First they came for the child pornographers... It may not have quite the same resonance as Pastor Niemuller’s oft-quoted aphorism. But the reality behind this particular slippery slope is just as sinister. The British government today announced proposals to make possession of drawings and computer-generated images of child abuse …
Light at the end of the tunnel
I'm neither a cartoon/comic fan or old enough to have seen any change myself, but I have heard the general consensus among those who are. The view expressed is that the various limitations placed on comics in the UK took the edge away from them as they were forced to become less controversial or were relegated to minority interest stores.
Obviously this might not be true, or the correlation may be coincidental. How ever if one believes as I do that this law will not just criminalise material that I have no interest in (but believe should be available for those who wish it) but also be one step on the path to yet broader controls, then I would not take the 1955 act and its lack of use as too good an omen.
Thanks for a well researched and written article.
I'm off to draw a stick figure eight year old getting it on with a donkey in a paddling pool full of thousand island dressing.
The kid's going to be smoking lethal skunk too.
Kill Bill Vol 1
...will have to go, due to the cartoon scenes of the character O-Ren Ishii as a child prostitute. Blockbuster and other should probably hold public burnings of the DVDs - although I guess that would contravene Health & Safety legislation. Perhaps they should ban anything by Quentin Tarantino, just in to be safe.
This government will probably go down in history as the one which introduced the most ill-conceived legislation.
Bible? Torah? Koran? etc
I'm sure that there are instances of under 18s being sexually active in these (seeing as they share a core content, should be easy enough to track down).
So we can ban them, and all religion based on them, because the followers are clearly all Paedos if they read that sort of filth and claim to live their lives by it. Evidence? Roman Catholic Church, instances of child abuse. Think Of The Children!!!!
(Hey, theo-politicians, you started it...)
This country is getting more restrictive and oppressive every day. The Labour government is intent on total control, "for our own good", "because they know best".
These laws will not remove kiddie pr0n, whether actual or cartoon, written or pictorial, from circulation. All it will do is move the supply of these things further into the hands of organised crime. Throughout history we have multiple examples of oppressions and "for the greater good" laws fueling crime as the populate in general still wanted the produce. Perhaps the best known of these is the USA's prohibition laws. Look how well they were obeyed, and how much crime they generated.
How stupid can a politician be to make a photograph of a legal act or a consensual act between adults, illegal? I know that the blithering idiots don't have any real work to do as the actual work of running this country is now done in Brussels (and that is their fault too) but the country would rather they sat on their backsides doing nothing (or their secretaries) rather than make up stupid and unenforceable laws the the country neither wants or needs. It is now time to make candidates for office take common sense exams. Those without any common sense i.e. the current bunch in parliament, should just be shot as an example to anyone else who wants to 'lead' the country.
These laws could only have been made in a country in which the "people" have no rights at all. It is no wonder that the Labour party wouldn't look at a UK constitution, that would have limited their powers and Labour know no limit to their power.
@Kill Bill Vol 1
I'm sure it will be fine unless someone cuts out the bit with the cartoon to fap too.
I for one support our new book burning overlords!
No... no I can't say that with even feux sensirity.
How long until they ban extreme porn manga?
Then how long until they just ban porn all together?
Dawn raids on the National Gallery
all those nymphs and cherubs are clearly an incitement
I'm going to cement some sort of reputation as a nerdly type here but let me point thos out: Manga is the japanese name for comics and graphic novels (and is also the name of a company that imports japanese "animé" for some stupid reason). The equivalent of saying you want to ban "manga" would be like saying the police want to have all illustrated books banned because a few of them contain these images. Or saying they want to ban all film and television because some times you can find videos of people doing nasty things to their kids.
There's no denying that the Japanese have quite a reputation for less than savoury comics (and animation) but that's not an excuse to ban *everything* from there. It's like saying Hollywood movies contain sex, so lets ban everything from the United States! And the French, well they're just weird, so lets ban everything French! And the Italians? They've got naked kids painted on the ceiling of their most famous church! PERVERTS!
And that's another thing, I can think of a number of paintings that would be banned by this, with images of the cistine chapel just being the most famous example. A few of them are pretty fruity and feature what would be considered "children" by the standards of some of these bad laws. Sorry, Monet, Raphael and all you other 'artists', you're under arrest.
