Category: reason

For a horror movie, The Witch isn’t especially horrifying, but it’s a masterful exercise in godforsaken atmosphere. Set in Puritan Massachusetts in the year 1630, it presents us with a world in which Satan is real, if only because everyone believes him to be. A farmer named William (Ralph Ineson) has turned his back on his austere religious community—he finds it to be insufficiently grim—and has struck out with his wife Katherine (Kate Dickie) and their five children to found a homestead of their own on the edge of a remote, spooky forest. It’s a hard place of pewter-gray days and long nights, filled with strange rustlings and eerie portents (the local wildlife is exceedingly creepy). The children have been well-drilled by their parents in the wages of sin, and after the family’s first corn crop fails, and their baby son vanishes in the blink of an eye, we wait for the devil to really bring the hammer down. It’s a short wait, writes Kurt Loder.

View this article.

A new study finds that people have “considerable difficulty” distinguishing between photographs and computer-generated images of human faces, a fact the authors suggest will complicate prosecution of child pornography cases. “As computer-generated images quickly become more realistic, it becomes increasingly difficult for untrained human observers to make this distinction between the virtual and the real,” says lead researcher Hany Farid, a professor of computer science at Dartmouth. “This can be problematic when a photograph is introduced into a court of law and the jury has to assess its authenticity.”

Farid and his colleagues showed 250 subjects 60 pictures of men’s and women’s face, some of which were photographs and some of which were computer-generated images. “Observers correctly classified photographic images 92 percent of the time,” Farid et al. report, “but correctly classified computer-generated images only 60 percent of the time.” In a second experiment, subjects who were given tips on how to distinguish between real and virtual images were better at identifying the latter, classifying them correctly 76 percent of the time. But they were somewhat worse than naive subjects at identifying photographs, classifying them correctly 85 of the time, perhaps because the coaching made them second-guess accurate perceptions.

Observers, whether trained or not, did worse than the subjects in a similar study that Farid and his colleagues conducted five years ago—an indication that the quality of virtual images has improved. “We expect that as computer-graphics technology continues to advance, observers will find it increasingly difficult to distinguish computer-generated from photographic images,” Farid says. “While this can be considered a success for the computer-graphics community, it will no doubt lead to complications for the legal and forensic communities. We expect that human observers will be able to continue to perform this task for a few years to come, but eventually we will have to refine existing techniques and develop new computational methods that can detect fine-grained image details that may not be identifiable by the human visual system.”

Congress anticipated this development back in 1996, when it passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act. That law’s definition of child pornography included “any visual depiction” that “appears to be” an image of “a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” Six years later, the Supreme Court overturned that aspect of the law, concluding that it was overbroad, covering constitutionally protected speech such as movie versions of Lolita or Romeo and Juliet. In 2003 Congress tried again with the PROTECT Act, which banned “obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children.” Although the main rationale for that prohibition was preventing people caught with actual child pornography from winning acquittal by demanding that the government prove it was not virtual, the proscribed material explicitly includes drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings that no one would mistake for the real thing.

On the face of it, the problem highlighted by Farid et al. should not pose much of a challenge for federal prosecutors. If it becomes increasingly difficult to prove that purported child pornography shows actual children, prosecutors can instead charge defendants with violating the PROTECT Act, which carries the same penalties as the provisions dealing with child pornography, including up to 10 years in prison for possession and a five-year mandatory minimum for “receiving” a prohibited picture, which amounts to the same thing when the image is viewed online. But PROTECT Act prosecutions are more problematic for a couple of reasons. First, prosecutors have to prove the image is obscene, meaning it “appeals to the prurient interest” and “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Second, the Supreme Court has said the First Amendment forbids punishing people for mere possession of obscene material, unless it is child pornography. Hence any prosecution for merely possessing material banned by the PROTECT Act is constitutionally questionable.

