Nathania

	Nathania Recent changes WikiNode About [No Mobile URL]
Founded by:
Status:	Active
Language:	English
Edit mode:	OpenEdit
Wiki engine:	MediaWiki
Wiki license:	Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike"Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike" is not in the list (Custom license, Attribution to contributing authors, Copyright to contributing authors, Site retains copyright, WTFPL, Licence Art Libre, Open Content License, Apache License, BSD Documentation License, FreeBSD Documentation License, ...) of allowed values for the "Wiki license" property.
Main topic:	Personal

Wiki size:	87 article pages see stats
wikiFactor:	1 info / verify

(As of: 2013-10-25)

Nathania is a bliki by Nathan Larson containing his own commentary as well as that of several sexually dissident US federal prisoners who were interviewed. It appears that all the material is inappropriate for the English Wikipedia, and some of it contains personally-identifying information of private individuals, including minors.

The site name was inspired by the use of "Nathania" as a country name in Template:W. The logo is a flag with an "N" monogram in Template:W.

This incarnation of Nathania was originally hosted on Bluehost and then Hostmonster. After a concerned citizen submitted a report of "adult content", Hostmonster issued a terms of service violation notice on 10 September 2012 noting that the website would be deactivated unless the content were removed within 48 hours. Eventually, Nathania ended up at Dreamhost; like other sites that use Dreamhost's share hosting, Nathania is subject to frequent performance problems, including internal server errors.

First incarnation

The first incarnation of the site was created in mid- to late-2008, and hosted with 1and1. It had an anarchy symbol for its logo. No record of this incarnation appears in the Internet Archive, so apparently all the data was lost when unpaid server fees resulted in the site's becoming unavailable. The domain expired on 3 September 2009. Example urls from the old site are:

• http://nathania.org/index.php5?title=Short_answers , short answers prepared circa 13 September 2008 for the Cathy Lewis show What Matters on the political topics of transportation, energy, the housing crisis which existed in 2008, education, and the Chesapeake Bay area watermen.[1] One critique of these answers, as they were posted to Nathania, was that the first half was a bit wordy and also used words that don't resonate with the public.
• http://nathania.org/index.php5?title=Parliamentary_procedure , an essay on parliamentary procedure created no later than 9 September 2008.
• (URL unknown) A table comparing and contrasting (if memory serves) the attributes of proxy voting, along several different dimensions of desired characteristics, as practiced in government, nonprofit nongovernmental organizations, and for-profit companies.

Controversies concerning the site

At RationalWiki

At RationalWiki, an anonymous user commented, "Has anyone seen his gallery of little girls? He even has one picture of naked underage females, and lots of pictures of little girls looking coy. I think this man is a sicko fuck who needs to go away for a long long time, for the safety of little girls everywhere."[2] Abd Lomax replied:[3]

A troll added this link to Nathania.org. That is Tisane's page, where he describes his own thinking about "pedophilia," in a detail very unusual for a public disclosure. It is not the thinking of a pedophile. It is the expression of someone willing to go outside the bounds of public acceptability as to personal disclosure. He's taking a legal risk with that page. He could probably defend it in court, each image is legal; however, a claim could also be made that the collection shows prurient interest. (I think the claim would fail in court, but ... he could also get slammed. Parole officers are not fair, necessarily, and they can jail first and ask questions later. The actual text of the page may be offensive to people who dislike honesty. Someone could indeed report this to authorities, and they would investigate. I'm not reporting, because I'm satisfied, reading it and seeing all the other evidence, that he is not a pedophile and he is not a threat to children, and I don't want to waste the time of the agencies. I deleted the material, confirming Psygremlin's removal and block of the editor, and blocked the IP. But the link to the page is relevant. Tisane is showing what images of children are *legal.* He's not correct, though, if he assumes that a collection of legal images cannot be found to be child pornography. I've mentioned already a local case, where someone was prosecuted for having a page of photos that might have been quite like what Tisane has constructed. He lost his job, he lost his kids, and I think he did time. His ruminations on the page are legal, if provocative.

Hipocrite responded, "Looks like pedophilia to me. Reported to FBI via National Center for Missing & Exploited Children at https://report.cybertip.org/index.htm"[4]

In U.S. federal court

On 6 December 2012, Assistant Federal Public Defender Brooke Sealy Rupert explained the site:[5]

Mr. Larson heard first-hand from fellow incarcerated individuals about sex offender laws, the treatment sex offenders received by various prison facilities, and the movement to challenge harsh sex offender sentencing practices. Consistent with Mr. Larson’s practice of seeking to help those seemingly shunned by society, particularly through writing, he began interviewing inmates, researching the issues, and writing articles.

On 7 December 2012, U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee expressed his concerns about the site:[6]

I really don't have any objection to your having opinions about politics, about history, about government or anything. But when you start talking about sex with children and posting pictures of children in provocative poses in underwear, maybe not child pornography, but it's just odd that that would be a part of your website to me if your interest is to build something that everybody can participate in.

When I look on Wikipedia, there's so much information there. You start an encyclopedia at A and go to Z, pedophilia is so far down the line and pictures of children in provocative poses is so far down the line that I'm not sure you could be there in 6 months or 8 months.

So it's just strange and it's scarey. Because I have on many Fridays people come before me who say that they were on the Internet looking for adult pornography and somehow stumbled upon child pornography and got fascinated with it.

And the federal law is five years in prison, ten years, very, very severe sentences that I'm imposing because we're concerned about people who want to traffic in and use that kind of material.