Does anyone believe this law won't be so overbroad and ridiculously vague as to do all of these things? I bet you it'll be an enabling act as well. This government are very fond of enabling acts, with their lovely statutory instruments that let them arbitrarily expand the provisions of the act without facing parliamentary scrutiny.
As I think I've said before, laws like this are the actions of a government in denial about how much power it actually has. They're desperate to be seen to "do something" that they'll do anything. And, of course, it's "for the children", which means there's nothing to argue against without being twisted into a monster.
I hate that argument.
now those few of you that may actually know are asking "But Graham, you're a christian, shouldn't you be all for banning everything sinful?" No. You don't ban, you don't use the power of the secular state to enforce religious ideas because that power can be turned right back on you. Another religion can come along and use the same mechanisms to subdue you, outlaw things you never intended to be outlawed using the very same laws you originally promoted to enforce your idea of what's moral. The answer is never over-broad and potentially unenforceable law - along with the implicit threat of force contained in any law - but talk. I try and convince you you're doing the wrong thing, you tell me to toss off. That's how a civil society works.
I was going to post this as anon but, frankly, I think it's time people stopped hiding. Like I said, "for the children" mean any argument can dismissed with "you're just a pervert pretending to be about liberty or something", standing up can mean ruining your reputation no matter how logical your argument and no matter what your own moral stance on the issue. I'm a christian. My stance on many things is probably quite easy to glean from that, but I prefer to believe that people can be reasoned around to my way of thinking without the use of great big legal sledgehammers.
Bring on the black helicopters!
I have argued before in forums, that this banning of owning images is wrong. Likened to burning 'unapproved books'. Too much control by authorities over individuals, something more associated with totalitarian regimes. But it is difficult as one gets unjustly accused of supporting paedophiles, and made to feel awkward for pointing out the uncomfortable obvious. So one figures if the problem isn't self evident, and my few words doesn't clarify it, best to leave those who preach retribution on anyone who has something they disapprove of, to get on with it.
Owning images are not abuse, even if having a desire to possess them should ring 'warning bells'. The law should be clamping down on abusers, rather than wasting their time elsewhere. If this new fuss about drawings brings home the slippery slope problem, then maybe that's not such a bad thing. Sooner or later the majority must realise they are heading down the wrong route, surely.
It's like these people have never seen the internet.
Paris, coes she looks underage to me (well at least mentally)
It is one thing to ban material depicting actual abuse...
...but to censor fictonal material is to censor the imagination and to censor freedom of thought, no matter how distasteful one finds the subject being depicted.
So, the government is making my 17 year old step-daughter a criminal if she takes a photo of her and her 19 year old boyfriend getting it on! Have these f*ckwits nothing better to do?
They never like to mention that in the UK the vast majority of child abuse is comitted by parents or relatives. It's an uncomfotable truth, so it's much easier to make headline grabbing laws in order to appear to be doing something.
you can't argue back because "it's all for the sake of the children"
"These new proposals will help close a loophole that we believe paedophiles are using to create images of child sexual abuse."
Isn't that like trying to charge someone for murder because they wrote a fictional story about a murder? Why do people even need a loophole to do stuff that isn't harming anybody ?
"This is not about criminalising art or pornographic cartoons more generally,"
Yes it is.
You can add Lolita by Nabokov, most social studies on Medieval Japan, Europe, Asia pertaining to mariage and/or sexual habits up to 1930 (people were married quite younger then, in their 15s and 16s, and for medieval anything you were married around 12-13 y.o.)
You can also outlaw quite a lot of countries were you can marry @ 16 y.o...(don't forget, both the civil code and the wedding pictures will have to be prohibited)
BTW, my grandfater was married @17 y.o, and my Grandmother was 16y.o. at the time. I absolutly must destroy those wedding pictures, I wouldn't want my grandparents to get arrested because they were both pedophiles at the time...And I really hope they didn't take pictures of their honeymoon, it would be an aggravating thingy, circumstance.
Just for fun, I remember a story about a 19 year old that had a 17 year old girlfriend in the US (awful, isn't it ? true depravity ! should never happens...)
