Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship United Kingdom Your Rights Online

MP Seeking To Outlaw Written Accounts of Child Abuse 454

Posted by samzenpus
from the watch-what-you-write dept.
First time accepted submitter Anduril1986 writes "A UK Conservative MP is seeking to expand censorship in another 'think of the children' debate. The plan this time is to make it illegal to possess written accounts of child abuse. According to Sir Paul Beresford, the MP for Mole Valley such writing 'fuels the fantasies' of offenders and could lead to the physical abuse of children."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MP Seeking To Outlaw Written Accounts of Child Abuse

Comments Filter:
  • Fool of an MP (Score:5, Informative)

    by J'raxis (248192) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @12:37AM (#41320319) Homepage

    Something this fool of a politician should read: Three reasons possession of child porn must be re-legalized in the coming decade [falkvinge.net] by Rickard Falkvinge.

    Abstract: This article argues that our current laws on the topic are counterproductive, because they protect child molesters instead of bringing them to justice, they criminalize a generation of normally-behaving teenagers which diverts valuable police resources from the criminals we should be going after, and they lead to censorship and electronic book burning as well as unacceptable collateral damage to innocent families. Child abuse as such is not condoned by anybody, and this article argues that current laws are counterproductive in preventing and prosecuting it.

    • Re:Fool of an MP (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wvmarle (1070040) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @12:55AM (#41320409)

      Actually the porn/arousal part was the last on my mind when I read the headline.

      The first thing I thought is, how are we going to record any actual child abuse? How about social workers detailing such events, are they falling foul of the law with their reports?

      Probably there will be some exception there.

      For the rest, from the face of it, this suggestion sounds a bit like "let's bury it, then it doesn't exist any more". Like how the Party tried to introduce Newspeak, key of which was not so much a "simplification" of the language but the absence of certain words (like "democracy") so people would have no way to think about or discuss those concepts.

      • Re:Fool of an MP (Score:4, Informative)

        by mark-t (151149) <markt@@@lynx...bc...ca> on Thursday September 13, 2012 @01:09AM (#41320499) Journal
        The notion that people have no way to think about or discuss concepts that they have no words for is flawed, since, to use your own example, the concept of democracy clearly came about well before anybody had an actual word for it.
        • Re:Fool of an MP (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Pieroxy (222434) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @01:23AM (#41320583) Homepage

          We should forbid birth and thus make reproduction illegal. It is proven that birth leads in 100% of cases to death, hence, we will defeat death itself by this move.

          • Re:Fool of an MP (Score:5, Insightful)

            by freman (843586) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @01:49AM (#41320685)

            We need to outlaw children - that way paedophiles can't see them anywhere, can't hear of them, can't imagine them and in a generation it'll be pointless.

            • by dargaud (518470) <slashdot2NO@SPAMgdargaud.net> on Thursday September 13, 2012 @06:42AM (#41321765) Homepage

              "I hate people who let their kids run around naked on the beach... It's hard to hide an erection in swimming trunks." — Squinky.

              "What's black and blue and hates sex ? The 7 year old in my trunk."

              "Never accept an invitation from a stranger unless he gives you candy." — Linda Festa.

              "I love children and would like to have as many as possible. My cell-mate, on the other hand, robbed a convenience store."

              "Perverts aren't the leading cause of pedophilia, it's sexy children."

              "My girlfriend accused me of being a pedophile. I said: 'That's a pretty big word for a third grader'."

              "Q: What's the difference between pedophilia and necrophilia?
              A: 4 Minutes"

              "Pedophiles... Fucking immature assholes."

              "A man is walking through the woods with a little girl at night. Suddenly the girl squeezes his hand and says: 'This place is creepy! I'm scared!' The guy looks down at her and replies: 'YOU'RE scared!? Imagine how I must feel? I have to walk back alone'..."

              "I'm going to guess that the phrase 'wants children' means something different, depending on whether you're on a dating site, or on alt.sex.lolita. Yes ?"

              OK, OK, I'll leave now.

