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."
Fool of an MP (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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:Fool of an MP (Score:4, Informative)
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: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:5, Funny)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
Before making a claim to anything happening "regardless of it's [sic] truth", you may want to post something true (or at least not batshit insane) and compare for reference.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, let's see.
eugenics/abortion-related (Planned Parenthood/Margaret Sanger) and their collective-good-over-individual-good views on how healthcare and other resources and services should be allocated. ("spread the wealth", "collective salvation", "collective gov-run healthcare" etc etc)
I don't really follow your logic. Supporting rights to reproductive control (including, but by no means limited to, abortion) as Planned Parenthood does is not "love for all things eugenics/abortion-related". Margeret Sanger, for example, had some slightly disturbing views on eugenics, but was soundly against the Nazi method of doing it, as are pretty much all "Liberals" and "Progressives" I know of. Her views on immigration (tied to her eugenics views) were pretty soundly on the side of modern US "Conserva
Re: (Score:3)
I have an IRL friend who recently found God after being raised as an athiest.
Care to explain how someone can "find" God? For the elephants, I can bring you to a zoo and show you one. You'll be able to touch it, smell it, see it. How is it so with God?
If anything, God is a concept, nothing more.
As for "Saint Thomas" having existed, what does it have to do with anything? John Malkovitch does exists, it doesn't mean everything in the movie "Being John Malkovitch" is true. Stop confusing the issues.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, if you have "experienced" God, then you probably have some sort of personality disorder, or you simply believe in belief [lesswrong.com]. If you really believed in the Christian God, you would be doing all manner of totally insane things that would quickly get you removed from society, probably not long after you had stoned someone to
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you ever read 1984?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously not, but it was chosen as an example of something else appalling which we don't outlaw, and which likely nobody would even try.
But what about talking about consensual activities with a 17 year old or someone just slightly under the age of consent? What about a teenager who write some fantasy erotica about a girl in his class? We've already had teenagers declared as sex offenders for receiving naughty cell phone pics of t
Re: (Score:3)
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.
With simple mind ... (Score:2)
... 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 (Score:3)
In other words, this MP is severely 'tarded. Alas, so are many regular folks.
Re:The slope (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Fool of an MP (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
This is the slippery slope. Think this MP would have ever been able to seriously propose this law if, first actual child pornography hadn't already been outlawed decades ago, followed by virtual/cartoon CP more recently?
It is the slow steady creep of laws passed to stop actual, physical crimes turning into laws to restrict thought.
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: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.
Re: (Score:3)
> It seems clear from observation of other, closely related species (like mammals in general), that it is not a natural state of affairs when adults have sex with immature young
Sexual behavior between adults and immature young is extremely common in Bonobo societies. They are probably our closest relatives.
If you're going to use animals to measure "natural" behavior then you must at least limit it to those animals who, like humans, have sex for pleasure and not just procreation.
That is chimps, bonobos, d
Re: (Score:3)
In human society we DO have a concept of rights and THAT is what our response must be built upon. If you intrude on the rights of others then you are going too far.
A very young child clearly has not got the knowledge or maturity to make an informed consentual decision about sexual behavior with an adult who does, THAT's why they cannot GIVE consent and why we punish adults who take advantage of this.
Careful, that's a dangerous position. A very young child clearly has not the knowledge or maturity to make moral decisions, and therefor teaching a child your morals and ethics should be a punishable offense. A very young child clearly cannot make informed consensual decision about beliefs, therefor we should outlaw the teaching of religion to children. A very young child clearly hasn't the ability to discern truth from myth, therefor we should teach truth in schools by informing all children that Santa
Re: (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
Does this surprise anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, they should have done a logo like the OGC [telegraph.co.uk], which encourages good, healthy wanking instead of disgusting, sinful pedophilia.
Wow (Score:2)
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?
Re: (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)
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Future Weapons just fuels the fantasies although some of it is actually pretty interesting from a mechanical level.
True, which is why I watched it. The military is doing a lot of research and development, new materials and technologies, that often trickle down to more wholesome uses.
Oftentimes, though, the show felt more like an advertisement vehicle for new shit.
Which is why I stopped watching it :-)
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
That's some doubleplusgood think.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
I think child pornography, depicting actual abuse, is illegal because it was created for the sole purpose of creating the video
What? Are you stupid?
Child porn is illegal because its production requires the molestation of a child. It is (essentially) prima facie proof of a severe crime.
