What Have We Come To?

Is this picture child pornography? Apparently it may be as a library in the West Australian city of Perth decided it shouldn't be included in an arts exhibition in case people were offended by it. 

How did we come to the ludicrous stage where such an innocent picture could be banned for being potentially offensive? Going from media reports, it would appear the hysteria whipped up last year over the work of internationally renowned artist Bill Henson is the catalyst. Henson included topless photos of an early teen girl as part of an art exhibition and the resulting media storm has made people extremely nervous of displaying artworks that any politically correct crackpot could claim to be child pornography. 

Personally I see nothing sexual or pornographic about this picture and think it's a great shame that a warped bunch of do-gooders have distorted something innocent and wholesome into something that can be banned for being offensive. Shame on you.

Lies, Damn Lies and Idiots

As usual, the comments section of AZU is awash with deliberate misrepresentations and blatant lies. There was a time I'd have given them the benefit of the doubt and presumed they'd simply misunderstood what I'd said but I've been exposed to them for long enough now to know that there is no misunderstanding - just outright fabrications. Recently Static posted the following piece of fiction:

I find it extremely telling that you can so easily support the right of the pedophiles to publish their books (which we have stated several times), and the right of Amazon to sell those books (which we have stated several times), but can't seem to support our right to complain about it and the right to refuse to shop at Amazon. You being the "fair-minded," "freedom-supporting," "reasonable" person you are- you should have no problem with us exercising our rights as well as the pedos.

Let me state my position clearly so there can be no further 'confusion': 

• I fully support the right of anyone of any sexual orientation to defend themselves against bigotry and discrimination.
  
• I fully support the right of the AZU contributors to speak their 'minds' on any issue.
  
• I fully support Amazon's right to sell any legally available literature.
  
• I fully support the right of anyone to refuse to shop at Amazon, or any other retailer, if they disapprove of the product being sold. 
  
• I believe in, and support, freedom of speech regardless of whether or not I agree with what is being said. 

Static's claim that I don't support either their right to complain or their right to refuse to shop at Amazon is a lie as evidenced by my clear statement above. I expect nothing more than lies and deceipt from one such as he.

Who Comments on the AZU Blog?

For a long time I've pointed out that the comments section of AZU is a stagnant swamp of self-congratulatory backslapping mixed with personal insults against anyone displaying any opposing view or even a degree of critical thinking. Anyone asking unapproved questions is abused and attacked whilst the question itself is largely ignored. This was one of my main reasons for starting this blog as I felt there should be a forum where people are free to express their point of view regardless of which side of the fence they sit on. Of course, this has led to me being labelled a paedosexual in the AZU comments but that's hardly surprising - it's a minimising tactic to draw attention away from the argument and mire it in baseless emotion. It's the same thing as labelling the whites who stood alongside African-Americans in the 60's civil rights movement as 'nigger-lovers'. 

Anyway, I noticed recently that there were 257 comments on their Jan 7 post so I thought it would be an interesting exercise to tally up the number of comments posted by each person to get an idea of the breadth of contributors. 

Here's the breakdown:

Stitches the Cunt (SC): 85

Jacey: 32

Violet Leaves: 15

Carisma: 3

Brock Lee: 3

Dr Oldfield: 26

ZandJsMom: 1

Jeremy: 60

Joe: 2

Daydreamer of Oz: 4

SpankyDaClown: 5 (most of which were censored)

Alfa Da Mime: 1

Static: 17

Anonymous: 2

Tsand: 1

I found this quite interesting as it has confirmed what I long suspected: whilst the AZU posts tend to attract a lot of comments, they're only from a small number of people and generally consist of congratulating each other on how clever they are rather than saying anything meritorious. This is proved in this example where 81% of the comments came from just five people (SC, Jeremy, Jacey, Static and Violet Leaves). 

Yes, it's terribly pathetic but at least it keeps them busy when they could be out burning crosses in people's front yards.

