Testimony of Andrew Vachss before the United States National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

In keeping with its mission and purpose, the Commission conducted a hearing on Kids and The Internet: The Promise and The Perils at the Freedom Forum in Arlington, Virginia, on November 10, 1998. While we fully recognize the unprecedented value of the Internet and the seemingly limitless information available through the World Wide Web, the hearing offered the opportunity to hear firsthand from experts on the problems and complex issues arising from what NCLIS Vice Chair Martha Gould describes as the “dark side of the Internet.” The hearing provided much information on both the promise and the perils of this new technological development and, in particular, how these issues affect librarians. Testimony was received from fifteen individuals with a multitude of perspectives on how to deal with this issue.

After listening intently to the testimony and carefully reviewing the statements submitted for the record, NCLIS developed practical guidelines designed to assist librarians and library trustees (or other governing bodies) in their efforts to evaluate and respond to the promise and the perils of Internet access for children. These practical guidelines, offering balance and compromise, outline the promise; the perils; policy issues; and potential solutions for librarians and library trustees. They are also applicable to school librarians and school administrators.

These guidelines, initially prepared in the form of a brochure and widely distributed, are proving to be a vital and extremely useful document for the entire library and information services community.

The Promise

NCLIS recognizes and encourages the unprecedented benefits of the Internet and the vital role libraries play in providing Internet access.

• Libraries provide equal access to information.
• The Internet enlarges the knowledge of the world by use of technology and, through libraries, the benefits of information technology are shared with those previously denied access.
• The Internet provides an electronic gateway to an expansive array of current, timely information and knowledgeable experts around the globe.
• The Internet gives young people an opportunity to learn how to become critical information consumers.
• By providing immediate access to primary resources worldwide, the Internet extends the resources of individual libraries, no matter where they are located or what their size.
• The Internet facilitates communication among people of diverse locations and backgrounds, thus contributing to greater peace and understanding among people.
• Local governing boards of public institutions are best suited to determine policy regarding access to the Internet in their communities.
• The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a policy framework that encourages access to the widest array of facts and opinions and prohibits most governmental actions that limit such access.

The Perils

NCLIS acknowledges that the Internet presents challenging problems to libraries, especially when children are using the Internet at public and school libraries.

• Individual privacy may be eroded when children provide personal information about themselves and their families in order to register for certain web sites.
• False and misleading information may be perceived to be authoritative because it appears on Internet web sites.
• Library users and staff may be offended by the inadvertent or intentional display of objectionable material by other users.
• The anonymity of Internet e–mail and chat rooms can provide cover for pedophiles who prey on unsuspecting and vulnerable young people.
• The Internet can provide access to material, such as pornography, racism, and hate speech, that parents may not want their children to observe.
• The Internet can facilitate illegal activities such as copyright piracy, gambling, stalking, pedophilia, personal threats, extortion, and consumer fraud.
• Libraries may lack sufficient staff appropriately trained to provide individual assistance to children using the Internet.

Policy Issues

NCLIS believes that it is the responsibility of local library governing boards to develop Internet use policy and it appreciates that each board must answer a number of questions regarding the library’s approach to Internet access. While NCLIS cannot presume to suggest individual answers to such questions—that, after all, is the responsibility of the local community—it can provide the following questions for consideration in development of an “acceptable use policy.”

