User Tisane, this could end badly Options

[tarantino]

The Libertarian candidate in 2008 for Virginia's 1st congressional district and and one of Abd's former mentors [1] had another account blocked August 11 2010.

He recently spent 14 months in prison for threatening to kill the president, and has just now decided not to comply with his conditions of supervised release.

His autobiography is here, and the letter sent to his probation officer is here.

[1]

I had some good mentors early on, most notably an editor known by many names, a long-term Wikipedian who, for his own reasons, kept dropping accounts and starting up new ones, though under (originally) no sanctions. He never used two accounts simultaneously, never went back to old accounts, and all were acknowledged or blatantly obvious, far from concealed. One of the names was Sarsaparilla, it's not hard at all to find another going back about two years before I met him. Older accounts he never revealed even to me, and he had real-life reasons to avoid disclosing them, he claimed.

[Somey]

As if further proof was needed, this incident clearly illustrates what Jack Handey has been telling us all along: Friendly and considerate though he may seem, the court-appointed psychiatrist is not necessarily your "friend."

Presumably, the same goes for the friendly US Attorney, the friendly Secret Service agent, the friendly warden at the friendly Federal Penitentiary, the friendly members of the Parole Board, and so on.

[CharlotteWebb]

He recently spent 14 months in prison for threatening to kill the president, and has just now decided not to comply with his conditions of supervised release.

That's his problem surely.

Are you saying this user's off-site behavior (and/or statements) caused the Arbitrary Committee to stop ignoring that said user had been banned previously, or what…

[Subtle Bee]

As if further proof was needed, this incident clearly illustrates what Jack Handey has been telling us all along: Friendly and considerate though he may seem, the court-appointed psychiatrist is not necessarily your "friend."

Presumably, the same goes for the friendly US Attorney, the friendly Secret Service agent, the friendly warden at the friendly Federal Penitentiary, the friendly members of the Parole Board, and so on.

Just consider the word - "friend" -ly. Not actually a friend, just like a friend, superficially. Friend-ly.

If you don't get it, you deserve what you get.

[A User]

"I decided that I was tired of serving as the government's slave and having my goals thwarted by the state, and that I was unwilling to put up with it anymore. Once again, I considered assassinating a government official but, lacking the money to buy a gun and spend time figuring out a plan of attack, I made up my mind to instead commit an act of symbolic protest against the government by threatening assassination."

This dude sounds like a real champion (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Maybe he should change his username to Tinsane

[Somey]

If you don't get it, you deserve what you get.

Well, life is like a box of chocolates... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

I realize this probably isn't what Mr. Tarantino intended or hoped for with this thread, but I was just thinking, if I were to be asked what I consider the "typical Wikipedian" to be like, I'd probably say a male, in his 20's, with varying degrees of narcissistic tendencies; fairly opportunistic though distrusting of formal authority; in possession of decent (but not spectacular) writing skills; reasonably well-educated but almost certainly not as smart as he thinks he is; leaning towards a libertarian (or maybe "libertarian-ish") sociopolitical ideology, but not as affluent or well-off as one would expect from someone espousing such an ideology... This User:Tisane feller would be such an extreme example of those things, you'd have to say that guys like him make it very difficult for the other WP'ers to push the median/stereotype in a different (and I would say preferable) direction.

And in this case, it's difficult to say "I'm sure he's a really nice guy if you meet him in person" - it's probably just the opposite, IOW he's much nicer on the internet than he is in reality. Wikipedia is the perfect place for him, to be frank - and I suspect that's why he keeps coming back.

[EricBarbour]

.........if I were to be asked what I consider the "typical Wikipedian" to be like, I'd probably say a male, in his 20's, with varying degrees of narcissistic tendencies; fairly opportunistic though distrusting of formal authority; in possession of decent (but not spectacular) writing skills; reasonably well-educated but almost certainly not as smart as he thinks he is; leaning towards a libertarian (or maybe "libertarian-ish") sociopolitical ideology, but not as affluent or well-off as one would expect from someone espousing such an ideology...

In short, just the kind of guy who would have a dog-eared copy of Atlas Shrugged prominently displayed on his coffee table......

And in this case, it's difficult to say "I'm sure he's a really nice guy if you meet him in person" - it's probably just the opposite, IOW he's much nicer on the internet than he is in reality. Wikipedia is the perfect place for him, to be frank - and I suspect that's why he keeps coming back.

That is probably one of the most damning things one can say about Wikipedia.
Also one of the most accurate.

Worse still, it also well-describes any number of user-content-generated
websites, from 4chan to Something Awful to Fark to Mixx to you name it.

The World Wide Web: just like Usenet before it, a dreamland for the libertarian troll.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Somey]

That is probably one of the most damning things one can say about Wikipedia.
Also one of the most accurate.

Thanks! I wrote it myself! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Abd]

And in this case, it's difficult to say "I'm sure he's a really nice guy if you meet him in person" - it's probably just the opposite, IOW he's much nicer on the internet than he is in reality. Wikipedia is the perfect place for him, to be frank - and I suspect that's why he keeps coming back.

Well, I've spent a lot of time on the phone and in direct communication with him, and with his family.

He's one of the smartest Wikipedians I've met (though I never met him in person). He quickly taught me a great deal about how the place works. (And how it doesn't work!) But he's also got, shall we say, a problem. He's crazy. I don't know the diagnosis, but he's possibly bipolar.

He's also suicidal, from time to time, and did start talking about violence, though never directly to me on the phone, it was always in other writings he pointed out to me.

He can be extraordinarily functional for a long time, then ... he tosses it all away in a burst of intense activity that results, for example, in his being banned on Wikipedia. The first times, it really didn't make sense, he was banned for doing stuff, minor pranks, that would normally hardly raise an eyebrow. But he had tweaked the bear, that was the reality, he'd offended the power elite.

And then he gave them excuses to ban him. Blatant excuses. It was in some ways like what he did with the threat to assassinate the President. He sent it to the Secret Service and then waited for them to pick him up. It might possibly have been an alternative to suicide. Harder to commit suicide in prison. It made his life much simpler. No internet.

I'll try to contact his sister tomorrow.

