The Smearing of Jim Peron

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

The Locke Foundation Report itself is about 99% innuendo.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

I just tested the link. It works fine. A bit slow but 100% working.

EDIT: I am referring to the link for Unbound.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

You're right about the Locke Foundation Report being full of innuendo.

I reread it today, and noticed that it also contains obvious inconsistencies (e.g., Jim Peron sold the store in 1990, NAMBLA moved its meetings to a public library in 1989, but Peron was making things up when he said that he'd asked the group to leave his store).

Among the many other loose ends is a significant gap between the date of the raid on Peron's store (in 1987) and the date (in 1989) when an employee at the store was convicted of molesting boys. Apparently, the 1987 arrest of this individual and the raid on the store did not lead to a prosecution or a conviction. He got nailed later, with evidence obtained elsewhere.

Robert Campbell

[jeffrey smith]

Robert--

(without having read any of the materials)a gap of more than one year is not unheard of, or even unusual, in criminal cases, from the time of the initial arrest or complaint to the final sentencing, especially if a full jury trial is held; and the more complicated or serious the crime, the longer the gap will be.

On the larger question of Mr. Perigo: he seems to suffer under the delusion that one should always be emotional about things, and the more important they are, the more emotional one should be. Calm, detached consideration of the facts before arriving at a conclusion seems to be a procedure unknown to him. And having invested emotionally in the outcome of his thinking, he has a corresponding inability to admit (or, possibly, even realize) that he reached a wrong conclusion--and will apparently take whatever steps are necessary to keep himself from having to admit that he was wrong. The coterie that has developed around him at SOLO is, by and large, unable to think for themselves, which is passing strange for what are supposed to be a group of Objectivists. It's noticeable that with only two exceptions, the people who post(ed) at SOLO but do think for themselves, post here--and even those two exceptions posted here in the past, but have apparently become inactive. (And in fact, I "flounced" out of SOLO not because of Perigo but because of the rest of the SOLOists there.)

The thing most to be pitied--and he should be pitied more than condemned--about Mr. Perigo is that he seems to sincerely believe he is advancing the cause of Objectivism by what he does.

(And I've said all of the above, or substantially similar things, in posts at SOLO or private messages to Perigo himself.)

And Michael, if Glenn Gould could interview himself about himself....

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/glenngould/028010-502.7-e.html

Edited September 25, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Robert Campbell]

Jeffrey,

It wasn't just the delay between the arrest in 1987 and the conviction in 1989. The guy was busted by the San Francisco police in 1987. But he was convicted in Hayward in 1989, and the boys he molested were in or near Hayward, not in SF.

Maybe the dots are all connected, but the "Locke Foundation" (an organization that was apparently conjured up just to gather dirt on Jim Peron) made no effort to connect them.

And the report, if I am not imagining things, seems to be trying to blur the distinction between workers in Jim Peron's bookstore (one of whom molested boys) and members of the SF NAMBLA chapter (several of whom molested boys).

I agree with you about Lindsay Perigo's thought processes. Careful thinking about any subject seems to elude him.

Robert Campbell

[dan_edge]

MSK,

I read the entire Locke report today, along with Peron's article in Unbound. My conclusions on the issue (and regarding you personally) can be found here. Please delete my membership from your website.

--Dan Edge

[Brant Gaede]

This is so strange. This thread had been quiet a few months and Dan comes here out of the blue and pumps it with some life coincidentally with the current hullabaloo over on SOLOP about Jim Peron and Perigo and within two days condemns Michael to hell and gone on the basis of Peron's Unbound article and the Locke Foundation report. Dan himself has been completely absent on OL as a contributor since the early summer of 2008.

You would have thought he would have done some more research. You would think he lied about his innocent lack of knowledge. You would have thought he would have asked Michael some more questions. What a set up!

I wouldn't delete Dan from OL as per his request as that would make it extremely difficult to find his old posts and ultimately all of them.

