents. That is a complete fabrication. It was well documented by the media those who did receive assistance after the city shut down the JTC received far less assistance than Ron Book has claimed. Ron Book received $1 million to provide temporary housing to the displaced registrants, but less than three months later, the displaced registrants were facing eviction from their temporary housing. About 20 faced eviction within a single month of displacement. Despite efforts to prevent clustering, two clusters of displaced registrants formed, one at a trailer park in Allapattah, the other in a secluded area in the Shorecrest community. Some were displaced from temporary shelter within mere hours.(3)  A number of former JTC camp registrants were even temporarily housed in the parking lot of the Florida Department of Corrections.(4)  As far as the claim JTC residents aren’t at this current camp, I know that to be false.

Why is this council continuing to rely on these same failed agencies with the same tasks and continue to accept their same debunked claims as Gospel? The popular definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time. This council gave the task to cleaning up the mess created by the Ron Book ordinance to Ron Book and his daughter once before. This poses a very important question—if the Book family, with their millions of dollars and the backing of the Miami-Dade council and a decade of time to resolve this issue could not find housing for the homeless camp residents, what hope do those at the camp have of resolving the issue themselves?

The Book family had not been to the Hialeah camp in years. Many residents never even heard of Ron and Lauren Book. But they know that they could not trust the Homeless Trust. I visited the camp twice in 2016—once to see the camp for myself and talk to residents, and once during Christmas to bring some supplies to the neediest residents at the camp. That is two more times than the Book family or the Miami-Dade Homeless Trust visited the camp in 2016. Many residents never met the Book family until the Books engaged in a public spectacle only after the local media brought this issue to the surface again. The Books are taking action to prevent critics from speaking out, including filing bogus litigation to silence critics.

The Books had no desire then, and have no desire today to help those at the camp have stable homes. They have repeated referred to everyone on the public registry as “creeping crud,” “monsters,” “incurable,” and “ticking time bombs.” It should be no surprise that camp residents would not trust the Books or the Homeless Trust. Who would trust anyone to help when the people charged to help them call them vile names and spew so much venom against them? Would a member of the NAACP come to the Aryan Brotherhood for advice on race relations? Would a Christian ask a Satanist for advice on Scripture? Why would a camp resident ask the very people responsible for keeping them in a state of homelessness to help them out of homelessness? I wouldn’t. Quite frankly, if I had been unfortunate enough to live at that camp, I would have honestly considered absconding.

Passing a law to allow police to arrest camp residents for being forced to live at a homeless camp by virtue of law is simply sweeping the problem your council under the rug. Maybe this will be the action that finally sends these residency restriction laws crashing down to reality. You’ve paraded this naked Emperor around for over a decade now, and people are getting tired of pretending this Emperor you have is wearing a luxurious robe. We can see every imperfection, every fold, and every wrinkle in your Emperor. The so-called Lauren Book Child Safety Ordinance is the festering, cancerous pustule protruding prominently on the face of this city and it needs to be surgically removed. All the L’Oreal makeup in existence could not cover this tumor.

Repealing the Book law isn’t that hard. Iowa scaled back 2000 foot residency restrictions in 2009.(5)  Wilwaukee WI scaled their restrictions back just last year, three years after passing 2000 foot restrictions.(6)  Like Miami, they thought they could just banish their way out of a homeless, but the media studied the homeless registrant issue and found the following:

“Rather than reducing the number of sex offenders, the ordinance has put more than 200 of them in the street and failed to keep new offenders from moving into the city, a Journal Sentinel analysis has found... The ordinance bans many sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of areas where children are commonly found, such as schools, parks and day care centers. In Milwaukee, that means hundreds of sex offenders are limited to 117 possible housing units. And even those 117 units might not be available to rent or buy.”(7)  Does it sound familiar? It should. This is the same thing the media has stated numerous times about Miami!

How much more evidence do you need to see we need a repeal of the Book law rather than a law to arrest people fore obeying a draconian and completely unnecessary law? The Book family has been allowed to use the law as a tool of vengeance for far too long, and it is beyond time this council grows some gumption and rejects this completely asinine proposal. Repeal the Lauren Book “Child Safety” Ordinance instead!