Then again, when someone is caught looking at pictures that have been transmitted via the Internet (as is typically the case), he can always be charged with receiving them, which triggers the five-year mandatory minimum. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld such a conviction in a 2008 case involving Dwight Whorley, a Virginia man who was caught looking at “Japanese anime-style cartoons of children engaged in explicit sexual conduct with adults.” The 4th Circuit rejected the argument that “receiving” obscene material via the Internet is essentially the same as possessing it, which the Supreme Court has said is constitutionally protected. Prosecutors also can obtain convictions for possession under the PROTECT Act through guilty pleas coerced by the threat of a receiving charge. That’s what happened in a 2011 case involving cartoon pornography featuring characters from The Simpsons and a 2013 case involving “incest comics.”

The Dartmouth press release discussing Farid et al.’s study says “juries are reluctant to send a defendant to prison for merely possessing computer-generated imagery when no real child was harmed.” That may be true, but jurors generally do not know the penalties a defendant faces, and lawyers are not allowed to tell them. Dwight Whorley, who had previous convictions involving cartoons as well as “digital photographs depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” received a 20-year sentence. Even if he had no record, he would have been subject to the five-year mandatory minimum just for looking at cartoons. It is unlikely that the jurors realized that—or that they would have believed it had they been told.

Melissa Warren and Eric Adams did everything by the book. That’s what officials in West Chester Township, Ohio, said when they issued the two of them a zoning permit and license to operate a swingers club. But after getting complaints about the club, officials tossed the book out, rescinding the license and permit and banning such businesses so the two can’t reapply.

Donald Trump is caught in an enormous lie—if that even matters anymore.

 In recent interviews and debates, Trump has steadfastly maintained that he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning—that he knew something his more neoconservative Republican rivals did not. It would be to his credit, if it were true. But it’s not.

In an interview with Howard Stern on September 11, 2002, Trump said that he supported a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, according to BuzzFeed News:

… Stern asked Trump directly if he was for invading Iraq.

“Yeah I guess so,” Trump responded. “I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

That Trump would lie about this should come as no surprise. But it’s also unsurprising that he is not quite the anti-interventionist he claims to be. While Trump may indeed be the least hawkish of the remaining GOP candidates, his occasionally sane foreign policy pronouncements don’t come from a place of principled opposition to reckless foreign entanglements. Trump doesn’t oppose wars: he opposes badly managed wars, where badly managed is synonymous with managed by someone other than Trump himself.

Trump says Presidents Bush and Obama were bad at their jobs—and he’s right—but his smug confidence in his own ability to win all conflicts should give libertarians serious pause about his foreign policy. I suspect that Trump likes wars, after all—he just doesn’t like losing them.

Leaked documents show that the California high speed rail is reversing course—quite literally—and changing construction plans on the first 250-mile stretch of track. The new plan will now connect the Central Valley to the Bay Area—not Los Angeles as originally planned. 

The San Jose Mercury News got their hands on a draft report detailing the route change: 

“In the draft report obtained Wednesday by this newspaper, the authority says it had to change course to keep costs down, in large part because the southern segment will entail expensive tunneling costs through the Tehachapi and San Gabriel mountains. 

Getting even a significant portion of the project built early — by 2025 — would help its political survival. And, as the report notes, the Silicon Valley-to-Central Valley line will better position the state to attract private investors, whom Gov. Jerry Brown and supporters of the project hope will pay for part of the cost…”

News of the route change comes in the same week consultants projected a $260 million increase in additional costs for the first 22-mile leg of construction—which amounts to a five percent increase in price for a project that has yet to lay a single foot of track. 

The proposed change may also violate state law. 

California Assemblyman David Hadley (R-South Bay) told local radio station KFI 640 AM that the new route potentially goes against a provision in the high speed rail legislation that says the train must first connect to Los Angeles. He stated the language was added to ensure Southern Californians didn’t foot the bill for a train that could very well end up becoming a regional transportation project. 

Hadley is introducing legislation next week that would take a portion of funds away from the high speed rail project based on the new plans to build north. 

The route change is only the latest in a line of broken promises made by the California rail authority. Voters approved the project with a $33 billion price tag—that has since doubled to $68 billion and could go even higher. Construction is already over two years behind schedule and the state has still not disclosed how they plan to raise the $53 billion in additional funds to complete the Los Angeles-to-San Francisco track. 