• Can children use the Internet independently or do they need parental supervision or permission?
• Will the library adopt a code of conduct that must be signed by a parent and child before the child accesses the Internet?
• Will the library provide a gateway to guide its patrons?
• Will the library adopt a clear statement that Internet terminals may not be used for illegal activities?
• How does the library define illegal activities?
• Will users have to sign up to use Internet terminals?
• Will there be time limits on the use of Internet terminals?
• Will the results of users’ research be visible to other users or will the library install privacy screens or other means to restrict public viewing?
• What does the library do when a user is discovered using an Internet terminal for illegal or improper use?
• How does the library handle user and staff complaints about others gaining access to illegal or objectionable sites?
• How will the library handle false accusations about illegal or improper use?
• Does the library’s insurance coverage address matters arising from providing access to the Internet?
• How will the library handle access to functions such as chat and e–mail?
• How can the library instill practical “street smarts” on the part of librarians and users?
• How does the library train the governing board itself on the promise and perils of the Internet?
• How do the library and its governing board transmit concerns about Internet access to its funding authority?
• Will the library involve the local community through focus groups, public hearings and other means in the development of an Internet use policy?
• How will the library seek legal review of its Internet policy, both from its own legal counsel as well as from other legal experts?

Potential Solutions

NCLIS believes that libraries and their governing boards can take effective action at the local level to mitigate the perils facing children using the Internet.

• Libraries can implement procedures for gaining parental permission that describes what sort of access is permissible for their children.
• Separate terminals can be provided for adults and children, or multiple profiles can be installed on terminals, so that children are not allowed the same access as older people.
• Libraries can restrict the use of chat by children to sites that have been specifically approved (e.g., moderated chat groups, designated interactive sites such as homework helpers, museums and zoos).
• Privacy screens or recessed monitors can be installed on public terminals so that only the terminal user can see what is displayed.
• Libraries can require users to sign up for the use of Internet access terminals and acknowledge their understanding of the libraries’ Internet use policies.
• Libraries can present their own web sites that point children to sites that are pre–selected and evaluated or link to search engines that offer levels of selectivity.
• Libraries can provide Internet training, education, and other awareness programs to parents, guardians and teachers that alert them to both the promise and the perils of the Internet and describe how children can have a safe and rewarding experience online.
• Internet access terminals can be configured with software—which can be turned on or off—that restricts access to designated web sites or specific Internet functions.

As a direct result of this hearing, at its meeting in Seattle, Washington, December 3, 1998 the Commission adopted the following resolution: The U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science feels strongly that the governing body of every school and public library, in order to meet its trustee responsibilities, should establish, formally approve, and periodically review a written acceptable use policy statement on Internet access.

The Federal Role

While the Commission determined that policies and practices for protecting children by limiting their access to the Internet in public and school libraries are very much the responsibility of local governing authorities, the hearing also identified issues that are appropriately addressed at the Federal level. Federal law enforcement agencies, working with their counterparts at the state and local level, investigate and prosecute a range of illegal activities that utilize the Internet including copyright piracy, gambling, stalking, pedophilia, child pornography, personal threats, extortion, and consumer fraud.

Under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA), the Federal Trade Commission is the lead agency developing regulations to assure that young children are not induced to provide personal information about themselves or their families when registering for or accessing commercial Internet sites located in the United States. There is still a need to address privacy issues for children over twelve years of age accessing commercial U.S. sites, as well as for all children accessing non-commercial sites in the U.S. and both commercial and non-commercial sites outside the U.S. Obviously development of any international rules, other than purely voluntary ones, will require Federal government participation.

Currently there are a limited number of organizations worldwide that license Internet domain names. Agreement among these organizations to establish and enforce specific naming conventions for use by Internet sites, whether commercial or not, that wish to distribute sexually explicit materials (for example) could facilitate the restriction of access to such materials by minors—much like the current rating system for movies limits access by unaccompanied minors. The Generic Top–Level Domain Policy Oversight Committee has proposed use of the domain designation .XXX in lieu of .COM or .ORG for sexually explicit sites. In her partial dissent to the Supreme Court’s opinion on the Communications Decency Act, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor suggested that adult zones in cyberspace could keep children out of pornographic sites. The Federal government could take a leadership role in developing and promulgating a set of naming conventions for this purpose and implement them in the U.S. to evaluate their effectiveness. Definition of the sites required to use the designation, identification of sites that are not compliant, and enforcement mechanisms must be addressed as the new policy is put in place and implemented.

