From: tallpaul@pipeline.com (tallpaul)
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 95 11:32:44 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Who Protects Us from the "Protectors?"
Message-ID: <199512071933.OAA12319@pipe8.nyc.pipeline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


               Who Protects Us from the "Protectors?" 
         The Case of Father Ritter from Covenant House 
        (and the Relevance to the Crypto/G.A.K. Debate) 
 
The issue of the need to "protect children" is used as a major 
attack on quality crypto. The "kiddie pornographers" are described 
as one of the "four horsemen" who will, we are told, hide behind 
the crypto. Yet a review of the character and activities 
(medically, psychotherapeutically, ethically) of the very child 
protectors shows a tendency for some to be involved in the very 
activities they are ostensibly opposing. Worse, the public 
reputations built not infrequently serve to shield the individuals 
against public investigation of their own sexual activities. 
 
Father Bruce Ritter, one founder of Covenant House, is an example. 
 
Covenant House was originally started in New York City and located 
in the 42nd St. Times Square "porn district." The announced 
purpose of the organization was to protect runaway youth, arriving 
in NYC at the nearby interstate bus station, from sexual and other 
predations by the Square's denizens. 
 
Ritter soon developed a national reputation as a leading child 
protector. He was, for example, appointed a member of the 
President's Commission on Pornography ("Meese Commission.") There 
was only one fly in the ointment: Fr. Ritter was sexually involved 
with the very youth he was "protecting." 
 
So Ritter's anti-sexual persona (no sex education, "just say 
'no'," anti-condom distribution, anti-birth control, anti- 
abortion, clerical celibacy, anti-porn) covered his sexual 
practices. Ritter's fundraising to protect the children raised 
money for his hotel rooms. 
 
Worse, his public persona served to protect him as charges of his 
sexual proclivities surfaced. Ritter's supporters in the "save the 
children" coalitions did not investigate Ritter. They attacked the 
youth bringing charges against their saint. Some critics were 
charged with being fronts for the Times Square porn industry. 
Others had their honesty and their sanity questioned. 
 
Only when additional charges from additional youth surfaced and 
journalists "followed the money" trail did the true story of 
Ritter's sexual proclivities and masquerade develop. 
 
Critics of quality crypto and the internet demand that supporters 
of these things answer questions about what the supporters are 
doing to fight the "kiddie porn" forces. We should ask them the 
same question(s) about their own movement. Equally we should 
demand answers to the question of what they are doing to expose 
forces -- like Ritter -- who use the "protect the children" 
industry as camouflage for the very predations the industry 
ostensibly exists to fight.