Child porn 'art' to be made illegal
Derek Hornby
Philip Johnston Home Affairs Editor
Daily Telegraph 3 April 2007
DRAWINGS, images and sculptures depicting child sexual abuse are
to be made illegal, the Government said yesterday.
People caught in possession of "non-photographic'' child
pornography, which is currently legal to own, will face a
three-year jail term.
Ministers said ''genuine works of art'' were not the target for
the new law - though there will be concern that heavy-handed
policing could see galleries raided.
In 2001, Charles Saatchi's gallery in north London was visited by
officers from Scotland Yard's obscene publications unit over a
photographic exhibit showing nude children.
It showed the photographer's three young children playing while
naked. The case was dropped when the gallery defended the images
as harmless photos of children on holiday that were neither lewd
nor sexually provocative.
The following year police decided not to prosecute a London
gallery over displaying a photograph of a naked girl in a bath
that had been taken by the child's mother.
The proposed new law would cover depictions of child sex abuse
that have either been created on a computer or are cartoons,
drawings or other "artwork''.
John Reid, the Home Secretary, said: "The ease with which images
can be circulated or altered brings fresh challenges in combating
the availability of child sex abuse images.
"It is critical that the law stays one step ahead and nowhere is
this more important than protecting children.''
A Home Office spokesman said evidence from police and children's
organisations was that there was growing availability of such
images.
Paedophiles were escaping prosecution by manipulating real photos
of child abuse so they appeared to be "fantasy style'' images,
which were currently legal, he added.
The new offence was outlined in a joint consultation with the
Scottish Executive and Northern Ireland Office.
Cathy Jamieson, the Scottish minister for justice, said: "It is
only right that as technology progresses we ensure the law also
moves forward.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If an image is not based on a real event, why is this harmful?
And if it's not harmful then why the new regulations?
And what if say a 7 or 8 year old child was to get out his/her
crayons and or paints, and produce an image of his/her friend naked.
Do the police use common sense! Oh I mean social workers.
Derek
Flying Rat
derek.h...@btopenworld.com says...
> If an image is not based on a real event, why is this harmful?
> And if it's not harmful then why the new regulations?
>
> And what if say a 7 or 8 year old child was to get out his/her
> crayons and or paints, and produce an image of his/her friend naked.
> Do the police use common sense! Oh I mean social workers.
>
posted around the internet. This looks like a clarification of existing
grey area law to define what is or is not an offence to own.
or are you suggesting that artwork depicting five year old boys being
anally violated is acceptable? Seems to me that in your haste to scurry
along to the battlements and bash John Reid or Tony B.Liar you have
blasted forth on a subject you clearly have not thought through.
It is now possible to produce some very lifelike stuff using computer
software which is easily available and easily operated. The pedos have
already noticed this and acted upon it.
FR
nacional
"Flying Rat" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.207cd4066...@news.readfreenews.net...
Clough
<derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>The proposed new law would cover depictions of child sex abuse
>that have either been created on a computer or are cartoons,
>drawings or other "artwork''.
About time, too.
How can revolting pictures like this painting of a sadistic paedophile
spanking a naked child still be legal:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39450000/jpg/_39450037_davincimadonna203.jpg
The sooner disgusting filth like that is criminalised, the better.
Clough
greyprimer
"Derek Hornby" <derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:UIydnQiSi8pQKo_b...@bt.com...
PeteM
>In article <UIydnQiSi8pQKo_b...@bt.com>,
>derek.h...@btopenworld.com says...
>> If an image is not based on a real event, why is this harmful?
>> And if it's not harmful then why the new regulations?
>>
>> And what if say a 7 or 8 year old child was to get out his/her
>> crayons and or paints, and produce an image of his/her friend naked.
>> Do the police use common sense! Oh I mean social workers.
>>
>go and have a look at some of the anime/manga type stuff that gets
>posted around the internet. This looks like a clarification of existing
>grey area law to define what is or is not an offence to own.
No, it's not a clarification, it's making something illegal that was not
illegal before.
>
>or are you suggesting that artwork depicting five year old boys being
>anally violated is acceptable?
You do not seem to have answered the PP's question: "If an image is not
based on a real event, why is this harmful? And if it's not harmful then
why the new regulations?"
Please don't fudge the issue by talking about "acceptability", which is
a purely subjective concept and not useful when discussing the making of
laws.
>Seems to me that in your haste to scurry
>along to the battlements and bash John Reid or Tony B.Liar you have
>blasted forth on a subject you clearly have not thought through.
No, it's you that has not thought it through (or if you have, you have
not posted your thinking here). If an image is not based on a real
event, why is it harmful? And if it's not harmful then why make it
illegal?
>
>It is now possible to produce some very lifelike stuff using computer
>software which is easily available and easily operated. The pedos have
>already noticed this and acted upon it.
