David Cameron urges internet firms to block child abuse images
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
abe11825
Like to take a cement fix
Say what you want, I don't mind
That's why I put the questions out there. People can see her blog, and think it's purely innocence - capturing a child's smile, a notion of a laugh. But it's completely different to constantly post pictures of the child(ren) naked because you (general "you") think it's cute. The culture of finding the softer side to human pictures is gone. In its place has been charges in acts of porn and hate.Say what you want, I don't mind
you need to speak to her urgently. am assuming you are not in the UK, but if those pics end up on child porn sites or being shared around the internet then here she would quite likely lose her kids if social services ever picked up on it, under the principle of failure to protect - its quite likely there are similar practices wherever you are
abe11825
Like to take a cement fix
I'm in the US. To be honest, I was |this| close to telling her inlaws when they came round and visited a few months back, but like I previously stated, people have told me not to get involved, as it's her lot who'll be in trouble. I understand that, but the more she posts and people see, the trouble spider webs to anyone else visiting the site. In regards to the pictures ending on porn sites or sharing sites, it really wouldn't surprise me if they already are... it's not like the kids are ugly... they're a good looking bunch. (how dirty / pervy of me to say... but it's true)
that says more about you than you realise, do what you fucking want, I dont care
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Are you not SHOCKED?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Hey, abe11825, i'm SHOCKED by what you say. Now what? You going to judge how people should rape kids on looks? What if they have a nice personality. With them.
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
BT, MI5 and the Americans already know you're a wanker. They just want you to admit it.
Rumour has it that Cameron was put up to this by the national union of newsagents who complained that ever since the proliferation of high speed Internet access in the uk, they have not been able to make anyone feel embarrassed in their shops.
I'm with you on the libertarian sentiment but wouldn't the state say it's taking action to reduce harms that cost taxpayer money to (try/be seen to) fix later? The 'need' for state control may disingenuously hide all sorts of filth and put power in lots of wrong, self-interested, ignorant hands but you seem to be making the assumption that the rest of the planet's population (not including those working within/for the state, obv) can be relied upon to share your sense of social probity. Doesn't the state have a right to try and predict the consequences of anything "I (or you) do, look at write, believe or think"?
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
If you're worried about her then you really need to talk to her. And obviously if you're worried about kids' safety you really need to report it. I do find your description of what she's doing quite odd/disturbing.
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
If the above was true he would be banning crass sexist advertising, ensuring an equal wage for women across the board and generally reforming an education system so that it respected the rights and needs of the individual rather than the states requirement for conformity. But he hasn't, so no, I do not agree with your argument at all. This is about control of what you can see or do.
The country I live in, was the first to liberalise hardcore pornography back in the 1960's, I am in no way suggesting that women are fully equal here, but they are more equal than back in the UK. I am not sure if these are linked. And attitudes to it are fairly mixed, some women do not like it. Others enjoy it. Each to their own. And the state lets them decide for themselves. Maybe Scandi's are more liberal, the first time I went to Denmark to meet my then girlfriends mum and dad for Christmas, we were in town and we just had to quickly pop into a sex shop because her mum wanted a new dildo.
I can't (be arsed to) find the post where I first said it in this thread, but on the whole I am not a fan of hardcore pornography, it objectifies the people in it (women generally - since the majority of porn I have seen has been heterosexual, maybe i just click stop quicker on gay porn), degrades the act of sex as I view it to an extent ( I ain't a prude but 6 guys slapping and penetrating and half strangling a girl with probable BPD is not what enjoyable sex is to me) - . What I argued for in that post, was that there needs to be a proper education of young people as to what sex can be. About respect for each other, and feelings and all the other hippy shit that if it was used more would generally make the world a nicer place. But it ain't and the fact there is so much hardcore pornography about that gets cameron all upset is that is an obvious product of our capitalist culture. Ergo, point rounded he can only blame himself. And should therefore commit Hari Kari. Can someone forward this post to him? My work here on the internet is done.
Good post Boris - don't bugger off quite yet!
Yep there's lots of what's enlightened in Scandinavian social culture, although hasn't that got quite a lot to do with its wealth in natural resources and a more powerful sense of nationalism (which breeds its own issues). I'd guess the UK state would quietly argue that crass sexist advertising is er 'good' porn because it supports business. Behind all this, what I see is a right wing government desperate to make money, with that desperation meaning it pumps up revenue opportunities while suppressing the civil liberties that might interfere with cash generation. Social conformity, goodthinkful citizens, all that...