        • by metacell (523607)

          The notion that people have no way to think about or discuss concepts that they have no words for is flawed, since, to use your own example, the concept of democracy clearly came about well before anybody had an actual word for it.

          But without proper words to describe it, the problem is contained to the precious few people who have the capability for independent thought.

        • by wvmarle (1070040)

          Did you ever read 1984?

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by xenobyte (446878)

            Exactly. Outlawing even references to pedophile activities is a clear first step of implementing a true thought police. Also, it will of course make both the prevention and post-abuse treatment close to impossible, thus having the opposite effect of making it significantly easier for pedophiles to do their evil stuff.

            Impressive - This is stupidity squared!

        • by gweihir (88907)

          The notion that people have no way to think about or discuss concepts that they have no words for is flawed, since, to use your own example, the concept of democracy clearly came about well before anybody had an actual word for it.

          Well, most people cannot. Some (few) very bright ones can. Democracy was also not a "clean room" invention, it evolved. But I really recommend to you to read "1984" by Orwell. It describes this concept quite credible.

      • ... comes very simplistic ideas

        You see, the idea proposed by that MP is so simplistic

        It supposed to go this way --- See no evil, hear no evil, read no evil, think no evil, and you suppose to do no evil

        Will it work?

        For simple minded folks, perhaps it would

        But ... and this is important, the world we live in is filled with people with all kinds of not-that-simple minds

        Even without reading, hearing, seeing any of the "evil" we still can think not-so-nice thoughts

        Almost most of us stop at the thinking stage, but

        • The slope is long and slippery, and leads down a long way. We'd never agree to a great leap downwards, but every incremental movement downwards is easier than a nudge in the opposite direction.
          In other words, this MP is severely 'tarded. Alas, so are many regular folks.
      • by metacell (523607) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @01:53AM (#41320699)

        Like how the Party tried to introduce Newspeak, key of which was not so much a "simplification" of the language but the absence of certain words (like "democracy") so people would have no way to think about or discuss those concepts.

        What do you mean? Newspeak has always existed.

        It sounds like you're overdue for another re-education.

        • by wvmarle (1070040)

          I am still learning the intricacies of Newspeak. But never mind I just hear the chocolate ratios have been increased again so I'll just go watching the news about our latest victory in the war against Oceania. Or was it Eurasia? My memory fails me.

    • Re:Fool of an MP (Score:4, Insightful)

      by KingAlanI (1270538) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @01:41AM (#41320645) Homepage Journal

      I agree that the absolutism of the laws can ensnare non-perverts. The specific point about ubiquity of Google Glasses and accidentally becoming a witness seems too far fetched for now. Punishing consensual acts of the barely underaged is definitely a problem, and kiddie porn law isn't the only example. Using this as a pretext for other bullshit is also definitely a problem.

      http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/11/child-porn-laws-arent-as-bad-as-you-think-theyre-much-much-worse/ [falkvinge.net]
      The biggest point added in his followup is about how ridiculous it is to criminalize fictional and/or nonsexual work.

  • by JoshuaZ (1134087) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @12:39AM (#41320329) Homepage
    This is the logical culmination. We've already had decisions that making a sexual cartoon involving Bart Simpson is child porn http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7770781.stm [bbc.co.uk]. This isn't much farther than that.
  • What a bastion of freedom.
  • It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hawguy (1600213) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @12:41AM (#41320341)

    It's about time someone is passing a law against any written words about any illegal or illicit activity. Let's burn all the crime mysteries since they just foster and encourage people to commit crimes and murders. And those thrillers that glorify spies and espionage are a clear threat to governments anywhere. Any book that describes any immoral activity should be immediately banned as well, if no one reads about adultery they'll never commit adultery.

    From now on, only stories about unicorns and rainbows should be allowed to be published.

    Child abuse is abhorrent and should be severely punished, but is there any evidence that reading any type of extreme (or non-extreme) porn leads one to perform that activity?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      What is child abuse? I tried to look it up, but my search results were all blank...