Congress continues to consider legislation that would require unsolicited commercial e–mail, often called SPAM, to include a reply address (or similar mechanism) to remove the recipient’s name from future mailings. Some commercial bulk e–mail is already including this on a voluntary basis. Such a mechanism would allow recipients to protect themselves, and their children, from future mailings from the same source, whether the objectionable e–mail was pornographic or merely unsolicited advertising that is (to the recipient) “junk mail.” Once again, the proposed legislation limits only domestic commercial Internet activity, so it does not protect recipients against equally objectionable, non–commercial or foreign SPAM and, of course, some objectionable material must come to the recipients in order for them to reject future mailings. Nevertheless, this is an important step in the efforts to “civilize” the Internet and provide some protections comparable to those that currently exist for unsolicited mail delivered by the U.S. Postal Service.

Another issue that deserves greater attention at all levels of government is the availability of false and misleading information that may be perceived to be authoritative merely because it appears on Internet web sites. “Computer literacy” stresses knowledge of how to use equipment and software to obtain information. “Information literacy” stresses the skills necessary to be a discerning user of that information—evaluating the source as well as the content before relying on it. Children and adults seeking information on the Internet need to know that they should verify the information before relying on it—and how to verify the information. Schools and libraries need to teach “information literacy” to children as they assist them in the use of the Internet, and the programs for training and certifying teachers and librarians need to teach the teachers, so they can in turn impart the correct information to the students. The Commission and other organizations in the Federal government can call attention to the issue of “information literacy” and encourage programs that teach users of the Internet to be informed consumers.

Conclusion

The hearing provided a unique opportunity for concerned citizens, parents, public librarians, teachers, and representatives from educational, literacy and information services organizations, companies, associations, and institutions to offer comments, observations, and suggestions related to the federal role and responsibility for library and information services offered to children and youth. The information gained at this event provides the basis for the Commission’s advice to Congress and to the Administration in formulating future national programs and plans related to this important issue. This publication provides the transcript of the hearing, as well as written statements submitted for the record, so that others may also evaluate and learn from this information.

The Commission’s efforts do not end with publication of this hearing record. This record and the initial promulgation of the brochure on the promise, the perils, the policy issues and potential solutions are the first steps in an ongoing effort by the Commission to assist in the development and implementation of appropriate policies for public Internet access at all levels of government.

The vision of a “harm–free” Internet cannot be implemented by any one group working alone. It will require cooperation, the coordination of activities, and the commitment of individuals in all areas of education, library service and information policy. Working together we can enhance the promise and minimize the perils for our children as they experience the global reach and vast capacity of the Internet.

Commissioners Participating in the Hearing

Commissioners participating in the hearing on “Kids and The Internet: The Promise and The Perils” were:

• Jeanne Hurley Simon , Chairperson and Moderator
• Martha B. Gould, Vice Chair
• C. E. “Abe” Abramson
• Walter Anderson
• Rebecca T. Bingham
• Joan R. Challinor
• José-Marie Griffiths
• Executive Director Robert S. Willard accompanied the Commissioners.

Kids and The Internet: The Promise and The Perils
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The members and staff of the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science express their sincere appreciation to everyone contributing to the success of this hearing. Their combined advice, guidance, suggestions, support and encouragement in the examination of this important issue are most valuable.

The Commission expresses deep appreciation to the witnesses. The individual and institutional commitment required to participate in efforts such as this hearing is, indeed, large. We are grateful for their participation. The Commission is also grateful to the individuals and organizations that provided written statements and other materials.

Andrew Vachss, a novelist and attorney who limits his practice to matters concerning children and youth, deserves special thanks for setting the tone for the hearing.

The NCLIS members and staff extend their sincere appreciation to Mr. Charles Overby, Chairman and CEO of the Freedom Forum, and to the staff of the Freedom Forum for their warm hospitality and invaluable assistance.