I completely agree with the decision on Wikipedia to block the account. They really had no choice, and that was based on current behavior, not on the old ban.

I couldn't access Libertapedia for a bit, but now I see the letter to the probation officer. They will simply pick him up and lock him up, no question about it. He may be safer that way, unless he really does have firearms, in which case, he might not live long. Damn.

[timbo]

I've got a pretty comical (joke) pseudo-template by Tisane for warning vandals with IPs linked to Christian Schools up on my WP user page.

I've never met him or corresponded with him, but the guy seems really sharp, reading his stuff. Here's hoping he gets his chemical imbalance fixed or whatever it is that makes him go off kilter before he gets his ass killed.


t

This post has been edited by timbo:

[Seurat]

The World Wide Web: just like Usenet before it, a dreamland for the libertarian troll.

Or the other way around!

The Internet is no more and no less than what is made of it. The only thing that distinguishes it from the analog world is the ease with which one can acquire and stand upon one's soapbox.

This does both wonderful things and terrible things. Imagine the number of artists who would have kept all their work in a private scrapbook 20 years ago, and then look up some of the things that you can find online. Works in various stages of completion, of various levels of quality, but all visible for the curious. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

The unfortunate part is that the undesirables, the crazies, also have a shorter road to broadcasting their insanity. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I don't think that it is correct to indict the Internet because some of those it brings to light are crazy; the crazy people probably would have been crazy without the Internet. The Internet is simply a microscope for looking at things that were previously too small to notice, a lens that makes them look bigger. Some of those things and people are good, and some are bad, but they would have been there anyway.

We don't necessarily know the consequences of the Internet on these issues. Could the crazy ones work up a frenzy through their online activities that leads them to real and serious action? On the other hand, might it act as a safety valve, one that channels the crazy into annoying but harmless "TL;DR" rants online?

I can't help but imagine an alternate timeline with today's Internet in the past, where Kennedy is spared because his would-be-killer stays home blogging, or where young people in Guy Fawkes masks get arrested while demonstrating against the Vietnam War. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

You can discuss just about anything on the Internet, whether you're talking about art, baseball, sexual deviancy, (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) wingnut politics, (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif) or Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[EricBarbour]

The unfortunate part is that the undesirables, the crazies, also have a shorter road to broadcasting their insanity. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

And the greater tragedy: Wikipedia is unable to deal with or protect itself from them.

[Abd]

The unfortunate part is that the undesirables, the crazies, also have a shorter road to broadcasting their insanity. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

And the greater tragedy: Wikipedia is unable to deal with or protect itself from them.

Wikipedia did not normally need to be protected from Tisane, it would have been, properly, the other way around. But his last gaffe was over the top, and unprovoked, as far as I can see.

Wikipedia, when it was functional, probably helped stabilize him, to a degree, and the reward for Wikipedia was prodigious content creation. Newyorkbrad was quite frustrated when the guy was banned. And what he was finally banned for was mostly a lie, misrepresentation of what he did, by a certain deletionist sock who took him on as a target. Long story. Easter Bunny Hotline. Not a hoax. Genuine material, a bit jokily presented in mainspace, he'd do stuff like that. That rabble-rouser got blocked. But the misrepresentation stuck. Typical wiki stuff. "Crowd sourced" can be, unfortunately, another name for "mob rule."

block discussion. Looking at this, I don't know what I was thinking. The IP is immediately recognizable as Fredrick day IP, and I would have known that then. Yellowbeard, though viciously trying at various times to get the user blocked, and kicking him when he was down, may not have been involved at all.

That an IP editor, visibly a blocked user, can start a riot on AN/I, is a sign of the WP problem. Bottom line, Larry E. Jordan was blocked for creating a stub on a real subject, with insufficient evidence of notability, and with jokey text, easily fixed. The article was immediately speedied. I later recreated the article with sources supplied by the guy, which I checked, and it's still there.

Consider, he produced a huge amount of content, his weird edits were easily less than 1% of his good content contributions. Worst was the hoax article on Obuibo Mbstpo, probably, but it was truly funny, and, again, not actually harmful. Vandals come along and do much worse all the time, and get a warning.... He was never blocked for repeating behavior he was warned against, and he was never short-blocked. Period. Except the former account, once, by mistake, the block was quickly lifted.

I put up a study of this user at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Reform/Attrition/Study/Reasons_for_leaving, under Sarsaparilla. I'm still not revealing the name of his immediately preceding account, though it's quite easy to find if anyone really cares. This account was in good standing when he abandoned it, no history of disruption or serious conflict.

But, then, when the plug was yanked on his Wikipedia drug ...

That was then, this is now. He's gone beyond the point where Wikipedia could be blamed for his condition. It pushed him in a certain direction, but it didn't push him into fantasies of violence against the government and government officials. The community dysfunction helped sour him on social structure, which easily becomes anomie and frustration and despair, that's about all I could say.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Peter Damian]

This http://libertapedia.org/wiki/User:Tisane/My_story was very interesting. Fascinating and disturbing. I am a great fan of breaching experiments, as you all know. But my experiments end up in getting banned from Wikipedia, which is no great burden. This guy went to jail, and intends (it seems) to go back.

Either that or he is serious and really wanted to kill the president. Either way, a little bit crazy although in that perfectly rational crazy way that is the most difficult to deal with craziness. It seems unfair that he went to jail.

[edit]A lot of it is unintentionally comic. E.g.

As the race went on, I started doubting more and more the workability of ending oppression through democratic channels, and wondering whether it wouldn't be just as well to do what Timothy McVeigh did, and truck-bomb the government. [...] I continued to research Timothy McVeigh, and after reading the book American Terrorist, concluded that mass destruction was not a good way to try to bring about reform.

The Secret Service agent became noticeably angry at my remarks about the moral acceptability of killing the President.

I am not even going to try to pursue an accounting career at this point, because I know from experience that those employers tend to be very fussy about their applicants' criminal records.