      (also, child abuse covers more than just sexual abuse)

      • by hawguy (1600213)

        child abuse covers more than just sexual abuse

        Right, that's why I said child abuse is abhorrent, I didn't see any reason to restrict my statement to only "sexual abuse".

    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      Those thrillers and spy stories are at least sold as fiction. And James Bond's actions and adversaries are often so over-the-top that they can not be considered realistic.

      Now how about shows like Future Weapons that glorify actual death and destruction? They like to demonstrate all kinds of modern weaponry showing off how well it destroys objects, and discussing on how efficient it is in killing people.

      • by hawguy (1600213)

        Those thrillers and spy stories are at least sold as fiction. And James Bond's actions and adversaries are often so over-the-top that they can not be considered realistic.

        I'm no connoisseur of written porn (though i do have a healthy (unhealthy?) collection of adult videos), but I assume the porn in question sold as fiction and the subject matter is over-the-top by nearly everyone's standards.

        Now how about shows like Future Weapons that glorify actual death and destruction? They like to demonstrate all kinds of modern weaponry showing off how well it destroys objects, and discussing on how efficient it is in killing people.

        But since they aren't actually killing people on the show, wouldn't that be more like a porno movie showing people having sex with watermelons but saying that the watermelons were stand-ins for children?

    • Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dyinobal (1427207) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @01:07AM (#41320485)
      Stories about unicorns just fuel for beastiality fantasies.
    • That's some doubleplusgood think.

    • by shentino (1139071)

      My guess is that they make it illegal in a vain attempt to stunt the market supposedly served by the actual molesters.

      Reminds me of prohibition making the mafia rich from bootlegging.

      Not to mention that crimes of lust and passion almost never have a profit motive.

    • There is evidence that access to extreme porn fuels fantasies and thus increases the propensity to turn thought into act. There is also evidence that access to extreme porn helps certain people to get their jollies, reducing the urge to actually engage in such extreme sex. In other words, it depends on whom you ask.

      Even it it turns out that access to child porn increases the occurrence of child abuse, there is still the matter of balance. Child abuse needs to be stamped out, but not at all cost. If t
      • If the cost is innocents going to jail (like the teenagers making naked pics of each other) or the introduction of something eerily close to thoughtcrime

        It's not eerily close to thoughtcrime, it IS thoughtcrime.

        Especially because outlawing the possession of child porn has done very little to stop production on one end, and actual child abuse on the other.

        Certainly.

        Most abuse is and always will be perpetrated by mambers of close family.

        Raging against the almost mythical beast of the internet pedo won't d

  • Thought police (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ktappe (747125) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @12:44AM (#41320355)
    I notice he has made exceptions for existing works such as "Lolita" ... of course because to ban that he would be castigated. But he doesn't seem to have an exception for the psychiatrists who possess such descriptions as they are attempting to treat patients.Or researchers who possess such descriptions as they are attempting to write papers about human sexual behavior. Nope; those are all arrest-worthy to this person.....who is likely having such thoughts himself, just as gay bashers are more likely than not to be gay themselves.

    But overall this is nothing more than the thought police coming around again. "Now that we control the pictures, we must control the words!"

    • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @01:03AM (#41320459)

      You find that there are books of child abuse stories. These are not out there for pervy fantasies, they are out there to help other victims. They can read the accounts, understand they are not alone in what happened to them. Likewise writing about it can help people come to terms with it, to remember and cope with the past.

      Are there pervs who get their kicks on it? Probably. But hey, people seem to get their kicks on all kinds of things. I've never got foot fetishists myself but there you go. However it is far more valuable for victims as a means for dealing with and understanding what happened to them. Victims of child abuse can feel like they alone in the world experienced this. Stories of other survivors can help them see that they are not alone.

      • by mrxak (727974)

        That's absolutely right. More than a few survivors of child abuse (of all sorts) find some peace in describing what happened to them through stories, poetry, paintings, you name it. Are they to be made criminals?

    • by mpe (36238)
      I notice he has made exceptions for existing works such as "Lolita" ... of course because to ban that he would be castigated.

