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.

[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:

[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.

[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]

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.