You can thank the Yalie for this one. I was over at his house last night and sat down to watch the House's Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on "
Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet: What Parents, Kids and Congress Need to Know About Child Predators."
Testifying was Justin Berry, who was the subject of a
New York Times article by Kurt Eichenwald (who appeared before the committee with Justin) about his experiences with webcams and how at 13, he became a an internet pornstar, first receiving gifts and then money, first for exposing himself online and later for sexual favors when men would meet him in person.
Justin's 18 now and watching a smart, gay teenager testifying before Congress is fascinating and better than anything you'd ever see on
The West Wing. For starters, Justin's very cute and was clearly coahed on what to say, but still phrases like, "I'm a really fucked up kid" come off not as sad truths, but come ons. Perhaps this is the only way Justin can relate to people because of his trauma. One friend I know who was molested when he was younger constantly relates to everyone he knows through sex, never thinking people would want him on any other level. Still, it was bizarre to watch Justin Berry come on to the House Committee members talking to him.
Weirder yet, sitting behind him is
Ken Gourlay, one of his accused molesters who Justin identified at the end of his testimony. Ken was in his twenties when he invited Justin (15 at the time) to attend a computer camp (both guys are confessed geeks) and sexually molested him. This isn't some old lech, but well, as we all admitted around the couch, a pretty hot guy.
Now, I want to make it clear that I think child molestation and sexual exploitation is the worst crime I can imagine and that molesters deserve all the shiving in prison they're gonna get, but gee this stuff is confusing. Between the geek connections, the relatively minor age difference and the fact that Justin was, at that time, running (and profitting from) a porn site he starred in and created, you can see how the story is, at least conceivably, atypical. Ken met Justin on his site, they bonded over a love of technology and Ken invited him to a computer camp. Ken, of course, shouldn't have been on a porn site to begin with, but at that time, Justin was less a porn star and more a kid with a webcam who would accept gifts and money in exchange for "shows". He was hiding the webcams from his Mom, so he knew enough to know that what he was doing was wrong, but at the same time at 15 is a stupid kid who doesn't know any better.
I don't think the complexities diminish the crime, but it's interesting . Justin eventually had to move to Mexico with his Dad because people recognized him and his Dad, after finding out where Justin got him money, set him up with a new site, where he eventually went on to have sex with other adolescents.
That's a clear case of exploitation as any, but Ken, who's
blog features Rosa Parks tributes and announcements that he painted his living room seems more like a guy who was seduced by Justin. There, I've said it. Yeah, Justin is a kid and there are laws preventing sex with minors for a very good reason, but Justin also seems to me to be an extremely resourceful kid, one who, having become accustomed to gifts and money for showing off on his webcam, found new ways to capitalize on his success. Now emotional intelligence and intellectual intelligence are two seperate things and simply because Justin Berry was capable of seduction and profiting from his own self-exploitation does not mean we should hold him morally responsible for it.
Except, don't we lock away child murderers? Don't we put fifteen year olds behind bars for all sorts of crimes? Justin created the porn site himself. He solicited for and willingly engaged in sex for gifts, money and favors. Do we not hold him to some level of moral accountability? Justin knew what he was doing was wrong and only stopped at the urging of Kurt Eichenwald of the Times who explained tha he could avoid prosecution by turning over all his account evidence on who purchased images from his site. I'm only 26 and while I would never in a million years meet up with a fifteen year old (I can barely stand 23 year-olds, thanks), I can see how it would happen and I can also see that the situation would not be a black and white one.
Perhaps Ken is an awful child molester, but watching his face twitch and his eyes dart as he sat before the Committee, he looked like a guy who, well, just like Humpert Humpert, was as much a victim of his crime as the actual victim. As an adult, the moral onus was on him, but when Eichenwald suggested to the Committee that any anti child porn legislation that may be written be named after Justin Berry, it became clear to me that Justin's own criminal behavior was being ignored, even lionized, to serve the political needs of Kurt Eichenwald and Congress. I mean, hey- you're a computer geek who puts up images of yourself on the web, make a hugely profitable business out of it, get out of it with immunity thanks to your pal at the New York Times and then get a bill named after you. Also, you got to be on
Oprah. Not bad for a guy who at sixteen was luring other adolescents to have sex with him on camera as part of his business.
Obviously, when asked to testify, Ken Gourlay pleaded the 5th.
UPDATE: Story gets weirder-
Eichenwald had Justin Berry create a website for him (www.kurteichenwald.com), which Eichenwald claims he did to help Justin "keep his head on straight." Uh, alright... Justin now runs a website design company called
XpertCreations, which features Eichenwald's site as one of its projects. Doesn't anyone at the Times follow journalistic standards anymore?