      If applied to existing works this would also include the likes of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" and the Harry Potter series. Along with The Bible (most notably in The Torah), probably The Koran and Hansard too.
    • I notice he has made exceptions for existing works such as "Lolita"...

      So I assume Maya Angelou's previous written account of how her uncle molested her would be ok in that case, it's just any new material she writes about that trauma that would get her books burned and her readers prosecuted??

  • by Crypto Gnome (651401) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @12:44AM (#41320361) Homepage Journal
    Pretty soon it will be illegal to "think of the children".

    The year is 1984, and thoughtcrime is death.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by freman (843586)

      Every time I hear someone say "Think of the children" I bite my tongue to prevent myself from saying "like paedophiles do"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13, 2012 @12:45AM (#41320363)

    Read the links before you mod the post. The toxicity that exists around the subject impairs most people from having a serious discussion about the subject, and instead rely on the reaction they've been trained to have. Try to resist this reaction as you read the following two well-written articles:

    http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/ [falkvinge.net]

    http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/11/child-porn-laws-arent-as-bad-as-you-think-theyre-much-much-worse/ [falkvinge.net]

  • "could"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @12:46AM (#41320367)

    "could lead to the physical abuse of children."

    So not only does it want to ban the material entirely because of a few 'bad guys', he also doesn't even know if what he's saying is actually true. Can we ban all books and other media depicting any violence or sexual content whatsoever because they could (but likely wouldn't actually be the cause of it) lead a minuscule portion of the population to commit crimes, too? Actually, can we just ban moronic politicians? They are, without a doubt, ruining just about everything, for everyone.

    • by N1AK (864906)

      Actually, can we just ban moronic politicians?

      Do a pole of his constituents and ask them "Do you think that 'vile' descriptions of child abuse should be banned"? and I'd bet you'd get an overwhelming majority for it. Doing what your constituents want is hardly moronic. No opponent can challenge his position without intrinsically being labelled as defending child abusers

      Sure it's nice to blame politicians but again and again we see evidence that they are on average more 'liberal' than the voters. In the U

      • I knew someone would bring that up. Yes, I feel the voters are moronic in many ways, but even if he's pandering for votes, I also feel the politician himself is moronic for even considering this as a solution. I'm going to have to blame everyone in this case, so I'd agree it's not just the politician at fault.

  • Goodby Lolita (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Required Snark (1702878) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @12:49AM (#41320379)
    Goodby Lolita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita [wikipedia.org]

    Goodby Lord of the Flies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies [wikipedia.org]

    Feel free to say goodby to other great books. Add them to the list.

    It's OK, it for the good of the children...

    • Re:Goodby Lolita (Score:5, Informative)

      by hawguy (1600213) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @12:59AM (#41320441)

      Goodby Lolita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita [wikipedia.org]

      Goodby Lord of the Flies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies [wikipedia.org]

      Feel free to say goodby to other great books. Add them to the list.

      It's OK, it for the good of the children...

      He specifically excluded some existing literature:

      Only "absolutely vile" material would be targeted, he said, adding by way of example that well-known novels such as Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita - which explores a middle-aged man's obsession and sexual involvement with a 12-year old girl - would not be covered.

      Though it's not clear how that law would decide what is "absolutely vile" and what's not, as I'm sure there are some people that think Lolita is absolutely vile, and others that would not find any porn to be vile.

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        Right, so book burning is fine, so long as the book was written after this law passes?
      • by metacell (523607)

        Correct, there are people who find "Lolita" vile. And more importantly, at the time it was published, it was banned in many places. It's only in retrospect it's considered an important part of literary history.

        If we outlawed written depictions of sexual abuse, we could write in exceptions for literary classics, but that would only protect those works who are *already* considered classics. It would prevent new classics from being created.

    • http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3113343&cid=41320355 [slashdot.org] mentions exemptions for things like Lolita.
      There is a difference between actual art and titillating trash, but sometimes it's not obvious where to draw the line

      • Those with an axe to grind will always find an excuse to ban books to promote their cause. Pretending that some things are excluded because they are "literature" is no barrier.