So what?
--
PeteM
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
PeteM
>How can revolting pictures like this painting of a sadistic paedophile
>spanking a naked child still be legal:
>
>http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39450000/jpg/_39450037_davincimadonna203.j
>pg
>
>The sooner disgusting filth like that is criminalised, the better.
I certainly wouldn't allow my wife or servants to see it. Not unless
they first applied for enhanced CRB clearance.
Alex Heney
<derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>Child porn 'art' to be made illegal
>Philip Johnston Home Affairs Editor
>Daily Telegraph 3 April 2007
<snip>
>Ministers said ''genuine works of art'' were not the target for
>the new law - though there will be concern that heavy-handed
>policing could see galleries raided.
>
Even the broadsheets are often guilty (as in this case) of stupidly
over sensationalising their headlines.
how can they have the headline that "art" is to be made illegal, when
the second main paragraph states exactly the opposite;?
>
>If an image is not based on a real event, why is this harmful?
>And if it's not harmful then why the new regulations?
>
Because TPTB find it disgusting.
>And what if say a 7 or 8 year old child was to get out his/her
>crayons and or paints, and produce an image of his/her friend naked.
>Do the police use common sense! Oh I mean social workers.
>
Not for several years now :-(
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Reformat Hard Drive! Are you SURE (Y/Y)?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Derek Hornby
> >The proposed new law would cover depictions of child sex abuse
> >that have either been created on a computer or are cartoons,
> >drawings or other "artwork''.
>
> About time, too.
Why?
What difference does it make?
Remember this is *not* about real life childe abuse.
What is in a person's mind, while he or she *creates* an image, hardly
does any harm to any child.
Just because an author writes a crime thriller doesn't mean
the author will commit a real crime.
So it's just same logic as regards *creating* the pics.
> How can revolting pictures like this painting of a sadistic paedophile
> spanking a naked child still be legal:
>
>
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39450000/jpg/_39450037_davincimadonna203.jpg
If it's not based ona real event what does it matter?
> The sooner disgusting filth like that is criminalised, the better.
Because?
Derek
Derek Hornby
> are you suggesting that artwork depicting five year old boys being
> anally violated is acceptable?
If it's *not* based on a real event then what does it matter?
Simply the act of creating an image, does no harm to any child
simply because no child has actually been involved.
>snip>
> It is now possible to produce some very lifelike stuff using computer
> software which is easily available and easily operated. The pedos have
> already noticed this and acted upon it.
And that matters does it? If yes why?
As long as the pedos act *only* to create their pics, then they
are *not* harming any child now are they.
Derek
CheekyMonkey
> "Clough" <in...@canoemail.com> wrote
>
> http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39450000/jpg/_39450037_davincimadonna203.jpg
>
> If it's not based ona real event what does it matter?
>
>> The sooner disgusting filth like that is criminalised, the better.
>
> Because?
I think sarcasm should be made illegal.
CheekyMonkey
> posted around the internet. This looks like a clarification of existing
> grey area law to define what is or is not an offence to own.
>
> or are you suggesting that artwork depicting five year old boys being
> anally violated is acceptable?
I don't watch to it myself, but I really don't see what harm it would do.
> It is now possible to produce some very lifelike stuff using computer
> software which is easily available and easily operated. The pedos have
> already noticed this and acted upon it.
Good. If pedos can get off using CGI porn then hopefully demand and
supply of real life pedo porn will reduce.
CheekyMonkey
> Child porn 'art' to be made illegal
> Philip Johnston Home Affairs Editor
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> If an image is not based on a real event, why is this harmful?
> And if it's not harmful then why the new regulations?
Just think of the children man! We are getting closer to the thought
crime area with carp laws such as this.
Clough
I think I'm beginning to agree.
Clough
Clough
<derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39450000/jpg/_39450037_davincimadonna203.jpg
>If it's not based ona real event what does it matter?
>> The sooner disgusting filth like that is criminalised, the better.
>Because?
Just because this arty farty Leonardo fellow can hide behind liberal
Italian laws to produce his filth for 'sophisticated' degenerates to
snigger over in their fancy 'art' books doesn't mean we more down to
Earth and sensible British should tolerate this kind of perversion.
Clough
Jethro
we're already there :-(
PeteM
>On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:21:30 +0100, "Derek Hornby"
><derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Child porn 'art' to be made illegal
>>Philip Johnston Home Affairs Editor
>>Daily Telegraph 3 April 2007
><snip>
>
>>Ministers said ''genuine works of art'' were not the target for
>>the new law - though there will be concern that heavy-handed
>>policing could see galleries raided.
>>
>
>Even the broadsheets are often guilty (as in this case) of stupidly
>over sensationalising their headlines.