The sad part is that the problems with the high speed rail project were entirely predictable. As Reason’s Scott Shackford wrote last October:

“Don’t blame us for this eminently predictable disaster in the making. The Reason Foundation warned all the way back in 2008 that, among other things: cost overruns were likely, state and federal funding would not be sufficient to cover the costs of the project, the state would have to spend more money, and private investors would not be making up the difference. And that’s exactly what is happening. Read more of those predictions here.”

And while the boondoggle continues to move forward, residents in the Central Valley are getting screwed out of their property for a project that may never be completed. Reason TV recently visited with those who are being affected by the project. You can hear their stories in the video below:

New Mexico’s state legislature is considering a bill that would stiffen the penalties for people caught with child pornography while also legalizing consensual sexting between underage teenagers. But that’s an unacceptable tradeoff for the state’s Democratic attorney general, whose staff walked out of a hearing in protest of the bill’s leniency toward teen offenders.

“I cannot support an amendment that weakens protections for teenagers from predatory activity, creates a dangerous new child exploitation loophole, and places New Mexico’s federal Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force funding in jeopardy,” said Attorney General Hector Balderas in a statement, according to the Alamogordo Daily News.

The bill is anything but soft on crime. It would impose a mandatory 10-year prison sentence on anyone caught with child porn. But it also carves out a specific exemption for teens between the ages of 14 and 17 who exchange lewd photos of themselves. As one person quoted by nmpolitics.net wrote: “If it’s between consenting teens then no, they shouldn’t be charged with child pornography. That’s ridiculous.”

It is ridiculous. It also happens all the time. Consider the case of the Michigan 15-year-old who faced registration on the sex offender registry because he took a picture of himself on his phone. Or the Virginia 17-year-old who became the victim of a predatory law enforcement officer because he exchanged pics with his girlfriend. Or the North Carolina 17-year-old who was accused of sexually exploiting a minor—even though he was the minor.

It does teenagers no good to treat them like criminals—like the very worst sort of criminals: child pornographers—for exhibiting sexual interest in each other.

Balderas believes otherwise. His staff was so infuriated with the lawmaker proposing the exception that they walked out during a hearing Tuesday night.

The attorney general, and those who agree with him, like to think that child pornographers are the greatest threat to kids. But laws that criminalize normal teen behavior—that turn teenagers into sexual predators—are a far more menacing threat. A lot of bad laws are written by politicians whose number one priority is “think of the children!” In the case of teen sexting laws, however, no group is more harmed by this mentality than the children themselves. 

Will porn sets in California have to stock up on condoms and protective eyewear? It all depends on how the state’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) votes this evening.

All afternoon, Cal/OSHA members heard from adult-industry performers, directors, and producers, along with public-health experts and others who oppose a proposal to make condom-free porn scenes a violation of workplace safety standards. The vote comes after years of pressure from the Aids Healthcare Foundation (AHF), headed by Michael Weinstein. AHF is also the root of a 2012 Los Angeles County law (still under dispute) requiring condoms in porn, as well as an upcoming, statewide ballot measure to the same effect. The ballot measure would appoint Weinstein himself as porn sheriff, charged with finding and prosecuting condom violations. 

Weinstein first petitioned Cal/OSHA six years ago to mandate the use of condoms and other protective barriers on porn sets. Cal/OSHA, a division of the California Department of Industrial Relations, has held six advisory board hearings on the issue since then.

Under Weinstein’s proposal, California’s workplace Bloodborne Pathogen standards wouldn’t just apply to medical settings but cover “all workplaces in which employees have occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens and/or sexually transmitted pathogens due to one or more employees engaging in sexual activity with another individual.” Activities covered by the new rule “include, but are not limited to… the production of any film, video, multi-media or other recorded or live representation where one or more employees have occupational exposure.” 

Occupational exposure is defined as “reasonably anticipated contact of the skin, eye, mouth, genitals or other mucous membranes with genitals of another person, or with blood” or “other potentially infections materials.” Other materials include any “human body fluids,” including “semen, vaginal secretions … and all body fluids in situations where it is difficult or impossible to differentiate between body fluids.”

