Topic: What a Shock

[smokester]

It's hard to understand how a work of imagination intended to amuse only the creator can be harmful to society unless it is reproduced, displayed and the contents mimic the referent in a way that can be said to actively induce damage through instigating the harmful actions of others.

This stricture could be used to refer to all kinds of hate speech/imagery which is not protected and can include imagery intended to incite violence or harm to minorities or other vulnerable populations.  That, the reining in of speech that is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theatre, is the only circumstance in which this kind of expression should be limited.

The relevant law:

Possession of Prohibited Images of children
Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 ('the Act') creates a new offence of possession of a prohibited image of a child, punishable by up to three years' imprisonment. This offence, came into force on the 6 April 2010 it is not retrospective and requires the DPP's consent.

Possession of a prohibited image is an either way offence and the maximum penalty on summary conviction is six months' imprisonment or a fine or both. On conviction on indictment, the maximum sentence is 3 years' imprisonment, a fine, or both.

This guidance is to assist prosecutors when making decisions on whether to prosecute for the offence of possession of a prohibited image of a child. This guidance should be read in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice circular 2010/06 on the key provisions of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

The offence is targeted at non-photographic images (this includes computer generated images (CGI's), cartoons, manga images and drawings) and therefore specifically excludes indecent photographs, or pseudo-photographs of children, as well as tracings or derivatives of photographs and pseudo-photographs.

This "offence" appears to me to be almost totally independent of exploitation.

I for one support that amendment to the law even if it does "patrol peoples' imaginations".  Not particularly because it is punitive, but because it will expose to me those who get off on depictions of children being violated (this topic as evidence) and I'd rather know who they are among us.  I realise that may be selfish, but when it comes down to the realities of life, the law, political opinion, your opinion, her opinion, everybody's opinion, means little to me in the defence of my children.

[6pairsofshoes]

In the U.S. there was a group of radical feminists who sought to impose restrictions on the production of pornography that depicted bondage, violation of women's bodies, depictions of cruelty or demeaning treatment of women on the basis that this would lead to those who viewed such images acting out the behaviors depicted in the real world.

I'm not sure there is a clear link between these things.  While it troubles me that there are people who get off on images of sexualized children, or women being beaten, I'm not sure it's appropriate to outlaw the imagery completely.  Why?  Because for some people it may simply remain in the realm of fantasy and prevent them from acting on such impulses.  Parallel arguments have been made against video games that depict violence.

The question is this:  the power we give to images and the perceived need to regulate them.  I am reminded of the iconoclasms in which mosaics or altarpieces that represented Christian deities and saints were destroyed in a sweep that excluded them as graven images or false idols that confused the faithful regarding the true source of divinity.  While, by contrast, in the Orthodox church, icons are viewed as conduits to the divine.  These are situations where images are acknowledged for their power, but the mechanisms and potentials for good or evil are regarded differently.

Who can say what the existence of a tracing or a CGI might do in terms of real world effects?  You can't stop a person's imagination from manifesting the images psychically.  Does the externalization of those images really make a big difference if you are thinking in terms of pedophilia?  That's the crux of the issue, and I'm not quite sure how to feel about it, although feelings of protectiveness toward one's children that would outlaw such images are completely understandable. 

This is a grey area and the big issue is where/when we as a society can begin reaching into other people's heads in order to insure the safety of the collective.  Where and how does one define privacy and the right to entertain one's own thoughts?  I think that's what troubles chris about this.

[smokester]

This, to be honest, is the bit that troubles me.

I too have kids, and I too would have removed the testicles of someone who abused them - through his nostrils. Law or no law.


-- BUT --

I cannot make the leap to thought policing. For me someone that watches porn on the inside of his eyelids is as much of a threat (or maybe more) as someone that draws/ keeps/ looks at pictures on paper or a screen, but I am not ready for the prospect of arresting someone because of what he thinks. Same for terrorists, actually: I cannot justify arresting someone for reading about fertilizer bombs on the internet, or dreaming of blowing up his school, or drawing pictures of shooting her whole junior band - I am old school enough to desire to punish people for what they do, not what they may do, and I cannot really entertain the prospect of arresting someone because "some disputed indicator shows that he may be more likely to ..."