 2. Jill Levenson et al. “Transient Sex Offenders and Residence Restrictions in Florida.” 2013
 3.  Robert Samuels. “For Miami-Dade sex offenders, wandering awaits.” Miami Herald, July 27, 2010; Adam H. Beasley, Jennifer Lebovich. “Sex offenders who lived under Miami causeway evicted from hotel.” Miami Herald. April 20, 2017. 
 4.  See
 5.  Logue, Derek. “Banishment By Attrition: The Truth About Residency Restrictions.” 28 Aug. 2015. Web.  <>
 6.  Spicuzza, Mary. “Milwaukee Common Council votes to lift sex offender residency restrictions.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 6 Sept. 2017. Web. <>
 7.  Carpenter, Jacob. “Sex offender ordinance hasn’t worked as planned, putting public at greater risk.” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. 20 Aug. 2016. Web. <>

Monday, January 22, 2018

Chris Smith (No, sadly not the IML pol but some self-proclaimed British "Pedo-hunter") lands on the sex offender registry

This is what happens when you let idiots who watch too many TCAP reruns do police work. This is a particularly bad problem over in England.

'Paedophile hunter' ordered to sign sex offenders register
Ben Goddard  @bengoddard_HT

A MAN who claimed to be using indecent images of children to snare paedophiles has been ordered to sign the sex offender register for five years.

Christopher Daniel Smith, 27, of Coldstone Cross, Kingstone, pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to making four category C indecent images of children aged around 14-years-old.

Kriss Ewing, prosecuting at Hereford Magistrates Court, said that on July 27, police acting on intelligence attended the address linked to the defendant after he had uploaded an indecent image onto Facebook.

Police took Smith's phone from him and found four indecent images of children.

"The images were Category C so not the most serious images of children around 14-years-old," said Mrs Ewing.

"If you open or download an image it means you have made it. The four photographs were in a gallery on his phone."

Smith told police that he had been 'paedophile hunting' and somebody had sent these images to him.

"Searches on his phone were also questionable and included 14-year-olds and teens," added Mrs Ewing.

When questioned about this, Smith said that the 14-year-olds search was 'probably a typo' and the teen search was relating to his interest in 18 and 19-year-olds.

Marilena Di Vitantonio, mitigating, said that Smith had been trying to set-up a website similar to that of 'H Division' and had approached people for advice.

"He then sent images to potential paedophiles but should have then contacted police immediately and let them deal with it," said Miss Di Vitantonio.

"Unfortunately he didn't and the images were retained on his phone."

At Hereford Magistrates Court on Friday, Smith was handed a sexual harm prevention order for five years and ordered to sign the sex offenders register for five years.

He was also ordered to pay £185 costs and an £85 victim surcharge.

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

tRump isn't the only Tweeting Twit: NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand actively fundraises for unconstitutional campaign to influence Brock Turner's judge to be recalled

Twitter stupidity is a bipartisan effort. Just look at US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand support--and help fundraise for--the effort to recall the judge to sentence Brock Turner. No active member of Congress should be engaging in witch hunts and pressuring people to increase prison sentences for anyone.

On a related note, Standford University has contributed to Gillibrand's campaign.

"On Saturday, Democratic New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand provided a pertinent reminder that the road to mass incarceration is paved with good intentions. In a trio of tweets, Gillibrand, a likely contender in the 2020 presidential race, expressed her support for the campaign to recall Aaron Persky, the judge who sentenced Brock Turner to just six months in jail for violent sexual assault. She even included a fundraising link to the campaign. “Can you give to help make sure justice wins?” Gillibrand asked, imploring her supporters to “stand with survivors” by financing the recall effort, which has already received enough signatures to go on the ballot in June.

Turner’s crime is, indeed, an outrage. But the recall campaign against his sentencing judge will not ensure that “justice wins.” Instead, the crusade against Persky threatens to exacerbate injustice by frightening other judges into imposing longer sentences across the board. Gillibrand is right to question whether Turner got off easy on account of his race and class. But her attempt to punish Persky via recall is a dangerously misguided mistake, one that will mostly harm lower-income racial minorities."

See the offensive Tweet at

Friday, January 12, 2018

MeToo, MeToo: NebrASSka looks to pass Affirmative Consent law

The much derided "Yes Means Yes" or "Affirmative Consent" law is spreading to Nebraska, of all places.

If you want to neck among the cornfields and cow pies, don't forget to print this CONSENT FORM, cross out California, write in Nebraska, get it notarized, and you're good to go.

Go Huskers!

(On a related note, does this mean Nebraska pols will have to get consent of of the people before passing legislation that screws the public?)