--Brant

not a supporter of Jim Peron

Edited September 26, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Robert Campbell]

Michael and Brant,

Even allowing for Dan Edge's particular form of weirdness (he'll occasionally range out of territory deemed safe by his colleagues at the Ayn Rand Institute, while visibly teetering on the edge of issuing another denunciation, which is how his brief adventure usually ends), the timing of this little foray makes me suspicious.

I do have to wonder if Mr. Edge's last visit here was solicited by someone in the Perigonian orbit.

Be that as it may, I don't think it's appropriate to delete Mr. Edge's posts.

Frankly, I don't think he deserves the satisfaction he might derive from seeing all record of his past infrequent participation deleted.

Could his posts each get a little disclaimer attached to the bottom (kinda like the ones from Victor Pross that weren't deleted)?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

On second thought, Mr. Edge may not have been solicited by the Perigonians.

Look at his new denunciatory essay (in which he piously claims not to be a denunciation junkie like his ARIan colleagues).

The commentaries in his praise have, so far, all come from Diana Hsieh and her NoodleFoodians.

Ms. Hsieh is particularly eager to link Jim Peron to her favorite punching bag, TAS (she mixes up Free Minds 09, where LFB handled the book sales, with a TAS event).

It's starting to look like the coordinated denunciation of Regi Firehammer, back in 2006. Mr. Edge wasn't in on that, but Ms. Hsieh of course was.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I went ahead and banned Mr. Edge and all his different IP numbers. His posts will remain here as per OL guidelines.

I was wondering why his insistence on me publishing Jim's autobiographical story. He kept requesting this almost as a dare. I suspected he wanted to use it to later claim that OL publishes pedophila. I am pretty sure this is it. Here is a passage from his blog post:

I wanted to explain why I will never, ever again have anything to with Michael Stuart Kelly. This includes participating in his website, private correspondence, even casual polite conversation at a random academic conference. MSK, you are truly a disgusting human being. You have used your website to defend a proponent of pedophilia; you have distorted the facts about Peron to the members of your website (most of whom are too lazy or too disinterested to look into the facts for themselves); and you have rudely assaulted any who challenge you on this issue. You are a dishonest, delusional, irrational piece of shit.

This obviously was the conclusion before Mr. Edge started the present campaign. And here is why. Here is another quote:

The point is that OL, MSK, and his close allies have shown that they are poison to the Objectivist movement. A very weak poison, to be sure, but poison nonetheless. Just as we must dissociate ourselves (in varying degrees) from anarchists, Republicans, and pedophilia supporters, so too we must distinguish ourselves from other "Objectivists" who support and promote these people. What if a young person interested in Objectivism stumbles first upon MSK's notorious website? Good god, what if the press picked up on this crap? Objectivist Living makes us look bad.

Typical tribal crap from the fundamentalists. Mr. Edge is looking to make his bones in his tribe and nothing more. (That was kinda telling: putting anarchists and Republicans next to pedophilia supporters. )

I know it doesn't need to be said, but I will say it anyway. I do not support pedophilia. From personal communication I have had with Jim Peron, I am sure he does not support pedophilia either. Just, as I pointed out above, that I do not believe that Ayn Rand supported rapists, terrorists, murderers, pirates and alcoholics, even though they all found their way into her works in a favorable light.

As with my efforts relative to PARC, along with those who agree with me, we are all pulling the teeth from Objectivism fundamentalist tribal hate-mongers and they don't like it. Not one bit.

It's funny that they see us through a tribal lens and are oh so worried about how we impact public opinon. If only they knew how little OL members actually correspond with each other. I presume this is so—at least very few correspond with me and, even then, not very often. Yet we pull the teeth of smear campaigns. This is the real power of truthful ideas when they are presented without intellectual compromise. They destroy evil intentions and stop those of bad character who try to manipulate public opinion according to petty and spiteful agendas.