The mother of the girl disliked him and reported him to the police...
He is now married with the same girl, but has since acquired a rap sheet as sexual offender/child molester, had to "separate" until she got 18, cannot legally be left alone with his own children or pick them up from school, must report himself to the police if he changes his home adress, ad nauseam.
I also remember that story about a girl of 15 that took pictures of herself barebreasted and sent them to her boyfriend. She actually got arrested for diffusion of underage pictures.
/coat, Mine is the one belonging to the penitentiary administration
Ban the kama sutra, nappies, childrens charities, the news.
No age can be perceived on the drawings in there afterall. The man has a tash but the women do not look adult.
Banning manga... What next, banning adverts for nappies because it has naked babies in them. And baby oil, baby food... baby pain killers (can't remember it's name) as they are sometimes seen in bed, or in a pram looking cute.
Hey ban films with maternity ward scenes as they contain kids asleep half naked. Or anything with an incubator shot in it. Like the news or those kids adverts for the NSPCC because they show half naked kids.
....Will the last sensible person (those with common sense, which means no one from parliament) to emigrate this infested isle, please turn off the lights.
Once you ban artificial images of "children" in sexual situations you actually ban quite a few films... Doesn't Crash have a naked Japanese "schoolgirl" in it? No, she's not actually under age or anything, but now it's the depiction that counts.
And of course in a cartoon image how do you say how old a character is anyway?
What if the dialogue indicated that the child like whore was actually a 2 million year old zombie? Plenty old enough then?
Um, does that mean killing the EVIL girl in F.E.A.R and other games would also be illegal?
Mine is the one with the assault rifle sticking out the pocket
The Ministry of Justice are twisting the truth
The Ministry of Justice have made some misleading comments. Firstly, Maria Eagle claims that,
"paedophiles could be circumventing the law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons."
She neglects to mention that it is already illegal to do this or to possess any image derived from an indecent photograph of a child, under Section 69 of the recently enacted Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.
Secondly, Ms Eagle claims that,
“This is not about criminalising art or pornographic cartoons more generally, but about targeting obscene, and often very realistic, images of child sexual abuse which have no place in our society."
Photo-realistic images have been illegal under the Protection of Children Act for thirty years. This law will actually only target the possession of virtual child pornography for which no real child has ever been abused.
Does that mean I'm a paedo?
I've got one or two Bob Crumb cartoon books and some Furry Freak Brothers and Felix the Cat stuff. Looks like I'll get done for being a potential kiddie-fiddler. We won't mention the School Kids edition of Oz and Rupert the Bear.
(might also put up the value of the collection)
Quick, stop thinking...
the mind police are coming!
A Workaround Already
I hate to break this to those wonderful people who know so much, but there's already a fair few work-arounds that let hentai depict child porn:
1. They're 18, but they have a "disease" which stopped them aging at 6
2. They're not humans, but cat girls. So I'm not showing a 5 year old child, it's a 19 year old cat-girl who just 'happens' to look 5.
3. F**k you, I'm allowed to say what I want so I'll damn well draw what I want
I'm all for the crack down on Actual photographs, as they require a real child to be abused and that is just sick and wrong. But once you get into censoring *art* then I agree with el reg, it's one slippery slope which could, most likely, end in a book BBQ.
Also: Does this law apply to websites, because I really quite enjoy 4chan. And what happens when I get linked to a violent porn site by someone upping a rick-roll?
So let me get this right...
If I don't quickly dig through my hotmail inbox and deleted the rude Simpsons cartoon, I'll end up on the sex offenders register?
“These new proposals will help close a loophole that we believe paedophiles are using to create images of child sexual abuse."
It may seem like the right thing to do as child abuse cannot be tolerated but like many other new legislation e.g. the change in pot classification, its based on BELIEF.
Is it too much to ask that things are thought through a bit more.
I dont think i am the only one that sees the similarity with other belief led oppressive regimes.
Well said; frankly, you've covered everything that I would have wanted to say, and probably with greater eloquence than I could have mustered.
Here we go again
I can see sensible reasons to keep under-18s out of the porn business, but using the child-porn age limit is just stupid. When you have a hammer, you treat every screw as a nail.