The Lunsford Hypocrisy Continues

A while back I posted about The Lunsford Hypocrisy in which I exposed the disgraceful hypocrisy displayed by AZU and Wikisposure in the case of Mark Lunsford (found by the police with kiddie porn on his computer) and his son Joshua (had sex with a 14 year old girl as an adult). Despite both men engaging in activities that would normally attract the exposure and condemnation of both sites, Wikisposure are yet to post an article about either of them and AZU have taken it one step further to actually defend and minimise Mark's possession of kiddie porn.

Well, the hypocrisy continues in the comments section on AZU with the following exchange:

Stitches the Cunt (SC): I don't have any problems insulting him (Tsand) at all. The man made his avatar a picture of Jessica Lunsford and then sexually harassed me when I told him that was inappropriate. (Editor's note: He sexually harassed SC? So now they're accusing him of bestiality?)

Static: Really?! You have got to be kidding! Why would a RSO use Jessica Lunsford as an avatar?! That is reprehensible!

So they consider it reprehensible for Tsand to make an avatar of Jessica (which it may well be - I've not seen it so can't comment) but still think it was ok for Joshua Lunsford to desecrate the memory of his sister by wearing a t-shirt with her picture on it to his trial for raping an underage girl. The gall of these people knows no bounds. 

So I repeat my challenge from my last post:

Treat these two as you would anyone else who is caught with child porn or who is sexually involved with a minor. If you're not willing to do so then at least have the integrity to admit you're making a special case for these people.

I'm fully aware the cowards who run AZU regularly visit this site so their choice is simple: meet the challenge and restore a little of their lost credibility or continue defending (or, in their language - enabling) a kiddie porn downloader and his child rapist son and, at the same time, continue to expose their own corruption.

AZU Admit Responsibility For Vigilante Attacks

I was going to post this on the comments board at AZU but it's becoming increasingly obvious that to do so is nothing short of casting pearls before swine. Trying to have a rational discussion with these people is nigh on impossible as they're either unwilling or unable to calmly address points raised or answer questions asked. They instead choose to avoid answering questions by hiding behind personal insults which really don't bother me but I see no point in raising matters of discussion if they're not to be addressed.

The current cause celebre on the AZU site is that of the attempted boycott of Amazon.com for selling books which Stitches the Cunt (SC) and co believe promote paedosexuality. Now, the arguments about whether or not a book shop should refuse to stock literature that presents an unpopular or contentious point of view is a matter for discussion elsewhere. What really caught my attention was the following snippet of discussion:

Jeremy: I wonder how your shareholders would feel about that? Do you think they'd be so interested in profit that they'd sit by and let you trigger the pedophile next door? Because that is exactly what Amazon is doing.

SC: Please be sure and ask them that question. You are exactly right.

So why did this exchange catch my eye? It was because the implications of what was said are significant. Jeremy is saying that Amazon.com are directly responsible for child molestation because they sell books which may inflame a child molester's passions and cause him/her to attack a child. Let me make it clear: the claim is that if someone buys a book from Amazon.com and is incited by the literature to molest a child then Amazon.com are directly responsible for this despicable act. SC states that she considers Jeremy's assertion to be "... exactly right.".

This claim has significant repercussions for AZU, Perverted Justice/Wikisposure and the supporters of publicly available sex offender registries. What Jeremy and SC are effectively conceding is that if some redneck vigilante reads their posts and is incited by the content to attack someone then they (the poster) are directly responsible for the attack. It's important to remember that it's not just RSOs who get attacked by vigilantes but also innocent people who are unlucky enough to be mistaken for a RSO - after all, the sort of people who resort to vigilantism aren't particularly bright and tend to make mistakes. According to Jeremy and SC, the person/group who incited the redneck through their words are directly responsible for the attack. No wonder they hide behind pseudonyms.

As I said, I was going to post this point on the AZU comments page but don't see the point as I know from experience they won't address the issue but rather throw around a few insults and then pat each other on the back for being so clever. Instead, here's the link to their post for anyone to read it for themselves.