[edit] Here is another one from his letter to probation officer

For now on, I will possess firearms, ammunition, destructive devices, and other dangerous weapons whenever I want to. I have a right to protect myself from aggressors, including those who work for the government. If you happen to hear the distinctive sound of the gunfire of a Solothurn S-18/100 20 mm Anti-Tank Cannon emanating from my backyard, as cardboard cutouts of statist federal politicians, federal judges, federal prosecutors, and federal agents become riddled with large, ragged bullet holes, please know that there is nothing amiss; it is just me engaging in target practice.
http://libertapedia.org/wiki/User:Tisane/S..._U.S._Probation

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Abd]

This http://libertapedia.org/wiki/User:Tisane/My_story was very interesting. Fascinating and disturbing. I am a great fan of breaching experiments, as you all know. But my experiments end up in getting banned from Wikipedia, which is no great burden. This guy went to jail, and intends (it seems) to go back.

Either that or he is serious and really wanted to kill the president. Either way, a little bit crazy although in that perfectly rational crazy way that is the most difficult to deal with craziness. It seems unfair that he went to jail.

It should be treated as with any dangerous mental illness. He might need institutional support; with it, he could be (as he often is) high-functioning. But I don't know that the institutions are available. Shame.

He has no history as far as I've been able to find of actual violence. When Jehochman blocked him (improperly, actually), he later apologized to Jehochman, sacrificing a perfectly good sock to do so. (His only "socking" was while blocked. Which would include Tisane, of course.)

But he's definitely been advocating violence. Someone might take him seriously, and he wants to be taken seriously.

If he really wanted to kill the President, though, how he's gone about it, so far, is, shall we say, ineffective. He's very smart. If he wanted to actually kill the President, he's someone who might be able to pull it off, or at least come much closer.

Could this shift? Sure, even though I don't expect it, based on the complete lack of prior violent history. He's got some violence in his life, though, a violent relative, I think. So ... I'm pretty sure they are looking for him by now, with some urgency, they'd be foolish not to.

[Alison]

Just so's you know - Tisane, aka Nathan Larson, was sent back to jail until mid-2012 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Just so's you know - Tisane, aka Nathan Larson, was sent back to jail until mid-2012 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

Hey what's up with the "Purge" button on Libertapedia? Sounds useful.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Just so's you know - Tisane, aka Nathan Larson, was sent back to jail until mid-2012 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

Hey what's up with the "Purge" button on Libertapedia? Sounds useful.

If only. The "Purge" button is basically "F5" or "Refresh". It's from the "Purge" extension. Tisane is also a MediaWiki enthusiast.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[Milton Roe]

Just so's you know - Tisane, aka Nathan Larson, was sent back to jail until mid-2012 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

How rude:

http://libertapedia.org/w/index.php?title=...911&oldid=25896

[Milton Roe]

The community dysfunction helped sour him on social structure, which easily becomes anomie and frustration and despair, that's about all I could say.

I first read "anime and frustration and despair...." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

[Abd]

Just so's you know - Tisane, aka Nathan Larson, was sent back to jail until mid-2012 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

Thanks for the information. I'll write him. I'd visit him, but it's pretty far to Virginia....

I'm glad to know he's safe. I was worried that he might decide to go out in a "blaze of glory."

[EricBarbour]

How rude:
http://libertapedia.org/w/index.php?title=...911&oldid=25896

Twisted minds want to know......who owns 74.63.112.138.

Hmm.....Woodstock, Illinois, FDCservers.net.
Contributed to Memory Alpha. Neeeerd.
But no hits in the WP database. Bad nerd!!

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The Internet is no more and no less than what is made of it. The only thing that distinguishes it from the analog world is the ease with which one can acquire and stand upon one's soapbox.

But then the question becomes, does one have a substantial audience. Therein lies Jimbo's great achievement: he figured out how to mate with Google.

[carbuncle]

How rude:
http://libertapedia.org/w/index.php?title=...911&oldid=25896

Twisted minds want to know......who owns 74.63.112.138.

Hmm.....Woodstock, Illinois, FDCservers.net.
Contributed to Memory Alpha. Neeeerd.
But no hits in the WP database. Bad nerd!!

That IP is or has been a public proxy server.

[Jon Awbrey]

Doesn't this go in the Editors Forum?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Doesn't this go in the Editors Forum?

Mod's note: Done.

[Milton Roe]

The Internet is no more and no less than what is made of it. The only thing that distinguishes it from the analog world is the ease with which one can acquire and stand upon one's soapbox.

But then the question becomes, does one have a substantial audience. Therein lies Jimbo's great achievement: he figured out how to mate with Google.

Fleas are known by their coupling gear. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

No, that's literally true about fleas. They have dicks like swiss knife attachments, and each species is different. See the Wikipedia article. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Zoloft]

The Internet is no more and no less than what is made of it. The only thing that distinguishes it from the analog world is the ease with which one can acquire and stand upon one's soapbox.

But then the question becomes, does one have a substantial audience. Therein lies Jimbo's great achievement: he figured out how to mate with Google.

Fleas are known by their coupling gear. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

No, that's literally true about fleas. They have dicks like swiss knife attachments, and each species is different. See the Wikipedia article. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I always thought Wikipedia was more like a tick, hanging on and engorging with the contributions of others...

[Milton Roe]

The Internet is no more and no less than what is made of it. The only thing that distinguishes it from the analog world is the ease with which one can acquire and stand upon one's soapbox.

But then the question becomes, does one have a substantial audience. Therein lies Jimbo's great achievement: he figured out how to mate with Google.

Fleas are known by their coupling gear. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

No, that's literally true about fleas. They have dicks like swiss knife attachments, and each species is different. See the Wikipedia article. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I always thought Wikipedia was more like a tick, hanging on and engorging with the contributions of others...

Yes, the main question now being: low long before it drops off into the folliage, to reproduce.

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:..._for_pedophilia

http://libertapedia.org/wiki/Essay:There_i...child-adult_sex

http://libertapedia.org/wiki/Essay_talk:Th...child-adult_sex

http://libertapedia.org/wiki/Essay_talk:Th...ld-adult_sex/RW

Recently blocked from RationalWiki for extremely disturbing advocacy (or trolling, as some suggest).