        Banning Adventures of Huckleberry Finn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huckelberry_finn#Controversy [wikipedia.org]

        Banning The Diary of Anne Frank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diary_of_Anne_Frank#Banning [wikipedia.org]

        As for the difference between literature and pornography, look no further then Naked Lunch by W. S. Burroughs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_Lun [wikipedia.org]

        • I haven't read Huck Finn, at least not in a while, but I am aware that the controversy is about how Twain handles racial issues, not something sexual.

          I did read Anne Frank, and I do remember a bit on lesbian sexual thoughts amidst the hiding from Nazis stuff. A classic example of why girls keep their diaries secret.

          I definitely haven't read Naked Lunch

          Not sure if it's about people being oversensitive, or using 'obscenity' as a pretext for something else - either way, the banning isn't helping.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13, 2012 @12:54AM (#41320407)
    I was molested as a child (by a relative, but not my parents), and it seriously messed me up. When I was a teen, I sought help though online support groups, and really healed a lot though talking about it. I'm still not really normal, but it could have been a lot worse. Should I be prosecuted for posting my story (including some details) online in the forum where I received so much help?
    This is utterly absurd.
    • by slim (1652)

      Would your story "reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal".

      No. So this guy doesn't want to ban your forum posting.

      But it does raise questions. Clearly a description of your ordeal could be written in different ways; it could be written from the perspective of the abuser. It could project "the child loved it really" thoughts into the victim. It could revel in the sadism. It could revel in projected masochism. Of course your version wouldn't do any o

    • by argStyopa (232550)

      Since you're here & now produced a "written account of child abuse", I'm afraid that you are now going to be arrested.

      Sorry about that.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13, 2012 @12:58AM (#41320435)

    UK already has secret witnesses, that can give testimony/lies unchallenged to the court without the defendant being able to hear or challenge them. If this gets its way another part of the prosecution of people will be kept secret and we won't be able to check on how the courts are performing. If people can't see the inner workings of the courts then how can they check the court is working???

    So in court lies will be spouted about what happened, and they can do it knowing that people who know the truth that would reveal the perjury will never be able to see the account, and thus the perjury will go unpunished.

    It will expose everyone to a bogus child abuse claim.

    Look at the Cleveland Child abuse scandal, where some nutter from social services started doing anal dilatation tests on kids and got it into her head all these kids were being abused up the bum, because she'd just been on a course and pumped full of BS.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_child_abuse_scandal

    They (Dr Marietta Higgs and Dr Geoffrey Wyatt) destroyed many families, and ruined the lives of many children, and yet if the evidence was secret, she would never have been revealed as a quack.

    They got convictions against many parents (most subsequently overturned), foster parents the children were sent to were prosecuted, neighbours, you name it, they brought a child abuse case them.

    • by hawguy (1600213)

      Look at the Cleveland Child abuse scandal, where some nutter from social services started doing anal dilatation tests on kids and got it into her head all these kids were being abused up the bum, because she'd just been on a course and pumped full of BS.

      Wow. I'd never heard of that before.

      How could a medical doctor seriously think that sexual abuse is the primary cause of anal dilation? There's another much more obvious and likely cause, and children are not immune to constipation. How many cases of children who really *were* victims of sexual abuse were not investigated because they didn't fail the anal dilation test? The test itself sounds traumatic to a child, and if it was done unnecessarily it probably counts as sexual abuse itself.

  • by G3ckoG33k (647276) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @12:59AM (#41320443)

    The step to other 'bad' texts is not far. Soon you can't say that Christians are really, really nice folks whereas the Jews and the Moslems are bad people and destroy the will Earth. Soon yoy can't say that atheists are the only well founded cynics. Soon you can't look for similarities between Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin, Dolly Parton, Patrick Dempsey, George W Bush, Pol Pot, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Johnny Weissmüller. Soon you can't find uncensored books. The step to other 'bad' texts is not far, so stop this reasoning about making it illegal to possess written accounts of child abuse. The small steps are more treacherous than you may think now.