But here is the real issue:

1. OL actually is being listed as a source on Objectivism in many places on the Internet. And this is without any SEO effort so far. It is obvious to anyone who is familiar with our subcommunity and the level of participants here on OL that it will only get stronger over time and eventually attract quite a large audience (especially once the Atlas Shrugged movie or TV series is done).

2. Nathaniel Branden's Essential Principles of Objectivism book is coming out soon and it is being promoted mostly by Laissez Faire, which Jim Peron owns. The fundamentalists are starting the attack on NB here by attacking Jim.

3. Two very good books about Ayn Rand are being released, one from Anne Heller and one from Jennifer Burns. Obviously OL will be promoting these works. Neither is flattering of the Objectivism fundamentalist tribe.

Frankly, I don't expect this to end up amounting to anything more than a hill of beans. But if it does, it still will not affect any outcomes in any meaningful way—except for the fundamentalists. As noted by Robert, look who is posting in the comments on Edge's blog post. As for them, they can knock themselves out. May they live long and prosper in their tribe and stew in their own bile.

For myself, I have productive work to do.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

I also think that Mr. Edge was trying to goad you into putting Jim Peron's old article (or even that whole issue of Unbound) on this site.

What a jerk.

The people who keep up that anti-Peron site would themselves be accused of publishing pedophile literature if they disclosed their identities. If they're from New Zealand, they could get 5 years in the slammer (the 10 years I previously cited is apparently an exaggeration).

Jennifer Burns' book is out already. Amazon started delivering it on Tuesday. And it's damn good. None of the myths that Jim Valliant was trying to preserve are going to survive the Burns and Heller books.

The NoodleFoodians are also desperate to discredit the book publication of Nathaniel Branden's Basic Principles.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was just now looking at SLOP, where this thing is getting some play.

Here is a prediction. After a small run and a bit of bluster around SLOP and maybe some of the folks around Hsieh, this will die off.

Frankly, I feel a bit odd about this whole thing. I have been spending long, long hours among the works of mankind's top producers in Internet marketing, cognitive psychology, and computing. Now I am looking at this crap.

The contrast is unbelievable. You have to experience something like this to fully understand the impact.

I don't even feel anger. Just perplexity (maybe peppered with a dash of contempt at the trifling-ness) that people do this with their lives when there is such good stuff out there. Here and now. In the world we live in, not dream about. Really great stuff.

What a bunch of petty losers...

Seriously.

And look at their efficacy, or lack of efficacy to be more precise. Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo and minions do temper tantrums in impotence like kindergarten bullies among grown-ups. They can't even sustain their hate-speech on their own site without being undermined by reasonable voices.

Michael

[Jonathan]

I don't have many strong opinions about age of consent laws except that they should exist in some form.

That's weird, because I get the impression that you have very strong opinions on the subject.

A 4-year-old, for instance, cannot rationally consent to sex.

Not true. Beginning at about the age of four and half, I frequently consented to sexual activity with several girls in my neighborhood (and sexual activity wasn't the only subject about which I was capable of making decisions; about a year earlier I also decided that I wanted to be an artist, which I still am). Around the same age I also started to become sexually attracted to adult women. I had crushes on my kindergarten teacher and actresses like Karen Valentine and Barbara Eden. I and a couple of other boys in my kindergarten class frequently discussed our desire to have sexual contact with them. If they would have caressed my "private parts," I would have loved it, and I would not have felt that I had been "abused."

I hear similar views from male callers on talk radio programs any time that a female teacher is caught having a sexual relationship with one of her young male students. The callers, and even some of the talk show hosts, say things like, "Why couldn't that have happened to me? Why didn't I get a hot teacher who wanted to get into my pants?" Are these callers and hosts "proponents of pedophilia" in your view? If a person reports that, as a child, he enjoyed being sexually fondled by his classmates, you're not shocked and outraged, but if he reports that he enjoyed being fondled by an adult, you're going to claim that he has "pedophilia sympathies"?