Also:

http://libertapedia.org/wiki/Minor#Sexual_restrictions

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&action=history

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[Retrospect]

So, one motherfucker down, but how many many thiousand still to go? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://nathania.org/w/index.php?title=User...ilia&oldid=3421 (NSFW, extremely creepy)

Edit: Adding a warning per Ottava's suggestion below.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[Ottava]

http://nathania.org/w/index.php?title=User...ilia&oldid=3421

Yeah, people should be warned about opening that link. Blarg.

[The Joy]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:..._for_pedophilia

http://libertapedia.org/wiki/Essay:There_i...child-adult_sex

http://libertapedia.org/wiki/Essay_talk:Th...child-adult_sex

http://libertapedia.org/wiki/Essay_talk:Th...ld-adult_sex/RW

Recently blocked from RationalWiki for extremely disturbing advocacy (or trolling, as some suggest).

Also:

http://libertapedia.org/wiki/Minor#Sexual_restrictions

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&action=history

The fact that the Rational Wiki community had to have a discussion about it before banning him leaves me ill. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

I hereby award TheoryOfPractice the Barnstar of Common Sense and the Barnstar of Common Decency. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

(IMG:http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa114/paintedbydee2/DSC00222_edited.jpg)

[Abd]

Naturally, I have a different perspective on what happened at RationalWiki.

This is what happened.

Tisane was accused of promoting pedophilia on RationalWiki. He was accused of approving of child rape. He was threatened with being anally raped with a crowbar, and another user promised to track him down and cut his balls off.

The only user who did anything about those threats was me, and what I did was mild, just enough to stop the threats. I was temporarily desysopped ("promoted") because of that. RationalWiki is the weirdest wiki I've ever seen.

Eventually, Tisane's page on Pedophilia was pointed to -- an old version of it is linked above, not the current version --, and it was called "child pornography."

Hipocrite allegedly reported the site to the FBI.

The debate on RationalWiki was over whether or not a user should be banned for having advocated pedophilia on the wiki. Tisane had fallen right into the middle of a long-term controversy on RW, over whether or not the advocacy of odious views, racism, etc., should be permitted. There was no controversy over deleting the Tisane essay, and Tisane did not oppose it (i.e., wheel-war over deletion,which he could have done, he was a sysop).

For a time, the majority position was that Tisane should be asked to not advocate pedophilia on the site, but not banned, but suddenly the tide turned and it reached the point that almost two-thirds voted for a ban. There was no sign that Tisane would not have respected a request to not "advocate pedophilia."

Before the technical decision point (2/3 for ban, one week process), the mods shut it down, and blocked him for a year. The discussion was tearing the community apart. The very fact that this needed to be discussed was considered so horrible that users were resigning, like TheoryOfPractice praised above, who had filed the complaint, after wheel-warring on blocking and desysopping Tisane (he was temporarily desysopped). Other users thought that the principle of permitting holders of odious views to participate had long ago been decided as site policy.

One problem. The debate was founded on assumptions of fact by almost everyone that were not true.

Tisane had not advocated pedophilia.
He had certainly not approved of rape.
The supposedly NSFW images on his own web page are not child pornography, and, in fact, he posted them as examples of what is legal. That was the point.

TheoryOfPractice only gave one diff with his filing. It did not provide evidence for the claims. I asked for evidence, and there was, initially, no answer, but voting continued on the question of banning him or not. Eventually a user said that the evidence was at the beginning. The original diff.

Eventually, Tisane's web page on Pedophilia (from his own "bliki") was introduced as evidence by an IP troll.

The page itself, if you read it, shows that Tisane is not a pedophile, if we assume honesty, and if we don't assume honesty, why would we think that what is written there means anything?

I've known Tisane for almost five years, and it all rings true, as to how he thinks. He does not have a sexual preference for children, and he has no sexual intentions toward children, and there is no sign that he has had any sexual experience of children (as an adult). He's a heterosexual male, attracted preferentially to mature women.

Pornography has a specific legal definition. His own wiki page does not meet that definition. Those images were collected from legal web sites. There was one nude photo of two girls, from a nudist site. The FBI site Hipocrite used to report the web page has a definition of child pornography and that photo does not meet it, nor does any photo on the page. Nudity, per se, is not, legally, pornography, in spite of Ottava's long-term insistence. Most of the photos are "fashion shots." They may indeed be "child erotica," a legal category again, and Tisane's page linked to a page of information for police that covered the distinction. Child erotica is legal, child pornography is not. Attempting to prosecute people for child erotica will waste police resources.

Tisane does not maintain collections of images of child erotica (which is not illegal, but which may sometimes can be used in prosecutions for child sexual abuse -- and that's controversial). He had an obvious intellectual purpose in collecting those images. If he were using them for sexual purposes, he'd not have put them up on that page, it makes no sense. Pedophiles simply don't behave as he behaved.

The image on Commons that Tisane removed the "child" category from would be, if those were minors, child pornography, because sexual activity is portrayed.

Tisane's removal of the category was proper. There is no reason to think that the models were children, or that the portrayal was intended to be of children.

This whole incident, in fact, demonstrated brilliantly exactly what Tisane was writing about. It is impossible to discuss the topic rationally. Questioning the strength of the evidence for the conventional wisdom -- what he actually did -- is prohibited.

He did not assert that adult/child sexual relationships were not harmful. He questioned the relative harm, and society responds to criminal behavior, sensibly, proportionally to harm. Questioning the degree of harm is not denying it, and Tisane expected that his essay would be rationally criticized. It was, in many ways, shallow and incomplete. But the very discussion itself was prohibited, events showed.

[Ottava]

Hey Michael, is there any way to get that page deleted? It should be deleted, burned, raised as a blank page, deleted again, then bleach should be passed around to dab into anyone's eyes who happened to have bumped into that page.

[The Joy]

Hey Michael, is there any way to get that page deleted? It should be deleted, burned, raised as a blank page, deleted again, then bleach should be passed around to dab into anyone's eyes who happened to have bumped into that page.

http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/nathania.org

It's his private wiki/blog a.k.a. "bliki."

HostMonster is the web host. Their ToS states under 10. Prohibitions, Section 10 that the hosting of child pornography is not allowed. Maybe contacting their "Terms of Service Compliance Department" could get the site shut down and the police notified?

