Clayton Cramer describes himself as a Conservative with Libertarian leanings. After reading his post on child porn trading pervert Bernie Ward’s well deserved run in with the law I’m more inclined to believe he’s a gullible dope or a man with what we’d call “libertarian” leanings.

Here are his thoughts on Ward’s pitiful excuse for why he was caught red handed not just browsing child porn, but giving it to others on-line:

This is now known as the Peter Townshend defense, and as with Townshend, I am prepared, in the absence of other evidence, to give Ward the benefit of the doubt. The fact is that there are some subjects that are hard to research without actually seeing at least some examples of the subject. You can write a book or a paper about neo-Nazi hate literature without reading it–but it isn’t going to be a terribly impressive piece of scholarship. You can write a book or a paper about child pornography without ever seeing any of it–but it is unlikely to be a very persuasive piece of research.

This does present a real problem: how do you distinguish legitimate research from the purpose for which the child pornography statutes exist? It would be very easy for someone whose interest in child pornography was prurient, not scholarly, to use that as an excuse.

Now, if the federal prosecutor actually believed what Ward’s attorney says, why are they prosecuting him? Prosecutors have some discretion on whether to file a criminal charge–and if they have known about this since 2004, why are they only filing charges now? Either some additional information has come to their attention that raises questions about Ward’s claim, or the federal prosecutor is showing a distinct lack of discretion.

For now, I’m prepared to give Bernie Ward the benefit of the doubt, until some clear evidence shows up that he was not engaged in research on the subject.

Yet again what we see is an argument for journalists to be held to a different standard than the rest of society. But what’s more stunning in Cramer’s work is his dishonesty. Bernie Ward traded child pornography on-line. If he was just “seeing what it is” as Cramer thinks would be appropriate, why trade the images with others?

But even if he hadn’t distributed child porn himself, Cramer needs to explain why a person supposedly writing a book on Hypocrisy cannot do so without downloading child pornography? That’s what Ward is claiming.

And by Cramer’s logic if I were writing a book on cannibalism without actually eating the flesh of some random human my piece wouldn’t be anywhere near as “persuasive” as one written by an actual cannibal. This is madness.

I need not have been raped, or rape somebody to know rape is wrong. And that’s what child pornography is; the documentation of the rape of a child. We have no right to exploit these images, even for “scholarly” work which a supposed book on American’s hypocrisy certainly isn’t. These images are the visual depictions of children suffering horrendous abuse, and are extremely different from the racist ramblings of a poorly xeroxed white power tract.

It is at best gullibility to believe a man who is caught trading child porn on the Internet is “doing research.” To do so Cramer has to ignore the facts and accept that Ward, as an adult and good citizen, would not be morally and legally required to report any child porn he came across to the proper authorities. Cramer has to believe that there is some social benefit to these images being circulated and the purveyors never bought to justice, the children never being rescued, and other pedophiles masturbating to these picture.

At worst it isn’t gullibility, it’s fringe libertarianism. Libertarianism is uncomfortable with the idea of right and wrong, of the state passing laws that have a strictly moral basis. But just as we don’t allow people to torture animals, even those we are going to kill and eat, our society bans people from viewing snuff films, child porn and I assume video tapes of other sexual assaults. We do so because it’s the right thing to do.

I suspect Cramer’s Libertarian leaning “Conservatism” instinctively rebels against cultural morality. I also suspect that Cramer is a contrarian who wants to say something different than the rest of the rightosphere.

But it’s hard not to come away from his piece without getting the impression that he doesn’t think Ward is a child porn trading pervert. Hopefully, that’s just an indication of his gullibility, and not a “libertarian” view on what constitutes child exploitation.

h/t Maggie’s Farm

Update: I was a bit over zealous in my criticism. I assumed Mr. Cramer had read the same reports I had (a mistake in considering the dishonesty of much of the media) and as it turns out he was under the assumption that Ward had simply downloaded child porn. I would still stand by my assertion that even downloading such material, sans reporting the the material to the proper authorities, is suspect at best.

However in light of the fact that Clayton Cramer was misled by the left leaning San Fransico press, the above article is much too harsh a critique of his point. I apologize to Mr. Cramer.