America is a country which holds free expression of opinion to be sacred. That does not mean all opinions are equal. Today, the Commission will hear many opinions on a controversial subject: How to protect children using public access Internet terminals in libraries from predatory pedophiles … while simultaneously preserving our First Amendment freedoms and respecting the library community’s traditional aversion to censorship. Because I hope for your attention, because I want you to value my opinion, I need to take a couple of minutes to explain my standing to speak to those issues.

My first exposure to what I have come to consider the greatest threat to humanity on this planet was as an investigator for the United States Public Health Service more than thirty years ago. At that time, the agency’s goal was eradication of sexually transmitted disease, with syphilis as its major target. The technique was field epidemiology. Investigators were dispatched each time a positive test for syphilis was reported. It was our job to interview the infected individual and obtain all his or her sexual contacts within the critical period (which varied, depending on the stage of syphilis encountered). Then we had to find those contacts, arrange for them to be tested, and follow up on any new cases in the same manner. Syphilis is a “chain”–type infection. It was our job to break those chains.

As you might imagine, some people were quite forthcoming, while others were quite adamantly … not. Some kept detailed address books. Others professed only the vaguest recollections. Often I would find myself spending several straight days and nights tracking a sexual contact, sometimes with nothing more than a nickname or a physical description and the address of a pick–up bar to guide me.

Investigators had no defined territory. I routinely visited juke joints, whore houses, migrant labor camps, county jails, crumbling shacks, and back alleys. I also spent time in country clubs, exclusive neighborhoods, and penthouses. And what I learned was that child sexual abuse has no socioeconomic boundaries.

So the public is given a choice of believing that “one out of every five children will be sexually abused by the time they reach eighteen,” or that the whole thing is a “witch hunt,” driven by a tidal wave of “false allegations.” The truth, of course, lies somewhere in the much–less–newsworthy middle.

My own knowledge of the subject preceded the debates. It came from infants born with syphilis, from toddlers with prolapsed rectums … and gonorrhea, from pre–teens already in an advanced stage of venereal disease. So while I do not subscribe to some of the hyperbolic “estimates” of the extent of child sexual abuse in America, I also know, beyond dispute, that some children are victimized. Every day.

My next job was field caseworker for the infamous New York City Department of Welfare. It’s fashionable to talk about the dire effects of poverty upon children. It’s quite another to see it. And it’s a hideous sight.

But what I saw next was even uglier. I left the Department of Welfare to enter the war zone in a place once known as Biafra … a fledgling country which literally vanished during a genocidal tribal conflict. Those who once called themselves Biafrans are now governed by the military regime in Nigeria. Those who survived, that is.

My assignment was to attempt to establish a “direct pay” system, so that the millions and millions of dollars donated by Americas whose hearts were torn at the daily television coverage of forcibly starved children … for starvation was a major weapon of war in that conflict … could be translated into food without the usual “administrative costs.” Unbeknownst to any of us, by the time I left America, Biafra had virtually fallen. Although I was able to enter the land–locked zone by air, setting up anything resembling a system was impossible. No infrastructure remained—survival was the only goal.

After I returned to America and recovered, I worked a number of jobs. Briefly: I was a juvenile probation officer, ran a community outreach center for urban migrants, and a re–entry organization for ex’cons. Finally, I directed a maximum security prison for aggressive’violent youth. It was there I learned, with the kind of clarity only daily, intense contact can bring, the direct connection between child abuse and later criminal conduct.

And while there is no one–to–one correlation, while most abused children do not turn predator as adults … although they do continue to abuse themselves in a variety of ways: drug addiction, alcoholism, suicide; and to be especially good candidates for being abused by others … I have never met a gratification–driven criminal who was not abused as a child.

That’s when I went to law school. And for the past 20–odd years, I have represented children. Abused children, neglected children. And, sometimes, very dangerous children. I have represented children against institutions, agencies, and individuals. And against their own parents. If there is anything that can be done to kids I haven’t seen, I hope I never see it.

