Police Publish 'An Introduction To PEDO BEAR' 324
According to this article, the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department knows that Pedobear is an Internet joke, but that hasn't stopped them from trying to warn the public about him. Their most recent tool in the fight against internet memes is this public safety information bulletin entitled: "An Introduction to PEDO BEAR." I look forward to the bulletin warning parents about the dangers of children playing in Chocolate Rain.
Re:really? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:They say it STARTED as a joke (Score:3, Informative)
Well, they could, but the game would be delayed until the chicken returned it.
Re:really? (Score:3, Informative)
2) It's Ceiling Cat, not kitty
Re:really? (Score:4, Informative)
because I have no idea
Why not just leave it at that? It would be more accurate than what you just posted. :-)
Pedobear is a joke. Period.
Re:Forget chocolate rain (Score:0, Informative)
My dad is a cop, and he's not corrupt at all.
Re:Forget chocolate rain (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Again paranoia rules the roost (Score:5, Informative)
In many states, mandatory reporting laws have been interpreted to apply to those who merely express "pedophile tendencies" under the "imminent threat" statutes. Reporting does not often lead to prosecution, but it can. It can also lead to civil action such as social services intervention or execution of restraining orders.
I cite Indiana case law "Kevin Brown vs Indiana c 2006". His biological child was taken from him and his same-aged wife because he called a radio show and admitted to being attracted to kids. He had already informed his wife and friends and even had written plans to ensure that he would never be in a situation he could even remotely be accused of abusing a kid. Nevertheless, his child was taken by "emergency order of protection", by a squad of armed officers. In order to ensure his child didn't end up in foster care, he had to move out of his house, after which they placed the child with his wife and issued a restraining order against him "ad litem".
He took the case to the Indiana supreme court and lost. The conclusion was that there was no obligation of protection of liberty for someone who was an admitted pedophile because he represented an "imminent threat" and he could be subject to civil action by social services or otherwise.
Additionally, in California, in "Jack McLelan vs California c2007" a pedophile loudly proclaimed his attraction to young girls. The district attorney of his area applied a restraining order, barring him from being less than 10 meters from a child, or 100 meters from anywhere children congregate. This ban actually legally prevented him from entering the court, since there was a daycare facility in the same building, though they chose not to prosecute him for coming to his own hearings. He opted to leave the state rather than fight the restriction.
Presumably, a similar argument could be made in some states to raid his house and seize his electronics to search for illegal material, based on the "imminent threat" argument, though I'm not aware of that having been attempted, though it wouldn't surprise me if it had and simply didn't reach the public airwaves, due to the lack of notoriety of the target.
Re:Again paranoia rules the roost (Score:5, Informative)
what you are talking about has nothing to do with pedophilia. for one, the correct usage of pedophilia only refers to young, prepubescent children. being attracted to post-pubescent adolescents, teenagers and such (individuals that have mostly finished the physical maturation process - broad hips and bust in women, broad shoulders in men), is called ephebophilia, and is completely natural.
modern society has seen fit to lump it in with pedophilia, and for some reason 18 is seen as a magical age where 'OK, now it's socially acceptable to be sexually attracted to this person' but has no basis in biology or (nonrecent) human society. from a biological perspective, we are PROGRAMMED to be attracted to individuals in the mid to upper teenage years, because they are most likely to bear healthy offspring. given the variation that can occur in individuals reaching physical maturity, it can be damn hard to differentiate between some 16 year olds and 20 year olds.
For countless thousands of years, females were being married and having children at ages that would cause modern society to cringe, oftentimes to much older men, and it was the norm. Of course, recent advances in women's rights has probably had a lot to do with it, as now a female is treated as a human being with rights, as opposed to a piece of property that was to be married off for a dowry and social standing. but i digress.
actual pedophilia would be the case of a significantly older individual taking advantage of their position of power to sexually abuse a young, prepubescent child who is either unable to stop the attacker, or is too young/confused/scared to make a decision on the matter. it is ALWAYS rape, because the child can never give true consent, because they simply can't really understand what is going on. this has been shown to usually cause significant mental trauma and long term effects to the child, who is often made to feel guilty and ashamed of the whole thing, possibly repressing the memories to cause a festering canker of mental scar tissue that will stick around forever.
so... yeah. your anecdotes about horny young preteens and teenagers humping each other in the closet or hitting on older individuals is hardly relevant to the issue of pedophilia.
Re:sadly (Score:1, Informative)
Yes, this is quite easy actually. You take a .png or .gif image and concatenate it with a .zip or .rar archive (the archive at the back) and if you give it the image extension it only opens as an image, if you give it the archive extension it opens as the archive. .rar archive, one must simply open the concatenated file in a hex editor and search for the string "Rar" and change it to something else (usually "Bar"). This makes the archive unusable and thus avoids the filter, while keeping the image unchanged. If you then undo this change in the same way, the archive becomes usable again.
This sort of "images" were banned from 4chan, but their checking is crude and can be easily circumvented. Using a