I'd be willing to bet that a suspected paedophile got raided, the Police saw a bunch of cartoons, and they are all worked up because they couldn't do anything. But just how many bad people is this going to catch? And how many pre-puberty victims are going to be "groomed" by images of schoolgirls with gargantuan breasts?
I really don't want to know what the sex-life of these politicians is like, but it's hard not to conclude that they're the abnormal freaks, not us.
Don't tell them about Elf Sternberg, please.
Good additions. I went for the religion angle because I'm sick of career politicos shouting about their religious beliefs, and using convenient parts of that belief to beat me over the head with their chosen rules and regulations, whilst ignoring the hypocrisy involved.
PS King Solomon, one of the more venerated OT figures ("The Wisdom of Solomon" even having entered common speech for recommending cutting a child in half...), had a wife (Namaah) who gave birth at 15yo. I rest my case.
Thats just wrong...RE: *facepalm*
You are a sick and twisted person.
"a paddling pool full of thousand island dressing"
Do you have any idea how many calorys that contains. Childhood obesity as a major problem in this country. Unlike cartoon porn.
Beyond reasonable doubt
1. A man reads manga.
2. He is incited by the manga to rape kiddies
3. He goes on to rape kiddies
4. He gets convicted
Ergo, banning manga is to prevent crime, tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime as Tony Brown said.
To be convicted, it has to be 'beyond reasonable doubt', but there is no correlation there, even the evidence Jacqui Smith put forward was speculation, the numerical correlation is the reverse, more suppressed societies are more violent. Muslim societies seem to be at an extreme and are also the most restricted. Japan has manga and is less violent.
What they're doing is making a charge for one thing to fix a crime for another. So making it illegal to possess Manga to fix child rape.
But what they're also doing is bypassing 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Do people who read manga rape kiddies 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Well there's no measurable correlation so it's not even up to the test of 'preponderance of evidence', it's not even at the level of ASBO evidence, heresay.
It's some minister making a link and treating her random thoughts as so important and people as so unimportant, that she's fine with locking people up for no reason beyond a random idea she had.
IMHO Jacqui Smith has such a contempt for people, she can see nothing wrong in locking people up to fix a crime, in the face of the evidence before her, and on a legal basis weaker than 'ASBO heresay'.
Vote the fookers out.
“This is not about criminalising art or pornographic cartoons more generally, but about targeting obscene, and often very realistic, images of child sexual abuse which have no place in our society.”
obscene? Perhaps. Realistic? Normally not, unless most of the government have prehensile dicks, the women included.
The whole thing makes me uneasy - Who sets the moral (as opposed to legal) standard, and how far will it go?
Still, we may not need cartoons, as with the newly passed embryo laws, we're only a few lab accidents away from having catgirls running around....
Where for art thou...
"At the consultation for the Extreme Porn law, one Police Force – Kent – argued also for the criminalisation of written material."
Does this mean that one of the most famous plays ever written, would be up for banning? I believe that Romeo was 14 and Juliet 13, as was the norm in Elizabethan times.
As for this bill, it's another example of legislation which criminalises the pass times of a large number of people, whilst doing absolutety nothing to actually stop abuse/exploitation of children, whilst pandering to Middle England/Daily Mail readers who have lost faith with the failed NuLab project.
*scratching of head*....
I've often thought that some manga was perverse, but what worries me is the "establishment's" inability to draught legislation that doesn't fall into the "law of unintended consequences".
For sake of space, lets include literature and graphical representations.
Surely this is banning that book beginning with L by Nabokov?
Would it also ban the Bible?There are multiple references to "begetting" of under-18s.
By extension/association wouldn't it also criminalise the Torah and Koran.
I'm guessing a fair number of "old masters" paintings around the UK would also be banned, as the subjects are often in suggestive poses and clearly in their teens or younger.
The Ruben's cherub paintings - they're not "cartoons", but they are graphical representations which could quite easily be construed as pornographic. I'm guessing there are depictions of Mohammed with his under-18 wives as well...child abuse according to this logic.
AC, cos I mentioned paedo and a religious figure in the same comment.
Funny thing is
I know people and have relatives who cannot see the problem with these laws only the "good" things that the law will do.