And this consent can't be delegated to parents. The law's got to draw the line somewhere. Where? That's more of a technical legal question which I am not qualified to answer. Age 16 makes sense, maybe younger, maybe as high as 18, though that would be pushing it.

Peron's initial accuser, Objectivist Bill Dwyer, has said that he thinks the age of consent should be around puberty. Peron was around the age of puberty when an adult rubbed his butt. If Peron had been three months older when he enjoyed having his butt touched, would you have been okay with it? Six months? A year?

But that issue in completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand: Was Perron smeared? Did he deserve the scrutiny and the criticism?

With the intensity of passions that are often displayed when discussing Peron, I think the issue of age of consent is very relevant, and it's surprising to me that people can be "shocked and outraged" about the issue yet have no interest in objectively defining the point at which their shock and outrage kicks in.

I am surprised that four pages of discussion have gone on here without specific reference to Perron's article about "boy love." I know you mentioned it in passing, MSK, but the contents of that article are crucially relevant to this discussion. I assume that this article is one of the "secret documents" you have available that you don't want to publish here. If it doesn't in any way incriminate Perron, then why not publish it? But it does incriminate him, at least in spirit. I don't remember the entire contents of the article, but here are some things I remember:

Perron was abused as a child in some capacity. While still a child (exact age unspecified) some men taking care of him -- counselors, baby sitters, I don't remember -- would reach inside his clothes and caress his private parts. This made him feel good, emotionally safe, happy, etc. He argues that these "boy lovers" were a great benefit to his psychological health. "Boy lovers" should be honored, not hated. The end.

If a person believes that his sexual interactions with others were beneficial, on what grounds do you argue that they were not? Would you likewise think that a child has suffered from being "abused" if he had enjoyed being similarly caressed by someone his own age, and, if he reported that such caressing had been beneficial to his psychological health, would you doubt him?

Does this not seem like relevant information in evaluating Perron? Or his involvement with pro-NAMBLA writers? This is no smear job, this is what Perron himself wrote and published. If I've got the facts wrong please let me know, but I'm pretty sure I remember this correctly. I was shocked back then, and am still shocked today, that groups of people defend Perron to the hilt without reference to these crucially relevant facts.

I think Peron probably made some bad or naive choices a couple of decades ago, and it's possible that he's lying about some things, but I think there's also reasonable doubt about his being involved in the publishing of Unbound, as well as about the precise nature of his association with NAMBLA. It is interesting, though, that people are labeled "Namblaphiles" and "Peron-defenders," etc., when they express the opinion that there is reasonable doubt and point out that Peron's accusers' views on the subject are out of proportion.

Anyway, one thing I can say for certain, Dan, is that if I were on trial for a crime that I hadn't committed, I wouldn't want you, or other alleged Objectivists like you, on the jury. You're much too subjective and emotional, you appear to be easily manipulated by people who appeal to your feelings, and you seem to have great difficulty distinguishing between facts and hearsay.

J

Edited September 26, 2009 by Jonathan

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks, Jonathan, for giving LP and SOLOP a big bunch of ammo to smear this site with.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

Thanks, Jonathan, for giving LP and SOLOP a big bunch of ammo to smear this site with.

Who cares?

[9thdoctor]

This subject has quite a history, frankly its unbelievable. Having looked through it, both here and on SOLOP, I want to ask a few questions and make some observations. Sorry if they aren’t in any particular order.

If Peron had written for Unbound last month, instead of 20 years ago, how different would the moral judgement be? Is there a statute of limitations on delivering personal moral condemnations? I think there should be, but there’s much room for debate on how to measure the relevant variables, particularly in this case.

Several people on this site write about having long time positive associations with Peron,

Barbara Branden most notably. This counts for something, and largely explains the difference in opinion among so many in listland. Not knowing Jim Peron, after looking at Unbound I can’t deny some of Dan Edge’s comments resonate with me. But I’m at a point I’ll characterize as reasonable doubt. Still there are those “stomach feelings”.

