Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

David Cameron urges internet firms to block child abuse images

frogwoman said:
also isn't part of the point with child rape material that a child has been/is being abused to make those images?
Click to expand...

^^That!^^
Like the Extreme Porn legislation, which is more concerned with people looking at "extreme" stuff, than to find out whether the people who took part in the photos/videos were consenting adults. Why this refusal to tackle the crime first and foremost? These laws are purely cosmetic.

Child abuse is crime. Fight that, not the people who may want to look at the images. Like the porn ban, this government (and the previous one who passed Section 63), are more concerned with thought crime, than with real crime.
 
Itziko said:
^^That!^^ LIke the Extreme Porn legislation, which is more concerned with people looking at "extreme" stuff, than to find out whether the people who took part in the photos/videos were consenting adults. Why this refusal to tackle the crime first and foremost? These laws are purely cosmetic.
Click to expand...

but the people who download child rape material are fulfilling a demand. they are paying for it and fuelling the supply of it in some other way, their support of that industry and those people enables it to continue. plus i wouldn't want them working in a school or with children/vulnerable people in any other capacity.
 
besides downloading child porn is already illegal. this just seems to be a cack-handed attempt at more internet censorship.

i don't accept that there's nothing wrong with doing it though.
 
frogwoman said:
i don't accept that there's nothing wrong with doing it though.
Click to expand...

That's where I disagree with you, because I think that's how the idea of thought crime rises its dangerous head. Even if somebody wanks to these images, it doesn't mean that they've harmed a real child, in real life. Criminalizing possession of these images leads to a crime without victims. Investigate the origin of the images, not the person who downloaded them. We can't send people to court "because you look like a paedo". It's bit of a "burn all paediatricians! situation.
 
these images have been illegal for years and we already live in a world where people can be locked up by the state for fuck all. i'm not going to cry over it.
 
dunno really.

i agree that the law enforcement / child protection system ought to put the most effort into catching and dealing with the abusers (and getting the children involved out of harm's way) than catching the wankers (I get the - possibly mistaken - impression that the system tends to go after the 'easy targets')

but i feel faintly uncomfortable about being completely laissez faire about the porn collectors / wankers. Assuming the image/s involves actual abuse, then there has been a victim.

it is argued that at least some abuse happens because there's a market for the images generated (I don't know enough about the subject to know whether this is true, or whether the abusers would do it anyway)

it's difficult to take the same line if the images are CGI or whatever, but i feel faintly uneasy about that sort of thing.

i'm not sure anyone round here is suggesting banging people up because they 'look like a paedo' (and as a single gay man approaching middle age i certainly don't care for the idea of witch hunts)

i'd not be keen on the law taking against someone who gets turned on by the occasional picture of the school sports team in the local paper, or who might have a small amount of porn that is just on the wrong side of 'barely legal' but i'm not sure about someone who actively collects lots of images of child abuse...
 
Puddy_Tat said:
i'd not be keen on the law taking against someone who gets turned on by the occasional picture of the school sports team in the local paper, or who might have a small amount of porn that is just on the wrong side of 'barely legal' but i'm not sure about someone who actively collects lots of images of child abuse...
Click to expand...


I don't know if I already posted this earlier, or if wrote it an then deleted it, but I do agree that a very consistent collection of child porn *may* be an indication of more sinister activities in real life. But then the police should investigate that, not criminalize the possession of the images per se. That's why I was referring to thought crime and victimless crime. Go for the real crime, with real victims, not the witch hunt, as you so eloquently call it. Or, to repeat myself, the "burn all paediatricians!!" witch hunt :)
 
Itziko said:
That's where I disagree with you, because I think that's how the idea of thought crime rises its dangerous head. Even if somebody wanks to these images, it doesn't mean that they've harmed a real child, in real life. Criminalizing possession of these images leads to a crime without victims. Investigate the origin of the images, not the person who downloaded them. We can't send people to court "because you look like a paedo". It's bit of a "burn all paediatricians! situation.
Click to expand...

But we don't punish possession of images in the same way we punish actual abuse, they are different crimes. I see possession as more a kind of incitement to abuse. It's more than a "thought crime".
 
bi0boy said:
But we don't punish possession of images in the same way we punish actual abuse, they are different crimes. I see possession as more a kind of incitement to abuse. It's more than a "thought crime".
Click to expand...

No, of course not, but it could still land you up to 5 years in jail. Not to mention that possession of these images has been used against people both at employment tribunals ("bringing your employer into disrepute), and family tribunals also.

Having said this, all the cases I know about involved adults, not child porn. Organizations such as Backlash, who give legal advice to people charged under Section 63 of the CJIA 2008, don't defend anybody accused of possessing child porn. They only defend images that portray consenting adults.

Another bastardly trick of this Section 63, is that lumps consenting adults and paedos in the same bag. Neat.
 
TruXta said:
It's not.
Click to expand...

Actually it is.