Yep there's lots of what's enlightened in Scandinavian social culture, although hasn't that got quite a lot to do with its wealth in natural resources and a more powerful sense of nationalism (which breeds its own issues). I'd guess the UK state would quietly argue that crass sexist advertising is er 'good' porn because it supports business. Behind all this, what I see is a right wing government desperate to make money, with that desperation meaning it pumps up revenue opportunities while suppressing the civil liberties that might interfere with cash generation. Social conformity, goodthinkful citizens, all that...
Good morning Oh High Inquisitor,
I meant that I forgot to include that option. I oppose it because, again, it criminalizes "possession", and you already know my position on that very well. Look for and penalize ONLY real crimes against real people.
From A. Telegraph Reader, to A.N. Outraged of the Daily Mail.
E2A - frogwoman: In regards to "yes, but would you let this person work with children"? I may be wrong, but aren't criminal records for that purpose? Not that employers have never completely forgotten to check them, I know... but I thought that was the purpose: to help assessing a person's suitability for a specific job.
Lemon Eddy
Disliked by dwyer
Again I have to ask how you can possess something that can only be produced through crime, without being implicitly connected to that crime?
Blood diamonds? For or against?
Criminalize the form of production, not the consumer. I don't wear fur because I am against how it's produced. I try my best to boycott Primark and its ilk, because I am disgusted at their exploitation of cheap labour; I am also against using animals for cosmetic testing. But I wouldn't arrest somebody for using those products or buying on those shops. Go to the root of the problem, which imo, it's not the demand, but the production.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
This is a stupid model of producer and consumer that you're using and you would do well to drop it as makes you look - at best - disingenuous or naive. It's not kipling handbags. the consumer here is someone who wants kids to be sexually abused. Your analogy is insulting and frightening. There is something wrong with you.
Lemon Eddy
Disliked by dwyer
Except, as already quoted above, a significant proportion of child porn is produced to order for Pay Per View sites. Which means that the consumer is blatantly responsible for the actual act.
Frankly trying to ignore the culpability of the consumer of such a product, whether it's child porn, blood diamonds, ivory or whatever, is just pathetic. This is not something that can ever be produced in an innocent or harmless manner. If you own such a product, you do so with the certain knowledge that it's the result of a crime, and there was a victim.
Lemon Eddy
Disliked by dwyer
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I'm saying your arguments are pish - utter pish - and that if you represent the anti-censorship case then that is frightening. Yes, i think there is something wrong with people who argue what you do. I don't think that you should be locked up (until you are in possession of or producing child porn) or sectioned though.
xslavearcx
time for a nu-metal revival?
asks jeeves surely?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Seriously, what sort of person reduces children and their sexual abuse down to a consumer choice? That is pathological.
xslavearcx
time for a nu-metal revival?
Dunno about in england, but in scotland any job that involves working with young people or vulnerable adults are required to have a enhanced disclosure check which includes criminal convictions and any details that are deemed relevant such as police investigations for particular crimes that did not result in court cases or convictions....
another aspect to be considered for suitability for working with young people is this: consent for any images is taken very seriously, like we have to get consent forms filled out by parents or by the particpants themselves if they are over 16. Obviously any person who is happy to consume images that by definition would be a violation of consent would put into question their ability to follow basic guidelines of good practice.
I guess the issue about whether porn consumption is mere fantasy or something else would depend on whether porn consumption could be seen as a mediated sex act?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Really dodgy to be using a capitalist production-->circulation-->consumption model for this. Have we really come to that?
edit: was typing that as xslavercx was posting, that was't a direct response to his post.
edit: was typing that as xslavercx was posting, that was't a direct response to his post.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
There are various anti-capitalism & moral/ethical arguments against the commodification of sex.
But I don't see how you can utilise a consumer argument about the commodification of rape & abuse unless you accept the premise that any kind of commodification of rape & abuse is acceptable. All sorts of wrong flow from that, surely.
Edit: Itziko
But I don't see how you can utilise a consumer argument about the commodification of rape & abuse unless you accept the premise that any kind of commodification of rape & abuse is acceptable. All sorts of wrong flow from that, surely.
Edit: Itziko
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Indeed, wait till these people get into presenting their consumption as a choice and therefore a right.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The sovereign consumer. ugh.
Similar threads