I have some Anime and Mange videos home along with some DVDs of movies which I guess I will have to burn.
I think we should all go to Westminster and dump them on the lawn and then torch the movies.
Sort of scary though of how this is so reminescent of the Witch Hunts, and the Inqusition.
Danish Mohammed cartoons
I can't help but think of that incident and draw a comparison.
They probably found it as offensive as our government finds these drawings but yet we rightly stood by the right to free expression (general consensus not sure the governments stance).
When will we ever be free, every week there seems to be some new law brought down from on high and we are told its for our own good and to protect are well being. NO VICTIM NO CRIME.
O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.
Shall I hear more? Or shall I leave because a drawing of Romeo and Juliet is now illegal, and I'll have to wait until she turns 18 before anyone can draw a picture of us in loves sweet embrace?
I'm very anti-child abuse, but you have to draw a line between protecting the innocent, and destroying freedom of speech. Any laws which help protect children from abuse = good, any laws which will have no effect on child abuse but is there because some stuffy old politician wants a +1 to their vote count is an abuse of their powers. Lets all not vote for whichever idiot thought these laws are good ones.
Doesn't viewing Damien Hurst exhibitions make you want to go and kill cows?
"At the consultation for the Extreme Porn law, one Police Force – Kent – argued also for the criminalisation of written material."
Does discussion of Damien Hurst's work make you want to kill cows?
To me it looks like the religious prudish nutters know they're going to lose the next election and be unelectable for decades and they're getting in their insane moral agenda before they leave. Slash and burn mentality, leave office with Britain in the grip of Taliban style fanatical controls.
And the police as the priests, instead of red robes they wear yellow jackets, instead of a mitre, a pointy black hat, instead of the shepherd crook, a truncheon. Enforcing some random extreme morality for some supposed good that can't be quantified in this life.
How else to explain a slew of laws not attached to problems, and policemen powers without judicial controls.
here here, well said
Another Thought Crime from a Failing Government
So, after banning "Extreme Porn" based on the *belief* that it may cause us to do nasty things without any credible evidence to back that up, this lame duck Government is making another desperate bid for positive headlines by saying "Look, we're doing something! We're protecting children! That's good isn't it?"
Except, again, they have no proof other than their "belief" that this will somehow protect children and they're once more pandering to the prejudices of the Tabloid readers who will start to froth at the mouth at any reference to child porn without stopping to engage in any rational thought.
Of course you can guarantee that the Tories will once again do their famous "Fence Sitting" act, they won't actually *approve* of this law, but neither will they actually have the guts to stand up and oppose it.
Probably, again, the only people with the courage to resist this ludicrous legislation will be the Lib Dems and they will be roundly ignored by those who think that it's not worth supporting them because they won't win, except that if people don't support those who oppose laws like this they never *WILL* win.
Write to your MP via http://www.writetothem.com and tell them that you're not falling for the "won't someone think of the children!" argument, this is not protecting children, it is a Control Freak Government desperately rushing through another Thought Crime before they're kicked out of office.
Yup, if your 17 year old step-daughter takes a photo of herself engaged in lawful activity, she is committing a criminal offence. Unless they're actually co-habiting, I believe.
London Olympics Logo.
How about getting the dirty perv who did that one?
Government by morals or morons - which is worse?
Two major reasons for this type of legislation (in my opinion):
1 - The people in government appear to think that the 'moral' stance they publicly take (cynically, for widespread public approval despite policies causing death, suffering and poverty) SHOULD be imposed on the rest of society. They fail to understand the distinction between individual morality, group ethics, and social laws.
So, as an imaginary example, a leader could have a strong 'moral' belief that a war of aggression was 'right', and this would in his eyes mean that any manipulation of a balanced legal system would be justified to achieve his ends.
2 - New Labour (but I suspect also the Tories & LibDems) are pretty useless at actually getting anything done, other than passing laws, so they just keep legislating, regardless of any quantitative evidence for or against their legislation.
Real criminals, which in my view means those who satisfy their own desires regardless of causing real harm to other people, pretty obviously won't pay any attention to the proliferation of badly formed laws. The rest of us are unclear what our legal rights are and so are hesitant about standing up for them. I can't help but wonder if that's part of the reason the legislation is so irrational and/or illogical.