"
Home » Prosecution Policy and Guidance » Legal Guidance » D to G » Extreme Pornography
Extreme Pornography

The Law

Possession of Extreme Pornographic Images

The offence of possession of extreme pornographic images in Part 5, sections 63 to 67 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (the Act) came into force on 26 January 2009 and is not retrospective. This guidance should be read in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice circular 2009/01 on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act: possession of extreme pornographic images.
Sections 63 to 67 of the Act make it an offence to possess pornographic images that depict acts which threaten a person's life; acts which result in or are likely to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals; bestiality; or necrophilia. They also provide for the exclusion of classified films etc. and set out defences and the penalties for the offence.
Section 68 and Schedule 14 of the Act are in place to ensure that the operation of the extreme pornography offence is consistent with the UK's commitments under the E-Commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31/EC) with regard to services provided by the Internet industry.
Section 71 of the Act increases the maximum penalty for publication of obscene material and for the possession of such material for gain under the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
The Ministry of Justice note "Further information on the new offence of Possession of Extreme Pornographic Images" helpfully provides an overview of the offence and an explanation as to the implementation of sections 63 to 67 of the Act. The note should be read in conjunction with the Act.
This guidance is to assist Crown Prosecutors and Associate Prosecutors when making decisions in respect of sections 63 to 67 of the Act to prosecute for possession of extreme pornographic images.
The Act at section 63 sets out a definition of what is an extreme pornographic image. The new offence only relates to material which by virtue of the Obscene Publications Act 1959; is illegal to publish or distribute in the United Kingdom.
Elements of the Offence

For an offence contrary to section 63 of the Act the prosecution has to prove:
  1. That the image is pornographic; and
  2. That the image is extreme namely grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character; and
  3. That the image portrays in an explicit and realistic way any of the extreme acts set out in section 63(7).
The Home Office consultation on the extreme pornography offence stated that the proposal to strengthen controls on extreme pornographic material was based on:
  • a desire to protect those who participate in the creation of sexual material containing violence, cruelty or degradation, who may be the victim of crime in the making of the material, whether or not they notionally or genuinely consent to take part;
  • a desire to protect society, particularly children, from exposure to such material, to which access can no longer be reliably controlled through legislation dealing with publication and distribution, and which may encourage interest in violent or aberrant sexual activity.

​
 
Boris - that might be construed as it possibly being illegal. It doesn't mean it is - as Itziko says it'd need testing in court.
 
would that solicitor bloke be done for the fisting DVD's under new laws were as previously he got away with it
 
DotCommunist, that would be the case, if fisting porn was in fact declared illegal, but I don't think it would be under the new proposed legislation? And btw, if you are referring to the Walsh case, they were stills, not dvd's. Of consensual adults in a gay club.

If fisting was deemed illegal, we would live in a world were gay people are allowed to get married and adopt children, but then they'd also have to conform to a heternormative idea of sexual practices. Another reason why I object to the institution of marriage in the first place. It's an oppressing institution that places heterosexuality, a binary concept of couples and family as the gold standard to aspire to. But I'm digressing now!
 
Surely this piece of shit legislation will fall apart at the first serious legal challenge? Definitions all over the shop etc etc etc.
 
Boris Sprinkler said:
I have a twitter account I use mainly for professional work. Amongst my followers are some of the biggest names in the global information security community. I direct messaged Cameron this morning asking if he needed any help in understanding how the internet worked. :D
Click to expand...

Why would he, he doesn't really care. You don't need to have your level of expertise to realise this is bollocks. A bit of basic research would illusidate.

I tend to agree with you about the wider motivations behind these attempts at sensoring.
 
Itziko said:
DotCommunist, that would be the case, if fisting porn was in fact declared illegal, but I don't think it would be under the new proposed legislation? And btw, if you are referring to the Walsh case, they were stills, not dvd's. Of consensual adults in a gay club.

If fisting was deemed illegal, we would live in a world were gay people are allowed to get married and adopt children, but then they'd also have to conform to a heternormative idea of sexual practices. Another reason why I object to the institution of marriage in the first place. It's an oppressing institution that places heterosexuality, a binary concept of couples and family as the gold standard to aspire to. But I'm digressing now!
Click to expand...

Do no straight people fist; or aren't they being properly straight if they do?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
 
TruXta said:
Surely this piece of shit legislation will fall apart at the first serious legal challenge? Definitions all over the shop etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to the CJIA 2008, they've been numerous trials and many instances where the defendant was acquitted on all counts, as I've already linked. But the legislation is still up, shit or not. I said this before, but the successful acquittals has resulted on the CPS becoming very cautious when deciding whether to prosecute someone or not. Which is no small victory, but the legislation hasn't been scrapped.
 
frogwoman said:
besides downloading child porn is already illegal. this just seems to be a cack-handed attempt at more internet censorship.

i don't accept that there's nothing wrong with doing it though.
Click to expand...

ISPs AFAIK, already do their best to block websites that hoste child abuce images. That stuff isn't hosted on sites you can get to by Googling by all accounts.
 
Itziko said:
If you are referring to the CJIA 2008, they've been numerous trials and many instances where the defendant was acquitted on all counts, as I've already linked. But the legislation is still up, shit or not. I said this before, but the successful acquittals has resulted on the CPS becoming very cautious when deciding whether to prosecute someone or not. Which is no small victory, but the legislation hasn't been scrapped.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I meant this new piece of legislation. I'm probably overly optimistic tbh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jeff Robinson
Thread to document institutional animal abuse
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
bcuster
bcuster
Humberto
David Cameron is a walking disaster. And war criminal.
Replies
12
Views
753
Mation
Mation
Kid_Eternity
David Lammy’s time is up
Replies
11
Views
686
Whagwan
Whagwan
Pickman's model
david cameron's time is up again
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
190
Views
10K
brogdale
brogdale
PTK
Fire in Tower Block in Dagenham, London, Monday 26 August 2024.
Replies
27
Views
1K
moochedit
moochedit
Back
Top Bottom