I watched this testimony on C-span and was horrifed. You know theoretically that Bush's administration is incompetent, but then you actually listen to what this kid went through and see a DHS officer get prosecuted for kiddie porn. It's gross. And yet is seems to be everywhere.

Dandy!

The DOJ, as the lap dog of President Bush and his horrible horde of henchlings, has no problem going on fishing trips for online scumbags, or so they say, and then show no sign in the least of even the slightest hint of wanting to do some real justice in this case. I’m shocked – SHOCKED! – at this revelation (hey! Where are my winnings?).

Going after online perverts? Fine (excluding those on the government payroll, of course). Even the most protective of our liberties will at the least understand the need, if not the draconian methods, in such a pursuit. But, with all the evidence that there is little concern for the actual victims (or is it only a lack of concern for the male victims?), can we assume, then, that the great Google (et al) sweep has been to find other things?

Has the attempt, then, really to go after the often dicey, yet still legal, mainstream online adult (and here, I stress the term "adult," and include that to all sections of the medium: producers, audience, and talent) business?

Why not? Going after online p0rn will certainly satisfy "Them, the Most Gawdly Amongst US" ("US" here being defined as "them," especially them with mega-churches, mega-bucks, and the President’s shell-like ear), and is pretty safe, politically speaking. On the other hand, actually going after the practicing perverts and chicken hawks could reveal more than a few folks carrying memberships cards identifying them as a parts of those "meags-" and well-paid members of the public sector (note to Washington online surfers: "MySpace" dose not refer to what you think it does).

All this assumes, of course, that the kid's story is true.

No, outrage over the failure to prosecute or convict would assume that the story is true.

This is outrage over the failure to investigate in the first place (to find out if the story is true), at least as I read it.

I don't doubt this kid got a seriously raw deal in loads of horrying and online ways, as this Salon piece's teaser points out, but if we're talking about the same NYTimes story here, it sure seemed to me like not only was Justin complicit to the point of being entrepreneurial over the course of at least the beginning stages of this ordeal, but his freaking father helped him design a website to market his online strip shows and whatnot. He certainly sounds like he was abused, and horribly, by these men in real life, but I think his victim status is being a bit oversold in this article. Glad we're getting to blame Bush for some more stuff, though. That's nice.

However you apportion the blame in Justin Berry's story, it's becoming clear that the media have bought into the concept of Mr. Berry as an innocent victim of others throughout his involvement in pronography.

As a web entrepreneur, Berry created his own websites, set his own prices, and engineered bidding wars among the men interested in him for acts he specified. He orchestrated attempts to eliminate his competition for men's attention & dollars. He even had the presence of mind to abscond to a foreign country when he felt his enterprise was about to be exposed.

Were he selling drugs, stealing cars, or running another kind of illicit money-making enterprise, he would be charged & tried as an adult. His crime involved America's favorite taboo subject, sex, in its most taboo incarnations, gay sex & teen sex. Because of that, he is not a criminal, committing acts of prostitution, pandering, and distributing child pornography, but an innocent victim, whose molesters abused him by acceeding to his every demand.

In my view, he was a victim at 13, a prostitute with years of experience at 16, and the pimp for a network of teenage webcam performers at 18. To demand sympathy for Justin Berry is to belittle and demean the real, tangible, physical abuse suffered by actual victims of pedophile molesters. If you want to see actual victims, look at the scandals coming out of cities around the country. Look at victims like Tony Comes & Claudia Vercelotti, who have both described their abuse by Catholic priests in Toledo, Ohio, my hometown. These are victims. They do not seek to profit from their abuse, they did not solicit futher abuse, and they certainly did not make financial demands of their abusers.

This story is being used for political fodder by both the anti-porn crusaders on the right & the anti-Bush zealots on the left. Each is trying to paint onto Justin Berry the attributes of a victim, since his victimhood sells their ideology (and Kurt Eichenwald's books).

The sad part is that none of the people involved in this phase of Justin Berry's story seem genuinely concerned about him outside of what he can do for them. In that way, they are a lot like another group of men in his life, men he met when he was 13.

Steve Brack, steveb_ohio@yahoo.com, +1 937 304 7051

Remember Katrina? Remember Homeland Security? Hey, folks, wake up! this is another example of the rightwing determination to stamp out government, especially competent government, whenever it pops up its ugly head! Thank you Grover Norquist, the baby is almost drowned. Just got a couple more years to strangle it good, and then we will live in pure free market anarchy!

Having duty sat through the ad to get to Salon's content, I REALLY don't appreciate having said content blocked by an ad that obscures the content I'm trying to read (I'm talking about the "Hilton Family" ad blocking the letters re Justin Barry's testimony).

This kid was not victimized.

Nor have we read yet how he plans to distribute his gains to worthy charitable causes.

What's surprising is that the sex-phobic GOP wasn't all over this from the start. Maybe a senator or, say, a DHS official turned up on that credit card list, wot.