Bill would convert consent standard for sex to 'yes means yes'
JoANNE YOUNG Lincoln Journal Star  Jan 11, 2018 Updated 10 hrs ago

A Lincoln senator wants to flip the script on giving consent for sex.

Instead of the common rule of "no means no," which implies that unless a person says no, the other person in a sexual encounter assumes there's permission, an affirmative consent would be required. 

Silence would not mean it's OK. 

Sen. Patty Pansing Brooks introduced a bill (LB988) Thursday that would adopt affirmative consent as the standard for criminal sexual assault cases. 

As it is now, state law says a person must express a lack of consent through words or conduct. 

With the bill, consent means words or overt actions that indicate a knowing and voluntary agreement, freely given, to engage in sexual contact or intercourse. A person could also still withdraw consent with words or conduct.

According to the bill, these things would not imply or give consent: current or previous dating, social or sexual relationship by itself; how the person is dressed; the victim's use of drugs or alcohol. 

The University of Nebraska already uses the affirmative standard in its sexual misconduct policy. 

Pansing Brooks said a college student led the way on the bill. 

Brodey Weber, a sophomore at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, has been interested in the topic since high school, when he went to a national Young Democrats convention. He heard a speaker there, the president of the California state senate, Kevin de Leon, the first in the nation to introduce a "Yes Means Yes" bill. 

Writing in The Washington Post, de Leon and Hannah-Beth Jackson said that while “no means no” has become a well-known slogan, it places the burden on victims, making it their responsibility to show resistance.

No means no "has also been mocked and twisted into offensive slogans by some college fraternities. Others, like conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, have contorted it further, promulgating the notion that no really means yes 'if you know how to spot it,'" they said. 

Weber came back to Lincoln, and for a class project researched laws on affirmative standards in other states, such as California, Montana, New York and Illinois, to see how Nebraska could follow their lead. In other states, the bills have had bipartisan support, he said.  

"The way I looked at it is, I can't keep waiting for someone else in Nebraska to finally do something about it," he said. "I've always been a very big believer in activism. If I want something changed, I have to do what I can to change it." 

When he interned in Pansing Brooks' office, he offered her office his research. The senator then crafted a bill and brought it forward. 

If the bill would be passed, Weber acknowledged, it would take time to convert to an affirmative-consent culture. 

But it didn't take him long to understand the idea that in sexual encounters a person needs to get a yes. 

"I don't think it should be the hardest thing for individuals to understand that to engage in sexual activity they just need a clear, enthusiastic and simple yes to do so," he said. 

And when drugs or alcohol are involved, "it is very important to be even more careful just because of how slippery and messy it can get," he said. 

Sunday, January 7, 2018

It really takes a creepy pol to come up with a dumb acronym like the CREEPER Act

Okay, I need to ask a perfectly legitimate question here-- who sits around all day thinking of things that people on the registry might potentially do so a proactive law like this one could be passed? Politicians are some of the creepiest people.

It took a real sick mind to come up with an offensive acronym too. Interestingly enough, the term "creeper" has nothing to do with actual registered persons, so these out-of-touch politicians just pulled something off the internet and misused it.

First off, the term "creeper" is a stupid term Millenials (mainly campus Feminist types) made up to annoy old people or bully and humiliate socially inept, lonely people. You generally see this term among people not old enough to drink but old enough to have a social media/ online dating account. But the person who decided this was a great acronym should get his own nod for coming up with such an asinine acronym.

The acronym Curbing Realistic Exploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots (CREEPER) does not make sense when you think about it. The silicone dolls one can currently legally buy for sexual purposes are not even robots. Even if they were robots, can robots be "pedophilic"? Whatever the case, this is just plain stupid.

The bill, not the idiots who wrote it, is the nominee here, though.

CREEPER Act would ban sex dolls portraying children

Sex dolls exist and nobody is trying to ban them — but what about sex dolls portraying children?

What the bill does
The CREEPER Act would prevent the distribution or importing of such child sex dolls in the U.S. The products are primarily manufactured in Asia and feature portrayals of girls as young as age five.

The full name is the Curbing Realistic Exploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots (CREEPER) Act.

The bill was introduced in December 2017 by Rep. Daniel Donovan, Jr. (R-NY11). It’s labelled H.R. 4655 in the House.

What supporters say
Supporters argue the bill would prevent a new and growing problem among pedophiles.