I find Unbound simply shocking, the most charitable interpretation I can make of Peron’s contribution is that he was in need of a catharsis, and channeled it unwisely. Also he certainly didn’t think it would get the readership that it has. Clearly it’s been a painful lesson for him. Lie down with dogs…

Lindsay Perigo is accused of using underhanded tactics to eliminate Jim Peron qua political rival in New Zealand. The main evidence for this seems to be Madeleine Flanagan’s acknowledgement of hours spent on the phone getting advice from LP as she was preparing the campaign to get Peron kicked out of the country. Is that all there is on LP, besides his utterly vile personality? The latter’s been more than enough to keep me away from the hospitality of “Linz’s house”. I find SOLOP to be reminiscent of Jabba’s palace, everyone there is destined to slide down to the Rancor, and sooner rather than later. I can’t imagine how Robert Campbell in particular puts up with the names he’s called.

What I like about this site is that the ban on Branden bashing means less bashing overall. I wish it was even less.

Here Christopher Hitchens mocks Objectivist schisms, it starts just after 6 minutes in:

James Randi, Penn & Teller, Richard Dawkins, and many other figures I think highly of were there, and what Hitchens says is spot on. Ugh.

[jeffrey smith]

Having read the Locke report, but not Unbound (which would not correctly load for me last night)--

1) Robert Campbell was correct in stating that the report was filled with innuendos--at least half, once one leaves out the considerable portions of the report that simply repeat other sections of the report--there are statements from other people which contradict statements apparently made by Mr. Peron, and which indicate he was more supportive of NAMBLA and Unbound than he admitted; until presented with evidence that these people had some animus against him, or evidence beyond Mr. Peron's statements that they were wrong on the facts, I think I have to accept those statements at face value. There are also those statements made in the article itself, which Mr. Peron has apparently never repudiated, which suggest Mr. Peron, at least at one point in his life, had a great deal of sympathy for NAMBLA's position.

2)However--

a)the San Francisco Public Library, by allowing meetings of NAMBLA at its branches, should apparently be shut down as a den of iniquity.

b)There is not the slightest bit of evidence that Mr. Peron engaged as an adult in any sort of sexual relationship with a minor

c)The copious innuendo (most notably, the press reports about the prosecution of a group of pedophiles in which Mr. Peron's name, or the name of his bookstore, does not even appear)included in the report makes the characterization of the report as a "smear" on Mr. Peron accurate.

3) Which means that--

The treatment accorded to Mr. Peron by the New Zealand authorities and those involved in the effort against him was well beyond acceptable, even if one views the evidence against him in the light least favorable to Mr. Peron.

[Robert Campbell]

If Peron had written for Unbound last month, instead of 20 years ago, how different would the moral judgement be? Is there a statute of limitations on delivering personal moral condemnations? I think there should be, but there’s much room for debate on how to measure the relevant variables, particularly in this case.

ND,

It would make a difference to me if Jim Peron published in a magazine like Unbound today, as opposed to having done it 22 years ago.

Although publishing in such a rag today wouldn't make him a source of all evil in the known universe, I wouldn't associate with him, and I am quite sure that it would make him radioactive in both Rand-land and libertarian-land.

Several people on this site write about having long time positive associations with Peron,

Barbara Branden most notably. This counts for something, and largely explains the difference in opinion among so many in listland.

I had no connection with Jim Peron until July 2009, when I met him at the Free Minds 09 conference. He was so unsure of his reception by the crowd there that he wore no name tag, and it took me about half an hour to be sure who he was. By the end of the conference, he had realized that no one there hated him, or was inclined to credit the Perigonian condemnations of him.