[Michaeldsuarez]

The image on Commons that Tisane removed the "child" category from would be, if those were minors, child pornography, because sexual activity is portrayed.

Tisane's removal of the category was proper. There is no reason to think that the models were children, or that the portrayal was intended to be of children.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&action=history

You're missing the point of that link. I feel that it's unlikely that Tisane arrived at that image randomly. He must've searched Commons's image or categories for certain keywords. He was searching, and Commons is an enabler for people who want to make such searches.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[Ottava]

The image on Commons that Tisane removed the "child" category from would be, if those were minors, child pornography, because sexual activity is portrayed.

Tisane's removal of the category was proper. There is no reason to think that the models were children, or that the portrayal was intended to be of children.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&action=history

You're missing the point of that link. I feel that it's unlikely that Tisane arrived at that image randomly. He must've searched Commons's image or categories for certain keywords. He was searching, and Commons is an enabler for people who want to make such searches.

Hey Michael, I think you missed the real point of Abd's comments - he revealed that he spent enough time and has enough knowledge to analyze the photos and determine if they were child porn or not. Abd has been a long term defender of the guy, and I think we discovered something very, very creepy.

[Abd]

Hey Michael, is there any way to get that page deleted? It should be deleted, burned, raised as a blank page, deleted again, then bleach should be passed around to dab into anyone's eyes who happened to have bumped into that page.

http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/nathania.org

It's his private wiki/blog a.k.a. "bliki."

HostMonster is the web host. Their ToS states under 10. Prohibitions, Section 10 that the hosting of child pornography is not allowed. Maybe contacting their "Terms of Service Compliance Department" could get the site shut down and the police notified?

For what? The page is not pornography. Period. "Child pornography" has a legal definition. Now, you might still be able to convince a service provider to take it down anyway. Sometimes they will shoot first and ask questions later.

What the page actually was, though, is an examination of an issue. It's political, and it's "outrageous," deliberately. It might as well have been designed, quite precisely and effectively, to cause Ottava to go ballistic.

The page does not advocate pedophilia. It looks at the legal issues.. Much of what is on that page can be found in many other places, including law articles, etc.

On RationalWiki, I pointed out, as part of the discussion, the legal distinction between "child erotica" and "child pornography." The response of one editor to that was to claim he was resigning from the wiki, because of this totally disgusting commentary. Pointing out a thoroughly established legal distinction, supported by lots of cases, was unacceptable.

Police know this distinction, they have to, or they waste tons of time and money better spent actually fighting child pornography and child sexual abuse. Lawyers know it, and explain it on their web sites.

But the very idea of "child erotica" drives some people so crazy that it's impossible to talk about it.

Here as well, it seems.

"Child erotica" conjures up an image of pedophiles, since aren't they the only people who would even look at such? That's crazy, in fact. Tisane is not a pedophile. It's obvious from his "Pedophilia" page. He is able to look at "child erotica" without having a true sexual response. He clearly does not prefer children, and he's quite aware of the possible harm of any sexual relationship of an adult with children. He sees the attractiveness of the children. So does nearly every normal person, male or female. That does not make a normal person a "pedophile," and all that Tisane has done, which seems so offensive, is to describe a normal response. Talking about that response is what is not normal.

What is generally offensive about the "child erotica" images is what we imagine about the publishers. I hope that people here are aware that Tisane did not take these photos, they are all readily available on the web. He collected them, not as a private "erotica" stash, but to make a point about what is legal. The "fashion" images show girls posing "provocatively." That's what is knee-jerk offensive about them. As a parent, I'm offended that kids are being used in this way. But images like that are used in advertising, it is not uncommon. There are "beauty contests" for children where the children pose like adults. Provocatively.

"Child pornography" is not readily available. You really have to work to find it, I've done searches, researching these issues, and have never seen any. Except, of course, on Commons, in those old engravings. That is, as generally defined, child pornography. I'm sure that the lawyers for the WMF are aware of the issues.

If what is on that page requires bleach in the eyes, I'm in deep trouble. I have children, ages 9 and 11 right now. I routinely see what, if photographed, would be "child erotica." (Mostly without the provocative poses, but my 11-year old is starting to imitate what she sees in youtube videos. Provocative.) I never see what would be called "child pornography" if photographed.

Ottava in other places, claimed that child nudity was inherently sexual. That reveals far more about Ottava than it does about others who might have photos of their children nude.

There is one nude photo of two girls on Tisane's page. They are not sexually provocative. Tisane makes a comment about one of them possibly developing curves. That, in fact, reveals what is actually attractive to him, adult curves.

Tisane is practically an instinctive troll. He knows exactly how to push the buttons of people like Ottava, and even more normal people. Based on irrationality and "forbidden" topics.

[Abd]

The image on Commons that Tisane removed the "child" category from would be, if those were minors, child pornography, because sexual activity is portrayed.

Tisane's removal of the category was proper. There is no reason to think that the models were children, or that the portrayal was intended to be of children.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&action=history

You're missing the point of that link. I feel that it's unlikely that Tisane arrived at that image randomly. He must've searched Commons's image or categories for certain keywords. He was searching, and Commons is an enabler for people who want to make such searches.

Michael, once you think that Tisane is a pedophile, you then interpret his actions to see if they fit that story. You are inferring motive here, that he is someone who would "want to make such searches."

You imagine that only a pedophile would make such a search. But Tisane was researching pedophilia, and the public response to it. That's utterly obvious.

Some people who would search that category would be pedophiles, perhaps. Others might be children themselves. Others would be researching this or that. Others would be just curious. Maybe they saw a reference to the category somewhere (like here).

But Tisane had a very obvious purpose.

The scariest thing here is not Tisane, it is that people will conclude that someone is a pedophile because they read a page, and, on a wiki, correct an error. I'd imagine that Tisane looked at every image linked from that category. Now, are we going to run a witch hunt on everyone who edited any page in that category?

This is all a demonstration of Tisane's point. Once people have an idea about things, they become -- all too often -- unable to see contradiction to it. When I saw these pages, at first I saw quite what everyone else saw. But I had a much larger body of evidence to compare with. He has a poem hosted, and when I saw it, I thought, OMG, there is the smoking gun. So I asked him. And then confirmed his answer. No, he was, again, just collecting evidence on the topic of research, child-adult sex.