“It’s a uniquely vile person who preys on children to fulfill horrific pedophilic urges. During my 20 years as a prosecutor, I put away animals who played out their disgusting fantasies on innocent children. What I saw and heard was enough to make anybody sick,” Donovan said in a press release.

“Now, as a legislator in Congress, I’m introducing a bill to ban the newest outlet for pedophiles: child sex dolls. They don’t belong in our communities.”

What opponents say
GovTrack Insider was unable to locate any statements of opposition to the bill from a sitting member of Congress, unsurprisingly. However, some could argue that no actual human children are directly harmed by sex dolls portraying children, however uncomfortable it may make some people feel.

One of the dolls’ primary manufacturers, Japan’s Shin Takagi, argues that the dolls help prevent pedophilia towards actual children. “We should accept that there is no way to change someone’s fetishes,” Takagi told The Atlantic. “I am helping people express their desires, legally and ethically. It’s not worth living if you have to live with repressed desire.”

Even though Takagi suggests that using the dolls would prevent people from engaging in real-life crimes involving children, the evidence may seem to suggest otherwise. After the U.K. passed a law banning the importation of such dolls, The Guardian quoted Deputy Director for Intelligence Operations at the Border Force Dan Scully as saying, “These items were going to individuals, in many cases, who were committing other offences in relation to [the] harm of children.”

Odds of passage
The bill has attracted a bipartisan mix of 12 cosponsors: nine Republicans and three Democrats.

It awaits a possible vote in the House Judiciary Committee.

This article was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin.


1st Session

H. R. 4655


December 14, 2017

Mr. Donovan (for himself, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Marino, Mr. Rutherford, Ms. Barragán, Ms. Tenney, Mr. Bacon, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Stewart, Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire, Miss Rice of New York, Mr. Gowdy, and Mr. Bishop of Utah) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the importation or transportation of child sex dolls, and for other purposes.

1.Short title
This Act may be cited as the Curbing Realistic Exploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots Act of 2017 or as the CREEPER Act of 2017.

The Congress finds as follows:

(1)There is a correlation between possession of the obscene dolls, and robots, and possession of and participation in child pornography.
(2)The physical features, and potentially the personalities of the robots are customizable or morphable and can resemble actual children.
(3)Some owners and makers of the robots have made their children interact with the robots as if the robots are members of the family.
(4)The robots can have settings that simulate rape.
(5)The dolls and robots not only lead to rape, but they make rape easier by teaching the rapist about how to overcome resistance and subdue the victim.
(6)For users and children exposed to their use, the dolls and robots normalize submissiveness and normalize sex between adults and minors.
(7)As the Supreme Court has recognized, obscene material is often used as part of a method of seducing child victims.
(8)The dolls and robots are intrinsically related to abuse of minors, and they cause the exploitation, objectification, abuse, and rape of minors.
3.Prohibition of importation or transportation of child sex dolls
Section 1462 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1)in paragraph (a), by striking or at the end;
(2)in paragraph (b), by striking or at the end;
(3)by inserting after paragraph (c) the following:
(d)any child sex doll; or
; and

(4)by adding at the end the following:
In this section, the term child sex doll means an anatomically-correct doll, mannequin, or robot, with the features of, or with features that resemble those of, a minor, intended for use in sexual acts.

Thursday, January 4, 2018

It was bound to happen: Feminist "Gender Studies" professor declares Disney princes are sex offenders

Register them all... wait, how would that even work? Well, the registry IS a work of fiction so I guess they'd figure out a way to do it. (This is as silly as those who get offended by thinks with the word "black" in the name because that's "racist.")

Disney princes in 'Snow White,' 'Sleeping Beauty' are sex offenders, professor says
Caleb Parke By Caleb Parke | Fox News

Prince Charming may not be so charming after all.

Disney’s fairytale princes are sexual predators, according to a Japanese gender studies and sociology professor.

Kazue Muta, an Osaka University professor and author of “Sir, That Love is Sexual Harassment!” a book on workplace sexual harassment, argued in December that princes from “Snow White” and “Sleeping Beauty” portray “quasi-compulsive obscene sexual acts on an unconscious partner.”

In other words, the feminist academic activist argues such fairytales allow sexual violence.

In a Dec. 11 tweet, Muta accused the princes of sexual assault with a link to a news story of a real case where a man was arrested for kissing a sleeping woman on a train en route to Osaka.