Whatever reservations I have about Mr. Peron's past actions, or his maladaptive responses when he was thrown into the center ring of a political circus in New Zealand, I had no difficulty conducting amicable and wide-ranging discussions with him. Whereas even before Lindsay Perigo turned a 180 in August 2005 and started promoting Jim Valliant's now-infamous opus, I doubt that I would have been able to maintain a civil conversation of more than 10 minutes with him. From the git-go on SOLO, my impression was that Mr. Perigo was probing me, wanting to know whether I was going to become an acolyte or I was going to fail to line up behind him and become a target of his abuse.

Lindsay Perigo is accused of using underhanded tactics to eliminate Jim Peron qua political rival in New Zealand. The main evidence for this seems to be Madeleine Flanagan’s acknowledgement of hours spent on the phone getting advice from LP as she was preparing the campaign to get Peron kicked out of the country. Is that all there is on LP, besides his utterly vile personality? The latter’s been more than enough to keep me away from the hospitality of “Linz’s house”. I find SOLOP to be reminiscent of Jabba’s Palace, everyone there is destined to slide down to the Rancor, and sooner rather than later.

Ms. Flannagan's statements are pretty damning. But apart from them, and Lindsay Perigo's eminently repellent public persona, there is the total lack of stories, from either Mr. Perigo or his acolytes, of any objectionable activities by Mr. Peron while he resided in New Zealand. Mr. Perigo's biggest complaint was what...? That Mr. Peron talked to him too long on the telephone? Mr. Peron does not like Christian conservatives, and he and Ms. Flannagan clashed, all right—but what did NAMBLA have to do with any of it, and why would Mr. Perigo, who presumes that every Catholic priest is a pedophile till proven otherwise, care if Ms. Flannagan were offended? Ms. Flannagan's innuendo, such as her claim that some apologist for pedophilia in New Zealand once visited Mr. Peron's store, is so feeble that Mr. Perigo doesn't care to echo it. I googled the name of the alleged promoter of pedophilia and came up with zilch-zip-nada.

I haven't gone into all of the things that Mr. Peron said to me about the ACT Party and Libertarianz, because the details are tedious and to be sure of not garbling them I would need to check them with others who know the New Zealand scene. The essence of his story was that Mr. Perigo is a flaming narcissist, he is not particularly effective in promoting libertarian ideas in New Zealand, but he believes himself indispensable to all such efforts and entitled to near-exclusive personal credit for any successes in that arena ... so when he doesn't get the credit he imagines he constantly deserves, he will work to undermine the efforts of his perceived rivals.

From 4 1/2 years of participation, first on the old SOLOHQ, then on SOLOP, I find that this characterization of Lindsay Perigo eminently plausible.

I can’t imagine how Robert Campbell in particular puts up with the names he’s called.

I have a fairly strong stomach. But I also learned a long time ago that over in Jabba's Palace, the Huttese epithets are launched so continually and indiscriminately as to become meaningless through repetition.

If everyone Mr. Perigo is really angry at is a "cockroach," then Jim Peron's blattoid status can't justify kicking him out of New Zealand... unless I would have to be kicked out of New Zealand, MSK would have to be kicked out, and so on, until everyone who's ever landed on the Perigonian shit list becomes a candidate for expulsion from NZ.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Jeffrey,

As far as the "Locke Foundation" report is concerned:

I'm certainly not dismissing the testimony of Eric Garris or Gene Berkman, the San Francisco-based libertarian bookstore owners, though I would like to see corroboration for their statements. I sure as hell would not be favorably disposed toward any man wearing a button that says "Cub Scouts Taste Better than Brownies."

The testimony of Dr. Frits Bernard I find less compelling. If he wrote the books advertised in Unbound, he is a genuine apologist for pedophilia. But he may not have known the name of Unbound's editor—or been willing to disclose it to Ms. Flannagan if he knew it. I have to wonder why somebody with his alleged track record would have cooperated with Ms. Flannagan's inquiry in the first place.

