Link between Looking At Big Tits, Fucking Infants, Still Unsubstantiated

WASHINGTON—Although last year’s U.S. Government’s Protection From Pornography Week enjoyed great success, with parents’ groups, schools, and law enforcement agencies openly touting President Bush’s hard-line stance toward pornography, scientists still have yet to find a link between Bush’s assertion that pictures of women’s breasts will lead to child sexual exploitation.

James Evans, a quantum physicist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), said that scientists are struggling to define just what Protection from Pornography Week 2003 was. “While listening to his introduction, we thought Bush was presenting a project to keep pornography away from children, but then he entirely focused the rest of his speech on child pornography and sexual crimes against children, leaving us all a little confused what ‘protection from pornography’ meant, since by itself pornography is not dangerous—pornography does not make child pornography, people make child pornography.”

And Evans and colleagues worldwide continue to be baffled over the semantics of the phrase. “Was Bush saying he wanted to keep children from viewing pornography, or protect children from being molested, or that viewing pornography causes children to be molested, or a pornographic picture will lead to child sexual exploitation, or that viewing pornography causes child porn? We’re still heavily debating this question a year later.”

Evans is referring to Bush’s 2003 Presidential “Protection from Pornography Week” Proclamation, in which Bush states that “pornography can have debilitating effects on communities, marriages, families, and children” and that he will “take steps to confront the dangers of pornography.” Bush then solely ends up discussing child pornography and agendas to protect children from sexual exploitation.

This leap of logic left hundreds of scientists over the past year struggling to find a link between pornography and child molestation or to discern what Bush actually meant by Protection From Pornography Week.

“He definitely is saying that viewing pornography leads to child molestation,” said Laurie Wilkinson, a professor of geology from University of Washington.
But not all scientists agree with this assertion.

One camp presented the theory that Bush didn’t actually mean ‘protection from pornography’ but instead meant ‘protect our children from child molesters.’

“He couldn’t have meant ‘protect our children from child pornography,’ since that might be like saying children shouldn’t see each other naked,” Evans said. “Actually, maybe they shouldn’t—that could be planting the seeds that lead to porn.”

A third camp of scientists claim Bush knew exactly what he was doing and saying, claiming that it was part of an Illuminati plan to censor free speech and cripple the First Amendment.

The Illuminati are a supposed ancient society thought to be conspiring to build a one-world government. Those who believe in the Illuminati claim that one of their many plans to help them accomplish their purpose is to destroy free will, individualism, and freedom of speech.

Counsel for the ACLU Ann Beeson, speaking about the 1998 Child Online Protection Act challenged by the ACLU, (an act of Congress that attempted to regulate pornography because there was a potential for minors to view it), said that conservative groups “rationale is to protect children” but thinks they “are trying to legislate morality” and “censor adult’s access to speech.”

Illuminati conspiracy or not, Beeson seems to be stating, five years before Protection From Pornography Week, that conservatives are using the issue of child protection to promote their hidden agendas, and that the conservative "morality" that inspires proclamations such as Protection From Pornography Week is a ruse to ultimately cripple the First Amendment.

In an article entitled “Obscene Feminists,” author Annalee Newitz claims that linking adult sexuality with child pornography will threaten basic civil liberties “that women gained only a few decades ago and that teens are rapidly losing: the right to speak freely about your sexuality without fear of social, political, or legal reprisals.”

And only days before the anniversary of Protection from Pornography Week 2003, Whitehouse officials are showing no signs of launching a campaign for this year, causing many to feel that insiders regarded the first proclamation as nonsense. Regardless, the debate raging on in the scientific community may not disappear as quietly.