At the 2016 AVN Adult Entertainment Expo in January, porn-industry legal experts warned that the rules require not just condom usage but also dental dams and other “personal protective equipment,” such as safety googles worn during facial scenes. 

“These are unworkable regulations based in fear and stigma, not science or public health,” said Eric Paul Leue, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, in a statement this week. “Cal/OSHA has repeatedly refused to listen to performers concerns about their health and livelihoods, and performers are rightly furious.”

At Cal/OSHA’s pre-vote hearing Thursday, representatives from porn industry groups—including the Free Speech Coalition and the Adult Performers’ Advocacy Committee—and more than 100 individual adult stars spoke out against the proposed regulations, which they say are unnecessary (since industry testing protocols are effective), unworkable, and designed to drive California’s porn industry underground or out of state.

“We can take our business somewhere else,” said performer Jessy Dubai during her testimony, “but we want to stay here.” 

“Sexual wellness and safety are of the utmost importance to us, as they affect our bodies and they affect our jobs,” testified Wicked Pictures star Jessica Drake. “But this regulation will destroy our jobs, our businesses, and also our futures.”

“As someone on the front line, as a performer, as a woman, as a feminist, I ask each of you to please truly protect and support us by voting no,” Drake plead with Standards Board members.

Porn performer and painter Zak Smith (stage name Zak Sabbath) said the proposal was simply “an attempt by AHF to use OSHA as an instrument of harassment against us.” A webcam performer who does live, online sex shows with her boyfriend complained that the rules would be “putting condoms and goggles and barrier protections in my partner and I’s bedroom, which is ludicrous.”

The proposed regulations would also require porn producers to keep medical records on anyone who appears in their videos for 30 years, which brings up privacy issues for performers. “Access to secure storage for (medical) records… is a huge concern,” performer Kitty Stryker testified. 

Public-health professors, health care workers, and even Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) staff also spoke out against Weinstein’s proposal. Joseph S., a CDC subject-matter expert who previously worked at the California Department of Public Health, called the language of the proposal “too vague” and its effort unnecessary. 

David P. Holland, an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, warned that it would “have the opposite effect” of what’s intended. “Telling people what kind of sex they can and can’t have (has) never worked,” and only pushes “the activity underground,” he said.

“If there’s one thing I’ve learned from my career in public health, it’s that people are always going to have the kind of sex they want to have,” Holland testified. “The only successful way to protect people is to offer them a choice in the way that they protect themselves.”  

• Pope Francis visited the border between Mexico and the United States and appealed to governments to be sympathetic to plight of migrants.
• But in much, much more important news Pope Francis also said that Donald Trump is “not Christian” for his anti-immigrant, pro-wall positions. So that’s what the news cycle is all about. Even the pope has to start a fight with Trump to get publicity.
• President Barack Obama will become the first sitting president to visit Cuba in 88 years.
• The economist who claims that Bernie Sanders’ economic agenda will actually increase growth and not utterly destroy us all is nevertheless going to vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries.
• Bill Cosby is filing a civil suit against one of the women who has accused him of sexual assault, accusing her of breaching the confidentiality agreement from back in 2006 that settled her complaint and demanding the money he gave her back.
• The feds are dropping charges against the six other employees of gay escort site Rentboy.com, leaving only CEO Jeffrey Hurant facing the court.
• To appeal to millennial gamblers, casinos are trying to get regulators to allow slot machine variations that actually call for skill to win rather than just chance. Video games and pinball are the inspirations, which is funny if you know the early history of pinball machines (they were often used for illegal gambling).

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don‘t forget to sign up for Reason‘s daily updates for more content.

You know what leaped out at me in Donald Trump’s weird screed about the pope today? These eight words:

They are using the Pope as a pawn

Back in the day, people like Trump thought the man in Rome was the grand chessmaster, not a mere pawn of a Mexican cabal. Along with all the other ways he’s shaking up politics, Trump is now turning the old nativist conspiracy stories on their head.