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what the story is with Twilight, but in most countries people aged eighteen or nineteen are allowed to have sex legally. The relative age of their partner is immaterial.
Re: (Score:2)
In some states it is not rape, if the parents consent to it. May be the teenager is from one of states, and her parent gave the vampire their consent?
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Funny)
May be the teenager is from one of states, and her parent gave the vampire their consent?
No, no - you have to give permission for a vampire to enter your house, not your daughter.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and possessing prima facie proof of a severe crime is perfectly legal in any other case (e.g. rape, or, say, aggravated murder).
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
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!"
Or for victims of child abuse (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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??
it all depends on how you look at it (Score:5, Funny)
The year is 1984, and thoughtcrime is death.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Every time I hear someone say "Think of the children" I bite my tongue to prevent myself from saying "like paedophiles do"
Why child porn possession laws are bad (Score:3, Interesting)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3113343&cid=41320319 [slashdot.org]
already posted, and I replied to that comment.
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, wait...
Conservative MPs have a long record of perverted activities! - Perhaps we need to ban conservative MPs!
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:Goodby Lolita (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
OK, so by your standard, if someone were to write child pornography based only upon masturbating while watching children play, would that be an "explicit description of child abuse"? The child's not being touched, just watched. By this law, it could very well be considered illegal. I'm not saying it shouldn't be considered illegal, just that this law is bad.
See, this gets very tricky, friend. You've thought this thing through but it's ve
Re: (Score:3)
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.
exemption (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with obvious cases like Lolita, there's too much in the middle of the continuum.
The difference is whatever an individual makes of it. As far as I know, we have no objective way of drawing the line because it's entirely subjective.
didn't think of it that way, just thought it was hard to define.
and some stuff can be artistic and titillating. (By the way, I feel written material is often better at that than video material)
Re: (Score:3)
Romeo and Juliette was a 3-day fling between a 17* year old boy and a 13 year old girl, that caused the deaths of 6 people.
It would most certainly make the MPs cut for "absolutely vile"
*Romeo's age is never explicitly stated, but contextual clues put him in his late teens, possibly even early 20s.
My first hand experience (Score:5, Insightful)
This is utterly absurd.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
I can see how "reasonably assumed" could go wrong with this proposed law (and to be clear: I'm opposed to censorship in principle).
However in the specific scenario described, no jury would convict, and it would be very unlikely to go to court: A harrowing account from the victim's perspective, on a forum for fellow victims.
I'm much more worried about art. Brett Easton Ellis's American Psycho contains passages which in isolation are indistinguishable from porn, and morph into gruelling violence -- and in con
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Cleveland Child abuse scandal (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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.
The step to other 'bad' texts is not far (Score:3)
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.
Just to prove how correct he is... (Score:2)
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
Planning on banning the bible too? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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
"Illegal" article on gawker (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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
They need to make themselves illegal (Score:2)
Your cunning plan... (Score:2)
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)
Meanwhile, physical and sexual abuse of children in the form of male genital mutilation continues to be ignored.
Because (Score:3)
I guess his constituents... (Score:3)
What? (Score:2)
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.
It's about time. (Score:3)
__
I never would have considered that... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
What about courts, jury's, attorneys? (Score:2)
What about courts, jury's, attorneys, ECT?
Re: (Score:2)
Spy trials and supergrass (high-profile mass trials based on informers) can be sealed in interesting legal ways.
ie the material presented does not end up in the legal library.
From a legal library it can be requested from within the prison system. People doing life can read each others cases....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How can something be fought if it is illegal to describe it? How do you get people onside, if you can't describe what they are supposed to be opposing. Saying "Trust me" doesn't really cut it.
It's quaint that you think government cares about getting people "onside" (onboard?).
Apparently you never got the memo.
They dictate, the serfs obey.
"Comprehension (or approval) is not a requisite of cooperation."
It's like how the laws on the barn wall from the book "Animal Farm" slowly morphed.
I wish governments on both sides of the pond would stop viewing books like Animal Farm, 1984, Atlas Shrugged, Brave New World, etc etc as instruction manuals. It would save us the trouble of having to hang the bastard
Be careful (Score:3)
No, the difference is more subtle. Right-wingers tend, inter pares, to have less intellectual curiosity and are less likely to challenge the status quo. But then, that is more or less a definition of "right wing".