MP Seeking To Outlaw Written Accounts of Child Abuse 454
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."
Does this surprise anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Thought police (Score:4, Insightful)
But overall this is nothing more than the thought police coming around again. "Now that we control the pictures, we must control the words!"
"could"? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Goodby Lolita (Score:3, Insightful)
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:It's about time (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
My first hand experience (Score:5, Insightful)
This is utterly absurd.
Re:Fool of an MP (Score:5, Insightful)
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:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Planning on banning the bible too? (Score:4, Insightful)
Genital Mutilation (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile, physical and sexual abuse of children in the form of male genital mutilation continues to be ignored.
Re:Fool of an MP (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Planning on banning the bible too? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fool of an MP (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fool of an MP (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fool of an MP (Score:1, Insightful)
"Let's bury it, then it doesn't exist anymore"
That's already how society deals with actual child abuse (aside from the occasional meaningless symbolic outrage), so why not do the same with evidence of child abuse?
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure nobody abuses children because they think they can be famous online or they think they'll make a buck (especially the latter... I have never heard of anyone actually getting rich off of child pornographyâ"you'd think they'd make a big deal when they caught the person). They abuse children because they fucking like it. I'm pretty sure, if there was no means in existence to record, in any medium, the abuse of children, they'd still be abusing children. Again, they like doing it, and it provides for them pleasures above and beyond any possible motives for producing or releasing visual, audio, or written accounts of it.
We already have laws against child abuse, in all its many abhorrent forms. We even outlaw consensual acts that don't fit into the moral codes of behavior of those making the laws. Statutory rape is the obvious example, but there are laws against many other things that are less talked about, and even things that are more broadly accepted like anal or oral sex, prostitution, adultery, certain fetishes, and so on. Then there's unwise behaviors but nonetheless entirely consensual ones such as nude self-photography that is illegal if somebody is underage, even if they are legally able to engage in sexual acts with whomever they choose. Now some of these are still on the books from a more conservative time and rather difficult to enforce, but others are newer, or more widely supported to this day, and these crimes are gone after with a lot of zeal.
Okay... point is, we have laws already that cover the acts depicted in child pornography, whether it is pictures, drawings, video, or written accounts. Are those laws not effective? Then make them stronger. But we've pretty much done the opposite. Possession of child pornography, in many cases, carries more severe penalties than actually raping a child! Which do we think causes more actual harm, the assault, or the images or descriptions of the assault the child may not even know are out there?
Then there's the fact that these images or depictions are evidence of a crime. Possession of evidence of a crime shouldn't be criminalized, because it makes convicting the perpetrator harder. As horrifying as child abuse is, let's think this through. Is it easier or harder to convict a child abuser if they record the abuse that they've done? Is it harder or easier to determine a crime has occurred, and find out who did it, if the record is distributed?
I have no interest in watching people get murdered, but if somebody gets murdered, I'd rather there be a record of it. Society apparently agrees, or at least is more tolerant, because I can, if I choose, find all the video, pictures, or written accounts of people being murdered as I like, and it's all legal to possess or view. I have no interest in watching children get abused, but if a child is being abused, I'd much rather it was documented, and distributed widely, so that the person who did it is more easily found and convicted. Society disagrees, which is pretty screwed up. I don't know why this is controversial, but apparently if you say that murder is worse than child abuse, people get upset and say you sympathize with child abusers. I say they're both pretty bad, but I say if the criminal is stupid enough to record him or herself doing a crime, we should absolutely encourage them gathering and distributing evidence against themselves. Since child abuse so often happens behind closed doors in the privacy of people's homes with very little physical evidence after the fact, a lot of crimes that happen we might never know about if such evidence wasn't being self-collected by perpetrators or witnesses.
And, last but not least, I don't buy into the "it encourages criminal acts" argument. Please. I have killed more people in video games, or written about violent acts as a fiction writer, than I'll ever meet in real life, and I've yet to kill a single actual person in all my years. I've read news stories about real violent acts, and I've never even been in a fist fight. I've certa
half right, in my mind (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:Fool of an MP (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention how easy it is to use kiddie porn hacks to sabotage someone else's reputation.
You automatically call it 'Abuse' (Score:2, Insightful)
Bart Simpson being choked is *not* abuse, but if you draw him having sex that *is*??? Not only that it's consensual sex in the cartoon, yet whether it was 'abuse' never could be questioned, because the language is defined now that underage sex is abuse (Bart has been '10' for 22 years now, although he's actually voiced by an adult woman).
The thinking is all broken there.
Prosecutors with dodgy cases would add a child abuse allegation simply to be able to suppress the evidence from public scrutiny. Just as now they make terrorism claims to make use of the 'state-secrets' doctrine in the US. If you create a path for abuse of the legal system, it will be abused.
The situation now with divorce cases is that the wife will throw in an unsubstantiated claim of abuse in order to gain sole custody. The risk for them is that false claim is open to inspection outside. What if they can shut down the details of the divorce case simply by adding in a claim of abuse?
He should be ashamed.
Re:It's about time (Score:4, Insightful)
Stories about unicorns just fuel for beastiality fantasies.
Agreed. It's time for a new law (or constitutional amendment): scientific evidence should take precedence over witchhunting paranoia when drafting new laws.
Re:Fool of an MP (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it wasn't difficult - which is why you should stop being pathetically lazy and do it yourself next time.
Re:Fool of an MP (Score:3, Insightful)
Banging 16 year olds is simply both illegal and unfavorable in today's society
It's legal at 16 in the UK, and "unfavorable" is very subjective indeed.
It's an extremely complex moral area, and the law has to cut through the crap by applying somewhat arbitrary limits. Obviously it's a nonsense that sexual intercourse with someone aged 15 years and 364 days is wrong, but doing it the very next day is fine. But it's also nonsense that driving with 799mg/L of alcohol in your blood is fine, while driving with 800mg/L is wrong. But the only manageable way to codify this stuff into law is to draw a line at some arbitrary point somewhere near where the public consensus is.
Re:Don't ever let the fundies know about it !! (Score:5, Insightful)
> Care to explain how someone can "find" God?
The problem is you are looking outward instead of inward.
There are as many paths to find God as there are religions, that is, infinite ways.
Here is but one path: When you have a hobby where you are so caught up in the pure enjoyment that time seems to stops, you are *starting* your journey.
There is no *single* right answer, because everyone has the ability to experience god in their own unique way.
Right. This answers perfectly my question. God is a feeling or a state of mind, nothing else. Most certainly not a superior being all powerful and forgiving.
Thanks for the clarification.