Robert Campbell

[jeffrey smith]

There are also those statements made in the article itself, which Mr. Peron has apparently never repudiated, .

After posting the above, I went through the current threads at SOLO. From those threads, I learn the above statement is wrong, in that Mr. Peron disclaimed authorship of the offending statements, and stated that the article was in effect a personal essay not meant for publication which was more or less stolen from his desk; that pro-pedophilia statements were interpolated into the original and the entirety published without his knowledge or, of course, his permission.

If true, the case against him is fairly effectively rendered null and void, although of course only if Mr. Peron's involvement with the publishing of Unbound was what Mr. Peron said it was.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I think Jonathan's analysis is quite reasonable. So Bill Dwyer thinks the age of consent should be around puberty? Hmmmmm...

Dennis (Ninth Doctor),

One characteristic of a person interested in smearing is to remove context. The people who smear Peron certainly do.

In today's world, we have had constant TV shows like "To Catch a Predator" and "CSI SVU" (of which I am a big fan) and countless episodes on other shows and in movies and on news shows hammering out a strong negative emotional theme regarding pedophilia—and almost all of them mention nonstop that a pedophile is an uncurable human being. The pedophiles protrayed are usually quite unsavory characters in aspects that have nothing to do with being one. A very strong negative stereotype has been manufactured in our culture.

Without reading scientific studies, I don't know how accurate this stereotype is. I do know that pedophiles are seriously damaged inside. Some of them are quite evil as can be seen in court cases. I seriously doubt all are stereotype-wise. Of course, damaging small kids psychologically through sex is an evil act.

But a hamhanded stereotype does exist. It mobilizes people in today's world to condemn first and ask questions later much in the same manner bigotry operates. I believe a person who thinks for himself does not use this epistemology. I refuse to.

When the episodes in Jim's bookstore happened, the emotional mainstream attitude did not have this load. The public perception context was very different back then. This context is constantly ignored by Jim's trashers. The age of consent issue was seen by the public back then with the same emotional load as something like legalizing drugs.

I think the wisest thing you said was: "Clearly it's been a painful lesson for him. Lie down with dogs…"

Notice Jeff's comments. The facts he mentioned kept jumping out at me when I analyzed them way back when and since. I cannot condemn a man on innuendo and a report filled with "this person said that person said he said or was or did xxx." As I had been one of the people to unjustly trash Jim Peron on a public forum, I had to make the present thread. Maybe I lie with dogs this way. There is no lack of bigots who will play to crowds where the stereotype has blinded rational thought. (Witness Solo Passion for one.) But I sleep at night knowing my integrity is intact.

Rand once stated: "It is not very inspiring to fight for the freedom of the purveyors of pornography or their customers. But in the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with the suppression of a given right's least attractive practitioners. In this case, the disgusting nature of the offenders makes it a good test of one's loyalty to a principle." The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 23 August 13, 1973,

"Censorship: Local And Express."

I certainly do not relish analyzing something like Unbound. It's a terrible publication tinged with really creepy things. I have to do it, though. If I don't, some people will try to use Objectivism to justify their lynch-mob bigotry as they try to crucify an innocent person. In doing so, I present a public balance of reason and I inspire reasonable people to speak out against that crap.

Note that the right supressed in Jim Peron's case was not any alleged right to have sex with children (and, I want to emphasize that, from my brief contact with Jim, I think he is more conservative in this respect than Perigo—his real issue is government abuse, but kid-wise, Perigo believes in a much youger age for sex than Jim). It was the right to defend against the false witness borne against him as a government was mobilized by his accusers to punish him. It is the right to not be lynched by bigots.

I admit, Jim did make a mess of things as they unfolded. But the last I looked, there is no law against screwing up in interviews.