  • Look at all the people copying other types of accounts of wars and slavery and homicidal killing sprees...
    oh wait they aren't...

    I'm not voting FOR the ability to do it... I'm just saying... reducing our rights further, blah, blah, it's not
    even in the US, so yay for fascism. George Orwell.

    -AI

  • by mark-t (151149) <markt@@@lynx...bc...ca> on Thursday September 13, 2012 @01:11AM (#41320511) Journal
    Because there's plenty of horrendous accounts in that text.
    • by Sasayaki (1096761) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @01:39AM (#41320637)

      I wouldn't be worried about the outrage of Christians from the Bible getting caught up in this law (it's certainly possible though). They'll mostly just be angry and not comply with the law (not that anyone would really).

      I'd be more worried about them banning the Koran.

      After all, Mohammad the Prophet had a wife named Aisha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha) who was betrothed to him at 6 or 7 and the union was consummated at age 9. The text even explicitly says that she was still playing with her toys when all this was going on.

      Now, such marriages were not seen as improper in a historical context, but hey. This law is specifically about removing all text, irrespective of context, since it might "give people ideas". Never mind that books like The Lonely Bones don't glorify child rape at all (the movie was much, much more sanitized than the book). It could give people ideas!

      So sure. Go ahead and tell people you're banning the Koran because it encourages paedophiles. That seems like a safe thing to do.

    • More along the lines that it's a calculated maneuver to pre-emptively eliminate the testimony of various people who were negatively affected by the 'disciplinarian' lifestyles of their caregivers, many of whom rely on various religious texts for the justification of their actions.

      Somewhere in the confusion of writing diary or journal entries, typically as per a counselor or psychologist's advice, describing their horrible mistreatments, someone will be arrested and successfully prosecuted for their own atte

  • by CODiNE (27417) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @01:11AM (#41320513) Homepage

    This article [gawker.com] was up the other day, it has a shocking description of how abuse happens and the thought process of the abuser. Was that necessary to the overall article? It certainly caused a bit of controversy. Overall however the article presents pedophiles not as a pure embodiment of evil but as sick people who need help and counseling. That is, distinguishing pedophiles from child molesters who have acted on that impulse. It seems that allowing people who have such a bent to get help and counseling without completely destroying their lives would be better to society overall than being out for their blood or driving them to suicide from despair. Strangely the description in the article while sickening did add a human angle to the problem and helped me personally to not jump to condemn someone who might be sexually stuck as a 12 year old in an adult's body. Just... get... help.

    • by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Thursday September 13, 2012 @02:07AM (#41320779) Homepage Journal

      the way i see pedophilia: it's sort of like being a homosexual, it's an innate biological desire

      biologically, if you are born a pedophile, it's like being born with cancer. through no fault of your own, your genetics has created a mind that finds the wrong thing to focus on sexually. it's a biological error. it's "wrong", it's an "error" BIOLOGICALLY, because attraction to the same sex or prepubescent children results in no offspring

      however, homosexuality is not MORALLY wrong, because it is between consenting adults. therefore, homosexuality should be 100% legal

      meanwhile, pedophilia means you are attracted to someone whereby any actions you take on your attraction results in inevitable psychological harm, because a prepubescent child can never informed consent to sex. and you have permanently warped their self-image, confidence, and how they think about transgressive, inappropriate, unwanted behavior at a very impressionable age. you've done real substantial damage to another human being. simply by acting on your erroneous but innate and irremovable desires as a pedophile

      what a horrible hell

      the worst part is, if i am correct about pedophilia being like homosexuality, we must admit then that it can never be cured. you can't cure homosexuality (nor should you try)

      but then if pedophilia is an innate biological attraction, it means you are dealing with a human being who is doomed. i mean really, really doomed. to a lifetime of suffering. they must continually suppress their natural desires. what does this do to their happiness? or, act on their desires, and be a horrible transgressive criminal. that's their choice