Although I experienced the gratification that only those whose work is truly meaningful can know, I was unable to make a living with only children as clients. So, for a time, I financially balanced my practice with conventional criminal defense work … which paid quite well.

In 1985, my first novel was published. And, unlike the textbook which preceded it, the novel was a real success. So much so that, since then, I have been fortunate enough to be able to represent children exclusively, using the proceeds from publishing to make up the deficits.

The novels are Trojan horses; an organic extension of my law practice. My way of reaching a bigger jury than I could ever find in a courtroom. And I, like every other writer in America, rely on the library community to make my work available to many others … to make it accessible.

As a child in Manhattan, the library was one of my favorite refuges, a truly magical place whose open doors opened many doors for me. As a teenager, I attended a high school on Long Island whose name will be recognized by every librarian: Island Trees High School. For those of you not familiar with the reference, the school board removed certain books it found “offensive” from the school libraries. The case went to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that: “The … right to receive … information and ideas … is an inherent corollary of the rights of free speech and press that are explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution.”¹

Before I explain my position, let me tell you some of the things I have learned about predatory pedophiles. I am careful not to call such individuals simply “pedophiles,” because “pedophilia” is a state of mind, not conduct. To “feel the feelings” may be “sick.” But to act on those feelings … that is evil.

Why do I call it “evil?” Because it is neither the product of ignorance nor a mental illness … it is a choice.

Although defense attorneys love psycho–babble terms such as “pedophilia,” pedophiles themselves loudly proclaim they are not “sick” and don’t need treatment. Here’s a typical statement:

This [article, entitled “Pedophiles need treatment, not publicity”] would at first seem to be an understanding article, but it is even more dangerous than raving pedo–killers:

“Man, we are not sick—no matter how badly this fact shatters your view of the world. No sickness, no treatment, no involuntary confinement to asylums.”

Where did I find this proclamation? On the website of the International Pedophile Liberation Front²… within the section they call their “Enemies List.” I am quite proud to be on that list.

Not only would I oppose any attempt to censor their right of free speech, I agree with them on both counts … they are not “sick” and they don’t require “treatment.” And I certainly cannot quarrel with their listing me as an enemy.

In truth, there is no such disease as “pedophilia.” Literally translated, it means “lover of children,” which would be their own self-definition, not a diagnosis. But a pedophile’s love of children is the same love you might feel for a hamburger. Something to be consumed. An object you make for yourself … or buy from another. Chronic repetition of the same crime does not entitle one to call his conduct a mental illness. If I were to walk into court with a man accused of a string of liquor–store holdups, I doubt the jury would buy the argument that my client suffers from “armed robber–ia.”

In truth, the essence of each child molester is that he or she⁴ is a sociopath … an individual utterly devoid of empathy, driven by his own needs to the exclusion of law, ethics, or morals … an individual indifferent to (and in some cases, excited by) the pain and trauma of his victims. The foundation to all treatment is a desire to change. And no psychiatrist will ever claim to have “cured” a sociopath.

Do not allow yourselves to be seduced by the tempting belief that “pedophilia” is just another “addiction.” All addictions are marked by one significant characteristic—the specific efforts of some of those afflicted to rid themselves of such shackles. If you are a narcotics addict, an alcoholic, an over–eater, an anorexic, an obsessive–compulsive … you can find self–help organizations keyed to your problem. Places where you can walk in and be among your fellows … those who have suffered as you are and who want to help you overcome.

So why is it that all the “pedophile treatment” programs are occupied only by those who are court–ordered to attend? Why is it that there are no walk–ins, no individuals seeking treatment on their own? And why is it that the only time you hear a child molester express “remorse” is when he is facing a sentencing court or a parole board?