Contrary to what was claimed on RationalWiki, he did not write that poem.

It's actually a very important topic, and one of the things that badly cripples society's response to the problem is the extremity of response. This actually helps maintain harm to children..

[Abd]

Hey Michael, I think you missed the real point of Abd's comments - he revealed that he spent enough time and has enough knowledge to analyze the photos and determine if they were child porn or not. Abd has been a long term defender of the guy, and I think we discovered something very, very creepy.

I happen to have been somewhat familiar with the issues, because of substantial history, which I'll explain. However, I did not, until after I saw Tisane's "Pedophilia" page, know the precise legal difference between "child erotica" and "child pornography."

I did have a general sense. I.e., I could tell the difference between a provocative pose by a girl in a fashion shot, for example, and pornography. Or between a photo of children nude -- even if genitals are shown -- and pornography.

I remember, in fact, my first end-of-Ramadan feast, which was before the fundamentalists hit Islam in the U.S., and this was being put on by, mostly, students at the University of Arizona, most of them older, with children. The sub-teen girls got up on the tables and belly-danced. It was "child erotica," live, in person. That would never have been permitted for these girls after they reached puberty. Basically, sexuality is normal, and the girls were being allowed to explore their own attractiveness, to play with it, with everyone cheering. American culture is utterly insane on this.

(Protect the children, until they are eighteen, then anything goes. Anything. But, of course, those kids, nowadays, see youtube music videos, which might have been considered pornographic when I was young, except that I think the distinction was legally maintained even back then. Erotic, not pornographic.)

Creepy? Honi soit qui mal y pense.

Ah, my history. I have counselled and heard the personal stories of quite a number of pedophiles. I know how pedophiles think. Tisane is not a pedophile. Of course, I also have seven children, four of them are girls, so I've spent a lot of time with small girls, seeing them without clothing, seeing them develop, etc. Nudity is not sexual. I know the difference.

[Abd]

I mentioned that Commons seems to be holding some child pornography.

The policy.,

The images are pornographic, but fall under an implied exception:

and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Those images, it must be asserted -- or they'd be immediately deleted -- have such value.

Again, Tisane could possibly host actual child pornography, if for such value (his concern is, in fact, political), and it would still be legal. He has not gone that far. None of his images were pornographic, legally.

(the classification of those images as erotica, those which portray, explicitly, sexual conduct with children, is possibly misleading -- except that this is a broader usage of "erotica" than the legal usage.)

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://nathania.org/wiki/User:Nathan_Larson/Wikiprudery (NSFW)

http://nathania.org/wiki/User:Nathan_Larson/Boylove (NSFW)

http://en.boywiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sp...r%3ALeucosticte (NSFW)

Edit: Adding warnings per the requests below.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[The Joy]

http://nathania.org/wiki/User:Nathan_Larson/Wikiprudery

http://nathania.org/wiki/User:Nathan_Larson/Boylove

http://en.boywiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sp...r%3ALeucosticte

(IMG:http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x136/Morpheus7678/Oh_lawd.jpg)

Does Hipocrite post here? Has he made contact with the FBI about this guy?

(Need major NSFW warnings for those links! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif))

[Abd]

http://nathania.org/wiki/User:Nathan_Larson/Wikiprudery

That's a cogent response to what happened on RationalWiki and on commentary here.

http://nathania.org/wiki/User:Nathan_Larson/Boylove

Not surprising, he's not likely to stop because of the hissy fits. Nothing there, really.

http://en.boywiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sp...r%3ALeucosticte

Nothing. Perhaps there was something there, transiently, that we can't read.

WR seems pretty dead. I can see what has happened, as to ultimate effect, but not how or why. Took me some time to figure out where everyone went.

[Ottava]

Does Hipocrite post here? Has he made contact with the FBI about this guy?

(Need major NSFW warnings for those links! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif))

Agreed.

Michael, at least not hyperlink them and please warn people. Blarg!

It is really sad that people like that guy exist, and Abd's approach to this subject just confirms in my mind ever possible negative feeling that I've ever had towards him.

[Abd]

Does Hipocrite post here? Has he made contact with the FBI about this guy?

He claimed to have done so, through a reporting link. I referred to that above. In order to make the report he had to misrepresent the facts. Since it wasn't made directly to the FBI, it might not be illegal, that false report, but it still is scuzzy, because it wastes the time of an organization dedicated to protecting children.

(Need major NSFW warnings for those links! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif))

Well, no. His point and my point. (the smilies show a common response to some kinds of pornography: simultaneous attraction and repulsion) (the two pages are different, the first has no pornography, the second has pornographic text. A famous piece of it, in fact. Apparently not illegal.)

The Wikiprudery essay has one small photo with it. It shows a young woman, playing the piano, nude. How I'd respond, as your boss, to your viewing that page would have little to do with the photo, though maybe I might feel differently depending on what you were doing when I walked into your office. I'd be more concerned that you were reading something that has nothing to do with work. The same as without the photo.

The photo itself is not pornography, nor even erotic, necessarily. The woman might or might not be a child, but it does not matter legally, because this is not child porn.

The Boylove commentary has no photos. It has an excerpt from The Lolita Method. If you fear that a piece of erotic text will flip you into illegal or harmful behavior, indeed, I don't recommend reading this. I.e., if you are a pedophile trying to stay legal.

However, there is a blatant contradiction here. A knee-jerk response to the Boylove page might be that he's a "Boylover." Yet he obviously is not, and that contradicts the impression one might get from the "Lolita Method" excerpt, that he could be a pedophile preferring girls. In fact, he is neither. Nothing about these pages would lead to a diagnosis of pedophilia of any kind.

Except for people who are completely clueless and who react strongly to mild stimuli. These people, in fact, could be far more worrisome if and when they are in contact with children, than Tisane.

Tisane is doing exactly what he says he's doing, big surprise, plus he's doing something else.

