MP Seeking To Outlaw Written Accounts of Child Abuse

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."

Fool of an MP

[J'raxis]

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.

Cleveland Child abuse scandal

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Goodby Lolita

[hawguy]

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.

Re:Fool of an MP

[mark-t]

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:The slope

[serviscope_minor]

The slope is long and slippery

The slippery slope argument is usually a bad one.

Not in this case. There is evidence that the slope is not only slippery, but steep, with a tail wind and a hoard of Daily Mail readers standing at the top willing to give a good shove to any hapless fool who they can get their hands on.

Some examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore [wikipedia.org] aka "Sorry we ruined your life and made you die, but it turns out that your stolen creit card was used by pedos. kthxbye"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/12/nick-cohen-simon-walsh-cps-pornography-prosecution [guardian.co.uk] aka "Let's haul some poor bastard over the coals and wreck his life to test a badly written new law"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000 [wikipedia.org] aka "You have no right to silence. But only if you're a terrorist. NOT hahaha! Also if we think you might be a pedo. Good luck proving you can't remember something"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroners_and_Justice_Act_2009 [wikipedia.org] aka "It's illegal if people think that it looks illegal even if it is provably legal otherwise. Good luck with that you filthy pedo lol"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6918001/Man-cleared-of-porn-charge-after-tiger-sex-image-found-to-be-joke.html [telegraph.co.uk] aka "Friend sends you a legal joke video SO WE'LL RUIN YOUR LIFE!!!"

etc.

It is entirely clear that this slope is slippery and lunatics like Beresford take a perverted glee in adding libricant.

If a law can be used for ill, sooner or later it will be eve nif the MPs claim it won't.

If a law is broad, the only reason *you* haven't been prosecuted is blind luck, not because you haven't done anything wrong.

A funny thing to do would be to send some random data to this MP, and tell the police (anonymously) that you sent him encrypted kiddie porn for money. Make sure you snail mail a few copies on USB sticks as well, and include some legal but dubious stuff in the clear, too. Then the stupid bastard ought to have to prove his innocence under his own law.

That would never happen, but I can't think of anyone more deserving for it to happen to.