      what a horrible curse. cancer sounds better

      willpower is not infinite. no matter how moral the person. therefore everyone who is a pedophile is a potential time bomb. you simply cannot trust them on their own in society

      perhaps this explains why so many pedophiles are attracted to the priesthood. as a moral person, who is aware they carry around a permanent desire that means they are in constant danger of acting immorally in a moment of weakness, their reaction is to embrace moral fortitude as hard as they can. and yet so many still fall, and still transgress against children, simply because you are dealing with a strong innate desire and the human mind is not a steel cage, we all have moments of weakness

      someday, they will be alone with a child, through accident or chance, no matter how hard they try not to be, and if that day overlaps with a moment of weakness, that we all have, then you have doomed an innocent child to suffer a transgression which will screw them up psychologically. imagine carrying around this curse!

      we are left with a horrible conclusion: the only way to "treat" pedophiles, in my mind, is permanent banishment from society

      it is an awful thought

      but i honestly cannot think of a superior arrangement if pedophilia is like homosexuality and is therefore innate. such people, once identified, simply cannot be allowed to roam freely in society where there is also children, because we have as our duty as moral people to understand the danger they present to children, and themselves

      permanent banishment. can anyone think of a better way? castration has been shown to not work. but my mind finds it an inescapable conclusion about the nature of the pedophilia, if i understand it correctly

      depressing

  • It should be illegal to think about other people harming children. That way, it would be illegal to pass laws like this. And, from their arguments for such silly laws, if you don't think about it, it doesn't happen.
  • I do not think you have thought it all the way through.

    When victims of child abuse go to the courts, the stenographer will do...what exactly? Write down everything that is said. Right?

    On the plus side the jail is right there. After court is over you can take the stenographer right over to the holding cell.

  • Genital Mutilation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13, 2012 @01:23AM (#41320581)

    Meanwhile, physical and sexual abuse of children in the form of male genital mutilation continues to be ignored.

  • by Greyfox (87712) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @01:57AM (#41320721) Homepage Journal
    If you don't hear about it, it must not exist? You may be unwilling to look upon the darkest evil and depravity that our species has to offer, but I assure you that hiding your eyes will not make it go away. Sure, it's an easy solution to make you feel better, but perhaps you should expend a little more mental effort and try to come up with a better solution.
  • by dadioflex (854298) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @02:11AM (#41320803)
    ... didn't "Let the Right One In" when they cast their votes. See what I did there?
  • Great, so actual testimony of child abuse from people who were abused as children will become much more difficult to acquire -> this is what this law will functionally become once implemented. Very nice to bring this up while most of the continent is embroiled in sex scandals involving younger children -> it's a backdoor attempt to outlaw such testimony.

  • by neoshroom (324937) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @02:52AM (#41320963)
    I for one approve this MP's attempt to ban Charles Dickens novels [wikipedia.org].

    __
  • by erroneus (253617) on Thursday September 13, 2012 @05:17AM (#41321429) Homepage

    Long, long ago, I was married to a woman who ridiculously accused me a cheating on her at every turn. At first I thought "cute jealousy" but it persisted. Then it became unreasonable and unrealistic... then disturbing. Turned out that she was a cheater. She was the one cheating and she simply projected her tendencies upon me. And that's when it occured to me how many people see things. Most people tend to see others as they see themselves.

    Ben Folds did a song "Trusted" that goes like "It seems to me if you can't trust You can't be trusted" which neatly puts into words how I have come to understand certain bits of individual human behavior. A person who is suspicious of others is a person who is likely to take advantage of others... and on and on and on.

    What I'm getting at is all these weird child porn related laws where stories and accounts and other things generated from the minds of people are to be banned, limited, prohibited and criminalized must surely arise from the minds of pedophiles. I realize it seems naive to see things as I do -- that pedophiles need help, and all that, but we are criminalizing thought here. And the legislation is surely coming from the minds of people who would think to think of these things because frankly, it never would have occurred to me that such things would become "erotic material" for someone else.

    Surely these legislators are or are connected with pedophiles themselves.

Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the time alloted it.

Working...