What he says he's doing is researching the issue of child/adults sex, as a political issue, that is his "interest," and what else he is doing is very effectively trolling for outraged response. He's good at it, obviously.

Wikiprudery, indeed.

Are you going to report this to the FBI? It's more deserving of it. Now, there's an image that is NSFW. Hosted on Wikimedia Commons. (Child pornography!)

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

It is really sad that people like that guy exist,

It is really sad that people like Ottava exist, and there are so many people worse than Ottava it isn't funny. Ottava is only mildly vicious, by comparison. Tisane is not vicious at all.

and Abd's approach to this subject just confirms in my mind ever possible negative feeling that I've ever had towards him.

These kinds of responses are Tisane's point.

For people like Ottava, facts are totally irrelevant. All that matters to him is his own horror, which he imagines is real out in the world. Now, I'm out of here. No more time for this.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Ottava]

(A famous piece of it, in fact. Apparently not illegal.)

It is rather sad that Abd thinks that "legal" and "famous" are connected. Illegal is illegal.

[Fusion]

(A famous piece of it, in fact. Apparently not illegal.)

It is rather sad that Abd thinks that "legal" and "famous" are connected. Illegal is illegal.

Surely the claims here are that it is not illegal and that it is famous. It is not asserted that it is legal because it is famous, or that it is famous because it is legal. As to whether it is indeed illegal I express no comment. No doubt Ottava has an opinion from a notable lawyer on that subject.

[Ottava]

(A famous piece of it, in fact. Apparently not illegal.)

It is rather sad that Abd thinks that "legal" and "famous" are connected. Illegal is illegal.

Surely the claims here are that it is not illegal and that it is famous. It is not asserted that it is legal because it is famous, or that it is famous because it is legal. As to whether it is indeed illegal I express no comment. No doubt Ottava has an opinion from a notable lawyer on that subject.

Why would the lawyer have to be notable? o.O

[Detective]

No doubt Ottava has an opinion from a notable lawyer on that subject.

Why would the lawyer have to be notable? o.O

Dear me, you do ask ridiculously easy questions. Because if he's not notable, he won't have an article on Wikipedia so we won't know if he's gay or whatever.

[Fusion]

Why would the lawyer have to be notable? o.O

I am sorry if my wording is unclear, English being far from my first language. I mean that the lawyer is well known within the legal profession as an expert in the subject.

[Ottava]

No doubt Ottava has an opinion from a notable lawyer on that subject.

Why would the lawyer have to be notable? o.O

Dear me, you do ask ridiculously easy questions. Because if he's not notable, he won't have an article on Wikipedia so we won't know if he's gay or whatever.

Haha, nice.



Fusion

I mean that the lawyer is well known within the legal profession as an expert in the subject.

No lawyer is an expert on the subject. Lawyers fight on a side. They are not the judges. Even judges aren't the ultimate deciders as there are always appeals that can overrule.

There are laws in most countries banning the graphic depiction in that "book" (it is a pedophile fanfiction).

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Eppur si muove]

Pornography has a specific legal definition. His own wiki page does not meet that definition.

It has several definitions as different legislatures will have their own versions. Would this be legal everywhere that people might access the relevant pages?

[Abd]

There are laws in most countries banning the graphic depiction in that "book" (it is a pedophile fanfiction).

Apparently those laws do not apply in the U.S. One can, however, make no assumption as to pedophilia because someone sees and reads such a text, or possesses a copy, or even hosts it for purposes of political examination. The text is obviously a portrayal of pedophilia, more graphic than Lolita.

The Wikipedia article, Child pornography claims, in the lede:

Child pornography refers to images or films (also known as child abuse images[1][2][3]) and, in some cases, writings[3][4][5] depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child.

When references are in the lede, that's a sign of major controversy. Supposedly, the lede should be totally uncontroversial, with what is in the lede being established, with references, in the text.

Ref 3 is a book, the reference has "Akdeniz, Yaman (2008). Internet child pornography and the law: national and international responses. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. p. 11. ISBN 0-7546-2297-5." Note that "international responses" could include places where extreme views (as held by the rest of the world) are enforced.

Ah, I love this. People don't read sources. This book is available on Google Books. Page 11 says the opposite of what the lede says.

Written materials were deliberately left out of the EU definition as there was no support or agreement for the inclusion of textual or written material in the definition of child pornography.

ref 4 is interesting. Primary source, violating RS guidelines. It's the Canadian criminal code

(b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

Yes, that does mean that some written material might violate the law, but this is where one relies on expert interpretation, that's why the usage of primary sources is deprecated. The Canadian law came up in the discussion on RationalWiki, and I researched it. It's not important enough for me to dredge that up, if someone is interested it can be found on the archived Chicken Coop discussion. Bottom line, though, none of Tisane's material fits this.

Note that if a description of sex with a child were, ipso facto, child pornography, under this definition, Lolita would surely be child porn. However, a description of a murder, in fiction, does not "advocate or counsel" murder.

The Canadian law specifically excepts, from prohibition, material that "has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose."

Ref 5 is a report of a legal outcome, the prosecution, in Canada, of a man for alleged possession of written child pornography. He was found not guilty of that charge.

"These writings simply describe morally repugnant acts," the judge said, but the stories "do not actively advocate or counsel the reader to engage in the acts described." Therefore, they are not illegal.

Shaw also said the stories had artistic merit, based on testimony from two out of three experts. Artistic merit is a defence, "irrespective of whether the work is considered pornographic," he wrote.

The man was found guilty, however, of possessing pornographic pictures of children [teenage boys], which he had admitted.

The decision cited above followed a Canadian Supreme Court review, R._v._Sharpe]. In the Wikipedia article, it is explained that Canadian law is stricter than U.S. law in certain respects, but simple graphic written portrayal does not create an offense even under Canadian law.

In any case, the Wikipedia article lede is technically correct but misleading, and is poorly supported -- or even contradicted -- by the sources cited.

What is really prohibited in Canada is advocacy or counselling toward certain illegal activities, using written or visual materials.

Ottava classically terms anyone who points out fact in this area as being a pedophile or "pedophile-lover," and morally odious. In fact, I'd be more worried about my children being in the care of someone like Ottava than of someone like Tisane. My ex-wife is pretty straight-laced and conservative, in spite of being seriously Gay, so I wouldn't be able to test this without Major Trouble. Tisane is outrageous, no question about it. But "pedophile," no.