We are a gnat's whisker from a society that formalises beating someone up in the playground - or even killing them - because they looked at a kid "inappropriately". This already happens, and the law used to be on the side of the innocent party - it is heading toward a place where the law lays on the side of the (not-necessarily-correct) self-appointed vigilante. Even today what jury would convict me for killing a man that had child porn in his home - even when I had no (real) reason for so doing? we should remember that Boo Radley turned out to be a good guy.

I thought that it was only in Texas where "he needed killing" was a defence in law.

I cannot begin to tell you how many "inappropriate" looks and worse kids had to contend with when I was at school.  The headmaster in my secondary school interfered with many children and eventually moved on to a primary where he did much worse and was finally caught.  He was released, did it again, was caught again and then hanged himself.

The groundsman at the same school (who was a personal friend of mine), used to oo and ah about the girls in their leotards doing P.E and we (boys of about 14) used to agree with him. It was only when I grew up that I looked back and thought: "what was a 57 year old man doing fantasising about 13 year old girls?". He ended up molesting some boys that he used invite to his house to watch blue movies on 8mm.

Outside the school in parks and the like, there always was some dodgy bloke flashing himself to us and making lewd suggestions, and admittedly, pre Esther Rantzen's Childline we used to laugh it off.  My point though is that if these things were to happen today those men would probably be stoned to death.  That might not be right, and the law may truly be an ass, but I certainly prefer now to the bad old days.

[smokester]

In what way? The same perverts are doing the same things to the same victims. The Daily Mail would have you believe that it happens more now than then (blame the internet, of course).

How has enshrining vigilante justice in law helped? How has criminalising the harmless old git that spent his days in doors making porn mags sticky made society safer? How many of the real criminals that have been caught over the last ten (twenty, thirty) years turned out to have stashes of kiddie-porn at home? It is notable for me that the authorities tell us that the streets will be safer because of these idiotic laws, but can offer no viable evidence to prove it - but then again they don't have to, because only a pervert would defend other perverts. So who will stand up to defend a man from a law designed to appeal to the prurient rather than the endangered, and who would stand up to argue that the law is unnecessary? Not politicians, that is who.

We hardly have any male primary school teachers any more. Why? Only a pervert (man) would want to spend his days in a room full of small children.

We hardly have any scout masters any more. Why? Only a pervert (man) would want to spend his days with a troupe of children.

It was bad enough when parents used to stone the groundsman for (allegedly) touching one of the dear darlings - well - he looked like he might have thought about touching them, anyway, and he has a squint. Now we are enshrining this attitude in law.

I think you are overcooking it a bit.  For example: I mentioned my old headmaster earlier and apparently the hanging himself bit is an urban myth which I have just discovered after I went about trying to find more on the story.  I couldn't find him anywhere even though at the time I was interviewed by the C.I.D. (as were many of my friends due to out name in his caning book) and the News of the World ran a story on him  - this was 1986 by the way. Eventually I found a single page about him on ukpaedos-exposed.com and he supposedly now lives in Hertfordshire.

Here is a real paedophile that has managed to slip back into the general public after spending just 5 years inside.  There was no stone throwing, no beatings, no banning of inappropriate looks, he just served his time and is probably enjoying the internet as we speak.

The law and the vigilantes don't seem to be doing enough. 

[smokester]

Which bit of the possessing/ looking at pictures was the headmaster guilty of?

Kiddie-fiddlers should be shot: I agree with that bit. How does making looking at pictures a crime help?

Surely it's just a blanket law.  It's like banning the manufacturing of bombs but allow the unmonitored study of their assembly.  Do that and sooner or later someone will ignore the original law.

Best just criminalise it all.  It's a no-brainer.