What happens ...
If you try to do a cartoon version of Romeo & Juliet? I seem to recall Juliet is 14 when she gets seduced, married and dies horribly. (Not that, I've ever read or seen the play, Mr Policeman)
Mind you, a lot of that depraved Shakespeare perv comes under the extreme porn category anyway. Ban him, for the children's sake!
Access, comfort, and trust.
"They never like to mention that in the UK the vast majority of child abuse is comitted by parents or relatives. It's an uncomfotable truth, so it's much easier to make headline grabbing laws in order to appear to be doing something."
-Exactly. Every girl or boy I've known who was sexually molested as a child, and I mean EVERYONE (and that's a fair few), was done up by a father or other near relative - and don't forget older siblings, too.
The three components to molestation are access, comfort, and trust. The molester has to have consistent access to the child, the child has to be comfortable with the molester's advances, and the parents or guardians have to trust the molester to be alone with the child for long stretches of time.
Except in rare cases of preadolescent nymphomania (or whatever the psychs are calling it these days, probably preadolescent aberrant sexuality), it takes a long time and a lot of PERSONAL CONTACT for a potential molester to groom a child properly - most kids will laugh like hell at requests for naked pix, and potential molesters have learned that the Internet is no safe place to find quick kiddie sex.
The only other real candidates for child molesters, other than parents/relatives, are teachers, daycare specialists, and yeah, priests - they're the only people that parents TRUST. A random child abuser isn't going to grab your kid from a crowded mall and tear down his pants in the bathroom; that's just stupid. He's going to try to insinuate himself into your life first, gain your trust, and THEN abuse it - google Donald Anthony Strawn for a textbook example.
It's the ONE thing that will win you an argument with these bastards, mentioning, "By the way, according to most reputable experts, the ones molesting a child are nine times out of ten going to be either a parent or close relative." It's like playing rock, paper, sucker punch to the balls. Either you shut them up, or you get to watch them writhe around in agony. Win/win.
Other violent crimes
Why not ban drawings depicting murder? Just in case.
Playing 'Hangman' will be a bit more difficult though.
just the audacity of a government to place a drawing on the same level as an act of child molestation is mind boggling.
These images arn't a loop hole, that's lies, pure unadulterated lies.
The reason cp is banned is that children are molested to create it, it's the only provable bad thing in there. Whether a person will or will not decide to abuse a child themselves is based on far more complicated stuff then whether they see a picture.
Just like the extreme pornography law is made out of, built from and, reinforced with lies so is this bit of fascist propoganda. It will be fully supported by the proportion of the newspapers who have no interest in freedom of expression or thought only bottom line.
I remember reading the study linked to by the Reg when this was origonally brought up last year I think and I have yet to see something based on so much speculation and lies in my entire life, even more so then WMD's and the flimsy foundation of the extreme pornography law. The basic jist of it being that moral thought control nambys think that drawings make people molest children.
Police were annoyed that there was a guy who hadn't commited a crime other then own lolicon and they couldn't arrest him. So they want a new law.
Bulls--t artist talking about the material being usable in grooming (what utter w--k cindy dolls and disney films are the stuff of which grooming is made of.)
The proposal is just based on lies, speculation and power hunger.
@A Workaround Already
1 and 2 don't work, the law was more focused on "in the likeness" so the girl in Onegai Teacher who is immortal but looks 10 is out of bounds where as any 12 year old with massive baps is fine to bang (basically this is going to be a law about not being allowed to fap to delicious flat chest) it has little to do with the age/race/gender/mechanical origins of the character.
However I wonder if it counts if the child is actually a featus inside it's decapitated mother? I think by the current law that would be fine until they outlaw extreme drawn porn... Sadly for me I'm not a fan of guro but when needs must.
Also 4chan can already be illegal if you hit refresh at the wrong moment...
Time to leave I think...
C'mon ffs - "Broon" didn't pop his cherry 'til his late forties, and then only for political expediency as it didn't look right him not having a wife and kids. Are we really to take our moral lead from a bloke who has had sex twice in his life? Are we seriously to believe that our "leaders" entertain no sexual fantasy darker than "lights out, missionary position " and then only on St Andrew's Day? I think not.