While there may be some countries where that depiction is illegal, it seems to be far from "most," and, for the purposes of Wikipedia and Tisane's web site, both hosted in the U.S., this isn't child porn and is not illegal. Not even in Canada. And apparently not in the E.U. So where?

Saudi Arabia?

[Abd]

Pornography has a specific legal definition. His own wiki page does not meet that definition.

It has several definitions as different legislatures will have their own versions. Would this be legal everywhere that people might access the relevant pages?

No guarantee. In the U.S., almost certainly legal, and he's in the U.S., so that was my context. YMMV, because people get hysterical about this stuff. That, by the way, is in a Wikipedia article.

There have been incidents in which snapshots taken by parents of their infant or toddler children bathing or otherwise naked were destroyed or turned over to law enforcement as child pornography.[10] Such incidents may be examples of false allegation of child sexual abuse and the overzealous prosecution of such cases has been described in terms of a moral panic surrounding child sexual abuse and child pornography.[11]

In Canada, the same. In the E.U. apparently legal. But the world is a big place.

Note that Wikipedia Commons hosts some images that are clearly "child pornography," as defined in the U.S. and Canada, but that are apparently legal because of artistic significance. Possessing these images could theoretically expose one to prosecution, but the defense of artistic merit would be readily available.

Wait, I forget. It may make a difference if they are not photos. Depends, then, on jurisdiction.

[Ottava]

There are laws in most countries banning the graphic depiction in that "book" (it is a pedophile fanfiction).

Apparently those laws do not apply in the U.S. One can, however, make no assumption as to pedophilia because someone sees and reads such a text, or possesses a copy, or even hosts it for purposes of political examination. The text is obviously a portrayal of pedophilia, more graphic than Lolita.

Actually, it is primarily US law. Lolita is not even close to being "graphic" in the sense that the fanfiction crap you are trying to defend is.

Wikipedia summarizes it best: 'Samuel Schuman says that Nabokov "is a surrealist, linked to Gogol, Dostoevsky, and Kafka. Lolita is characterized by irony and sarcasm. It is not an erotic novel"'

You've obviously never read it, and you made this forum dumber in trying to respond.

[Abd]

There are laws in most countries banning the graphic depiction in that "book" (it is a pedophile fanfiction).

Apparently those laws do not apply in the U.S. One can, however, make no assumption as to pedophilia because someone sees and reads such a text, or possesses a copy, or even hosts it for purposes of political examination. The text is obviously a portrayal of pedophilia, more graphic than Lolita.

Actually, it is primarily US law. Lolita is not even close to being "graphic" in the sense that the fanfiction crap you are trying to defend is.

Lolita portrays a situation, the mind fills in the details. I said that the "book" was more graphic. Ottava manages to turn agreement into disagreement, a long habit of his.

Ottava has provided no evidence that the graphic text in question violates U.S.. law. It is fairly easy to find similar text on the internet. Those web sites seem to manage to survive. True child pornography is difficult to find, perhaps impossible without paying and taking huge risks. The only place I've seen anything approaching it on the web has been Wikipedia Commons, if there.

Wikipedia summarizes it best: 'Samuel Schuman says that Nabokov "is a surrealist, linked to Gogol, Dostoevsky, and Kafka. Lolita is characterized by irony and sarcasm. It is not an erotic novel"'

It appears that many people disagreed. I'm not disagreeing, myself, but I will note that before writing what I wrote here I did read the entire Wikipedia article on Lolita.

You've obviously never read it, and you made this forum dumber in trying to respond.

Indeed, I haven't read it. I don't read pedophile trash.

(unless there is some specific reason, such as determining if something *is* pedophile trash, like a person is being accused of being a pedophile or promoting pedophilia. Then I'll read at least some of it. I don't know if Lolita is "pedophile trash." I do accept that it has literary merit, and portrayal of pedophilia is not necessarily "pedophile." The protagonist in Lolita is certainly not an advertisement for the wonderful time you'll have if you eff your step-daughter.)

I later found the entire "book" (the one Tisane excerpts and criticizes) on-line, in the Internet Archive. It's actually linked from Wikipedia. It's fascinating for the story around it. The author ridicules those who read it to try to put the "techniques" into action. The story is actually told on Wikipedia. Just not in mainspace.

Tisane put that up to show what, in his view, was "legal" to post in the U.S. He could be wrong, though he's probably right. He could be wrong as to Canadian law because the author actually does describe his own book as advice. That it is sarcastic advice might not be a defense I'd care to stand on were I in Canada, and being a parent of small children, I'd not keep a local copy of this book, simply because I could lose my kids being right about the law, not to mention being wrong.

Tisana says that he doubts the portrayals are realistic. That's very likely, i.e., they are fantasies, deliberately created to appeal to a certain readership. The author is very likely not a pedophile. Tisane's posting of it is not evidence of his being a pedophile either. He's a libertarian activist, has been as long as I've known him.

(Holding a copy of the book could be a piece of evidence in a case charging that a person was a danger to children. That is rebuttable, but all it takes is some hysterical caseworker and there you go. They sometimes take kids away and then ask questions later. It would ultimately fail in my case because there would not be other evidence, but I'm not willing to risk the welfare of my children over free speech defense. Tisane is willing to take the risk, since he doesn't have kids and probably won't, he thinks.)

Now, Ottava used an important word. "Defend." I've described. It's true that I've defended Tisane, against charges of being a pedophile and being a "baby rapist," the last claims made about him today on a blog. Because those are baseless and highly reprehensible charges to make without clear evidence, much less in flagrant contradiction to the evidence. I have not "defended" the erotic text of the "book." I have stated my opinion that it is not illegal in the United States, i.e., it does not meet the definitions of child pornography, which is highly illegal to possess in the U.S. That's an opinion about a legal situation. It has nothing to do with any defense of the text itself, which is fantasy, not fact, not truth, made-up, unreal.

If I found my baby-sitter reading it, I sure be concerned! However, context is everything.