What is the significance of recidivism statistics? They point out clearly that predatory pedophiles are committed to their course of conduct. Unlike, say, armed robbers, they do not “burn out” with age. Unlike, say, drug addicts, they are not amenable to treatment. Indeed, do you know what the pedophile organizations call an individual who claims to have abandoned his commitment to sex with children? A traitor.

I come before you as a man with two professions, both of which hold reading and learning as vital to their existence.

But before we kneejerk ourselves into collaboration with pedophiles, let us deconstruct the slogans. Let us define “speech” operationally, not as an abstract. And when we apply that test, we know that child pornography is not “speech”—it is the photograph of a crime … and the trophy of a predator. It cannot be produced without violating a child. It is per se contraband, and not within the orbit of First Amendment protection. If kiddie porn is “speech,” then so is a snuff film.

All right then, what about the sanctity of words … spoken or written? Again, definitions are key, as all words are not “speech” as defined by the Constitution. “Leave a hundred thousand dollars in a paper bag at the bus station or you’ll never see your child alive again.” Written words, sure … but not “speech.” The criminal law clearly recognizes some “speech” as conduct.

I spoke earlier about child pornography. There are certainly those who, while admitting it is a crime to produce or distribute child pornography, claim they have a free–speech right to display it. That argument is another red herring (pun intended); another example of the threat to brand you as a “Censor” opposed to free speech.

And where is this specious argument most fervently advanced? On the holy Internet, of course. After all, the purveyors claim, they are just displaying, not selling, the material. Doesn’t that prove their motives are pure?

To answer such sophistry requires no mind–reading ability. Kiddie porn on the Internet serves the same two major purposes it serves in any other forum … and one unique to the medium. First, kiddie porn tells the child molester viewing it that he or she is not a freak, not alone in his degeneracy. He has comrades, supporters, and, most importantly, others who are both a potential source and a potential recipient of the same material. Indeed, most child sex rings begin with the traditional exchange of trophies, proof that they have children under their control, ready for exchange or rent. Second, kiddie porn is used to desensitize potential victims. It is no secret that children are highly susceptible to peer influence, and child pornography is part of every predatory pedophile’s engagement repertoire … “See, it’s okay … plenty of other kids do it.”

But the Internet has yet a third special use … it has become the way to “test market” a product. A product which, if compared to other contraband such as narcotics, offers a great risk–vs–return advantage. Especially if you can grow the product in your own home.

The process has been described as follows:

“It begins with fantasy, moves to gratification through pornography, then voyeurism, and finally to contact.” The Internet is a superhighway down the path of that perverse pattern, giving child sexual predators instant access to potential victims and anonymity until a face–to–face meeting can be arranged.⁶

But, unlike those who confuse cynicism with intellect, I believe we can increase radically our protection of children without trampling on the First Amendment … if we make it an exercise in problem–solving, not the exchange of slogans.

To achieve this, we must stop using immaturity as a two–edged sword. We don’t let children vote or sign contracts because they lack the maturity to make informed decisions in their own self’interest. Must we be told to “leave them alone” when it comes to judging whether an on–line stranger is really who he claims to be? It’s easy enough to say that this is the parent’s responsibility. Well, as a parent, I can control (at least to some extent) what my child sees on our home computer. But if the library, in effect, removes the restrictions I have put in place, must I then bar my child from the library to protect him?

Sure, the Internet itself is neutral. A piece of technology. A tool. It acquires significance not by what it is, but by how it is used.

So does a gun.

This is a classic example of how sloganeering—especially the kind driven by a belief–system rather than logic—can cloud even the most vital issues. Because, in truth, any NRA member who advocated that children be allowed to play with guns, unsupervised, would find himself alone, shunned by his fellow gun owners as either irresponsible or insane. Even those of us who hotly debate gun control have enough common sense remaining to join forces on that one critical point.

I would no more allow a young child unsupervised access to live “chat” on the Internet than I would allow him to play with my .357 magnum.

Does that make me a … censor? I guess it depends on your definition. The actual … as opposed to pedophile-serving … definition is that it does not.