The translation reads: “When you think rationally about 'Snow White' and 'Sleeping Beauty,' that tell of a ‘princess being woken up by the kiss of a prince,’ they are describing sexual assault on an unconscious person. You might think I’m ruining the fantasy of it all, but these stories are promoting sexual violence and I would like everyone to be aware of it.”

Muta’s comment brought a firestorm of reaction – support and criticism.

In the Disney versions of “Sleeping Beauty” the prince is led to kiss Princess Aurora by the fairies with the belief that he can cure her of her napping curse, “not motivated by his own pervy will,” SoraNews24 pointed out in Japan Today.

While the “Snow White” version features a prince kissing an unconscious Snow White, SoraNews24 argues, Disney tries to “soften the act by establishing a prior relationship between them in which she and the prince fall in love at first sight.” (Also, Snow White had eaten a cursed apple and the prince's kiss wakes her from a "sleeping death.")

After the criticism was picked up by Yahoo! Japan, Muta responded with an article for the Women’s Action Network.

Muta argues that if someone doesn’t look at the fairytales critically, they are essentially saying sexual harassment is permissible.

“There were many critical replies that state ‘Because the princess and prince lived happily ever after in the end, there is a presumptive consent regarding the kiss, so there’s no problem,’” Muta wrote. “However, this understanding of it is actually dangerous. This kind of thinking fabricates the mindset of ‘the ends justify the means,’ and to what extent does this allow sexual violence to occur?”

She expounded on the tweet, arguing that beyond the Disney versions, and within Japanese fairytales, the male figures kiss “without confirming consent,” so they’re actually committing sexual crimes.

Muta adds that many violent sexual crimes seem as if they “mimicked” the actions of male protagonists in fairytales and connected her argument to the #MeToo hashtag, highlighting sexual harassment which has been found to be especially rampant in Hollywood.

“Under such circumstances, changing society's recognition of sexual violence is not an easy thing to do," Muta said. "However, we must say these things loudly and boldly."

Monday, January 1, 2018

Coalinga City Council sues its way into our first nomination for 2018

This election just shows that every vote counts, as it should. Now residents can thank the Coalinga program for sparing them from a sales tax hike.

City sues over election partly decided by sex offenders at state hospital

By Corin Hoggard
Wednesday, December 27, 2017 11:28PM
COALINGA, Calif. (KFSN) -- Coalinga City Council is suing Fresno County to overturn an election decided partly by the sex offenders in a state hospital.

Voters rejected a penny sales tax increase by just 37 votes in November. 127 of those 'no' votes came from inside the walls of Coalinga State Hospital, where some of the state's sex offenders are actually legal voters.

A picture of "Coalinga's Finest" taken today would feature a lot fewer officers than you see in this photo hanging on the wall at city hall. The force shrank by about 25% after a sales tax increase known as Measure C failed last month.

"Initially we didn't know how many votes came from where and so I was like 'Hey, this is the vote of the people,'" said Coalinga mayor Nathan Vosburg.

But Vosburg's attitude shifted when he realized the weight of the vote from one precinct -- where 360 registered voters share the same address in the middle of nowhere, seven miles from city hall.

The Coalinga State Hospital is home to about 1200 people, mostly sexually violent predators who are not inmates, but patients.

And even though they're not allowed to leave, state law allows them to vote if they're not on parole.

"Whether they should vote is a whole other ordeal, which I can tell you a lot of our citizens are just heaving mad they were allowed to vote in the first place," Vosburg said.

The city annexed the hospital around the time it opened 12 years ago and in the last few years, Fresno County clerk Brandi Orth certified the patients as voters in Coalinga. She told Action News this election, like all of them, was conducted in accordance with the law.

Advocates for the patients say the sales tax affects them when they buy cheeseburgers in the hospital and even moreso when they buy TVs and electronics for their rooms. They asked city officials to discuss their concerns and got an email response from the city manager.

But they voted against Measure C 127-50, swaying the overall vote to a win for the 'nos.'

So the city council is trying to exclude their votes with a new tactic, claiming the patients aren't really Coalinga residents.

"1) Most of them, probably all of them, never lived here," Vosburg said. "2) They don't plan on living here; and 3) They're not fixed here."

The city council is scheduled to face off with the county in court starting in April.

One of the advocates for patients told us he feels like they're convenient scapegoats and if city council members really thought patients shouldn't be voting, they should've mentioned it before the election.