Michael

[jriggenbach]

Jeffrey,

As far as the "Locke Foundation" report is concerned:

I'm certainly not dismissing the testimony of Eric Garris or Gene Berkman, the San Francisco-based libertarian bookstore owners, though I would like to see corroboration for their statements. I sure as hell would not be favorably disposed toward any man wearing a button that says "Cub Scouts Taste Better than Brownies."

The testimony of Dr. Frits Bernard I find less compelling. If he wrote the books advertised in Unbound, he is a genuine apologist for pedophilia. But he may not have known the name of Unbound's editor—or been willing to disclose it to Ms. Flannagan if he knew it. I have to wonder why somebody with his alleged track record would have cooperated with Ms. Flannagan's inquiry in the first place.

Robert Campbell

A minor point, probably, but in case it makes any difference, Gene Berkman was never an owner of Libertarian Books & Periodicals, the bookstore in San Francisco that Jim Peron bought in the early 1980s. Nor was Gene himself ever "San Francisco-based."

JR

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; A small correction: You referred to CSI SVU. There is no show with that name. There is Law & Order: SVU.

I met Jim Peron at Free Minds. I found him impressive. My one meeting with Perigo was not.

A final point addressed to those who want rid purveyors of kiddie porn out root and branch might consider that parents have been threaten with jail for taking pictures of their children in the bath. In another case a man was entrapped into getting kiddie porn was facing a long time in prison. The US Supreme Court had to reverse his conviction.

I suspect the above means I will be called child porn sympathizer by Perigo but so be it.

[Jonathan]

I think Jonathan's analysis is quite reasonable. So Bill Dwyer thinks the age of consent should be around puberty? Hmmmmm...

Yes, Dwyer gave his opinions on age of consent on the Atlantis forums. As I mentioned in post #12 in this thread, "As best as I've been able to discover, there was virtually no difference between Peron and some of his most vocal Objectivist attackers when it came to their views on the issue of age of consent, including Bill Dwyer, who made the initial false accusations (which he later retracted) which stirred up the issue in the first place. My understanding is that Peron thought that the age of 12 was too low, and Dwyer thought that the age should be above puberty, probably at least 14, but he didn't have a firm opinion about what it should be. So it seems that there might have been, at most, a difference of year between their views."

And I've heard other Objectivists argue that puberty should be the age of consent, based on their view that, in essence, nature has given humans the ability to reproduce at that age, so laws should not be written which deny that nature. Some have expressed the view that a single age shouldn't apply to all, but that each case should be decided individually since people mature psychologically at different ages.

They make a good point. Rand claimed that she came up with her philosophy when she was about 2 1/2 years old. I have friends who laugh about it, and I think they're right that she exaggerated a bit, but I understand and identify with her basic point, which is that she was very aware at an early age, and that she already had a strong sense of who she was and what she wanted in life. Should society impose laws on such a person which were created based on the fact that the average person is much slower to develop psychologically and intellectually? I mean, if someone like Rand had entered into a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old when she was 12, I would think that she would have been much more aware of what she was doing than most people on certain Objectivist discussion forums would have been when they were 20 (in fact, I think the average 12-year-old these days is probably more mature psychologically than most SOLOPsists, many of whom appear to be quite easily manipulated and/or eager to manipulate others).

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael; A small correction: You referred to CSI SVU. There is no show with that name. There is Law & Order: SVU.

Chris,

Dayaamm!

How on earth did I get that wrong? I only watch 3 or 4 episodes a week minimum—unless there is a marathon. In that case I tend to watch several in a row. I have seen many episodes from previous seasons more than once and I am always delighted when I find one that I haven't seen yet. I even see Detective Elliot Stabler in a Hank Rearden kind of light. He's always caught between his own values and the ones in the social structure he works in, and he is strongly impacted by his work.

(I also watch CSI, CSI Miami, CSI NY, and the other Law & Order series. A new favorite is emerging, though: Criminal Minds.)

Interestingly, these shows have become a lot more entertaining to me lately than the mess the boneheads create in the Objectivist subculture.

Michael