Does that mean if we restrict access to live Internet “chat” today, we will be restricting access to books tomorrow? Beware that sort of “logical extension” argument so beloved of manipulators. NAMBLA, the infamous “North American Man–Boy Love Association,” for example, presents itself as a “gay” organization … claiming their desire to have sex with male children places them on the extreme end of a homosexual continuum. Then they use the “First they came for the Jews” slogan to frighten gays into supporting them in the belief that, if they do not, they will be next. Here’s NAMBLA’s position …

Our movement today stresses the liberation of young people. Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, boy–lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream.⁷

Here is my question for you: Could an obviously underage child check out an “R” rated movie from your library?

If libraries are going to provide interactive opportunities—be it “chat,” Instant Messages, e–mail communication or any other form—why is permission from a parent not required? Indeed, while I am opposed to “filters”—which I believe to be an impotent remedy—I see no constitutional right to “chat” provided by public funds.

As a research tool, the Net has much to offer. But “chat” is not research. And while it most certainly is a form of “speech,” the enticement of children for the sexual gratification of an adult is not a protected form of speech.

Parents are told: monitor your home computer; make sure your child isn’t vulnerable to predators; take responsibility. But it goes without saying that when my child is visiting the library without me, that same computer is now “open.” Would requiring each underage user who wants to go on–line to show a permission slip from his or her parents be “censorship?” Would marking certain library computers as “adults only” be “censorship?”

Indeed, on what “free speech” grounds is interactive cyber–communication guaranteed by public funds? Anyone claiming that the failure of the public library system to offer free telephone service amounts to “censorship” would be dismissed as a loon. But the very word “Internet” has become a slogan all by itself, so zealously guarded by some that any restriction on its use is tarred with the “censorship” brush.

The power to name things is the power to control people. All of us here probably agree that censorship is wrong. But if we allow zealots or those with a covert agenda to define “censorship,” it will not be free speech we are encouraging and protecting … it will be child molesters.

Believe it or not, these remarks were not intended as a filibuster. I came here to be a resource, and I’m certain I would be more of a resource if I answered your questions instead of expounding, so ….

(questions followed)

Need proof of what Andrew Vachss testified above? Read “Five Years for Man Who Lured Girl via Internet,” from the October 25, 2000 issue of The Guardian.

In 2008, the American Psychological Association finally caught up with Andrew Vachss’ 1998 testimony. Read “‘Internet Predator’ Stereotypes Debunked in New Study,” a press release issued by the APA on February 18, 2008.

1. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 867 (1982)
2. http://www.cyberpass.net/~plf (This link is no longer active. A copy of the webpage can be seen here.)
3. http://www.cyberpass.net/~plf/links/enemies/html (This link is no longer active. A copy of the webpage can be seen here.)
4. For ease of presentation, the male pronoun will be used throughout. However, while the majority of child molesters are male, female predatory pedophiles are a fact of life. And equally dangerous.
5. See, e.g., Recidivism of Child Molesters 20 Years After Treatment, by R. Karl Hanson* (York University), Richard A. Steffy (University of Waterloo), and Rene Gauthier (Hincks Treatment Center), presented at the 98th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association at Boston, August 13, 1990.
   *Psychology Department, York University, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3.
   and …
   A Retrospective Evaluation of the Regional Treatment Centre Sex Offender Treatment Program, by Vernon Quinsey, Arunima Khanna, and P. Bruce Malcolm in The Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 13, No. 5 (October, 1998), pp. 621-644.
6. Dr. Chris Hatcher, Professor of Psychology, University of California, as quoted in A Safety Net for the Internet: Protecting Our Children by Daniel Armag, Juvenile Justice, Vol. V., No. 1, p. 9, @ 10 (May, 1998), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
7. http://www.nambla.org (note: NAMBLA’s website now resides at http://www.nambla.de, some material has changed at their site since this testimony was given.)