Perhaps, instead of dreaming up more ways of controlling what we think with censorship that will actually increase the number of dirty paedos, that useless shower of wankers in govt might like to do something useful for a change. Like resign.
With the lights going out as our antique power stations trip offline with increasing regularity, we won't be able to read anything considered morally outrageous by that bunch of self-righteous Scottish puritan prudes running the show, except by candlelight.
In for a penny, in for a pound....
The peado will be thinking 'If I am going to go down for possession, it may as well be for real/live abuse images rather than so drawings'
nee naw nee naw - thought police coming through
Good on you Graham. You are right.
I don't know who they are to try to enforce their strict personal morals on the entire country when it's over a freaking cartoon. They should try punishing actual criminal activity properly, not branding all vaguely related things as crimes too.
The government obviously aren't going to accept the fact that people will kill. Paedophiles will exist. No matter what we do, no matter how many laws we make, or how much we threaten, bad stuff will continue to happen.
So even though it will keep happening, and we can't stop it, the government feel the need to bring in law after law restricting us and eroding our freedom 'just in case', and as Graham said, to look like they're doing something about it.
It's impossible to argue against and frankly I've almost given up. You can't argue against anti-paedophile laws. (Although this is not what they are.)
We don't live in a free country. Funnily enough to live in a free country you are supposed to be free enough to break the law. The government are slowly but surely making it so that we can not step one foot out of line, they will catch us before we actually commit any crimes. And charge us before we do anything too!
No possesion of any photograph should be a crime. Possesion of a photograph can not possibly be a crime unless the photo is stolen. It's what's depicted in the photo or artwork that is a crime, and i'm sorry but even possesion of child porn pictures is not technically a criminal act. It is having a photo of a criminal act.
So how can having a drawing of a cartoon be a criminal act, when the people in it are not even real, so no crime took place. No one was hurt or exploited.
What is going on? Plus it's impossible to tell the age of a cartoon, so I don't know how they figured this one out
Blurring the line of common sense
The light at the end of the tunnel is for other governments who watch Britain first to see if she can get away with it, and then try it themselves on their own people based on the tried and tested formula used by the UK. As someone else wrote elsewhere: * Law must first blur the lines of common sense in order to engineer our society to the whim of politicians. *
Law can be misused
I think the common agreement is that any act such as child abuse that is non-consentual should be stopped, but these new laws are not going to do anything apart from be taken out of context and used against someone who just got unlucky. The main problems seem to surround the complete lack of definition for anything - take the extreme porn law: It could apply to such things as 1950's Bettie Page sets and the covers of those cheesy paperbacks they sell in service stations (My girlfriend and I were discussing this law at Clackets Lane and noticed one showing a girl getting spanked, and had a red mark photoshopped onto her therefore being "a sexual image which portrays an act whereby someone may be injured" and therefore illegal under the violent image law).
I've seen some of the things they are talking about thanks to me not knowing what the word "lolicon" meant until I clicked on it and discovered my eyes were bleeding shortly afterwards (do NOT google that). Under these laws I would be convicted for that despite a complete lack of a mens rea. While the material concerned itself can be pretty sick the nature of this law is just plain wrong, doesn't do anything to protect any innocents and exists solely to garner votes from the Daily Mail readers at the expense of some poor sod
The aforementioned poor sod clicks an unknown link, buys a truckstop paperback without realising the somewhat tame cover breaks the law or gets his PC turned into a porn FTP server by a 14 year old Israeli script kiddie, then gets broken into, the dog bites the crook so the police bother to show up instead of giving a crime number out over the phone like they usually do because the CPS smell a conviction under the dangerous dogs act. They also find this extra dirt to convict on for good measure, no innocents were ever at risk but the detection rate league tables are satisfied. 1984 isn't the handbook, Brazil is.
- YARR! Pirates walk the plank: DMCA magnets sink in Google results
- Pics Whisper tracks its users. So we tracked down its LA office. This is what happened next
- Review Xperia Z3: Crikey, Sony – ANOTHER flagship phondleslab?
- Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know
- Apple flings iOS 8.1 at world+dog: Our AMAZEBALLS 9-step installation guide