>
>how can they have the headline that "art" is to be made illegal, when
>the second main paragraph states exactly the opposite;?
>
The opposite of "Art is to be made illegal" is "Art is not to be made
illegal", which is not at all the same as "Ministers said art is not to
be made illegal".
Alex Heney
True :-(
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Internal combustion engines are the dinosaurs' revenge
CheekyMonkey
> Child porn 'art' to be made illegal
> Philip Johnston Home Affairs Editor
> Daily Telegraph 3 April 2007
>
> DRAWINGS, images and sculptures depicting child sexual abuse are
> to be made illegal, the Government said yesterday.
>
> People caught in possession of "non-photographic'' child
> pornography, which is currently legal to own, will face a
> three-year jail term.
I wonder if my copy of the Brass Eye special would be made illegal?
John
Newsgroup abuse report lodged with your ISP ;o)
IanAl
Derek, it's a Madonna and child in which the former is apparently
about to smack the latter (though not as explicit as the one by Max
Ernst).
Dissenter
wrote:
>On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:21:30 +0100, "Derek Hornby"
><derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Child porn 'art' to be made illegal
>>Philip Johnston Home Affairs Editor
>>Daily Telegraph 3 April 2007
><snip>
>
>>Ministers said ''genuine works of art'' were not the target for
>>the new law - though there will be concern that heavy-handed
>>policing could see galleries raided.
>>
>
>Even the broadsheets are often guilty (as in this case) of stupidly
>over sensationalising their headlines.
>
>how can they have the headline that "art" is to be made illegal, when
>the second main paragraph states exactly the opposite;?
Do you want the government (or its representatives) deciding what
'art' is? Some people regard cartoons as art - and these will
undoubtedly be one of the targets of the legislation.
--
Dissenter
Alex Heney
Nope.
I was just pointing out the over-sensationalised headline, and making
the point that it isn't only the tabloids that do this.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Mary had a little lamb. The doctor was surprised.
Clough
>>If it's not based ona real event what does it matter?
>>> The sooner disgusting filth like that is criminalised, the better.
>Derek, it's a Madonna and child in which the former is apparently
>about to smack the latter (though not as explicit as the one by Max
>Ernst).
This Max Ernst pervert is even more depraved than that child
pornographer Leonardo Di Vincio:
www.metmuseum.org/special/Max_Ernst/images/5-Virgin-md.L.jpg
Clough
Cynic
>go and have a look at some of the anime/manga type stuff that gets
>posted around the internet. This looks like a clarification of existing
>grey area law to define what is or is not an offence to own.
>
>or are you suggesting that artwork depicting five year old boys being
>anally violated is acceptable?
The question is not whether it is acceptable to you or I, but whether
it should be a *criminal offence* - which is a different thing
altogether.
IMO no act should be prohibited by law unless it can be shown to be
significantly likely to have a significant harmful effect on
non-consenting 3rd parties.
I do not feel that looking at *any* image would fall into that
category, but especially so if the image is of an imaginary event.
So IMO artwork depicting 5yo boys being anally violated, and artwork
depicting 30 year old men being tortured to death on a cross, whilst
not being anything that I would find acceptable to have decorating my
house, should not be illegal to possess.
I have, incidentally, come across a few spoofs of famous cartoon
characters that show the character in sexually compromising positions.
Some I have found quite amusing. One I saw last year featuring Bart
and Lisa Simpson would no doubt fall into the "illegal" category of
images after the change to the law. The RoadRunner cartoon I saw some
time ago would probably be legal as it features animals rather than
people cartoon characters (The caption was, "Now let's hear you, 'Beep
Beep,' you bastard.")
--
Cynic
Cynic
Derek is blind and so could not see the image that Clough had
referenced. For his information, Clough was being sarcastic - the
image in question was a classic work of art by Da Vinci.
--
Cynic
CheekyMonkey
Arrr, OK, I did wonder how it could be taken as anything other than a
joke. Thanks.
Richard Miller
<c...@cm.cm> writes
>Flying Rat wrote:
>> In article <UIydnQiSi8pQKo_b...@bt.com>,
>>derek.h...@btopenworld.com says...
>> go and have a look at some of the anime/manga type stuff that gets
>>posted around the internet. This looks like a clarification of
>>existing grey area law to define what is or is not an offence to own.
>> or are you suggesting that artwork depicting five year old boys
>>being anally violated is acceptable?
>
>I don't watch to it myself, but I really don't see what harm it would do.
By Flying Rat's argument, presumably any depiction of the crucifixion is
also unacceptable - or do sexual images have a place in his heart that
even the most brutal image of torture and violent killing do not?
>
>> It is now possible to produce some very lifelike stuff using computer
>>software which is easily available and easily operated. The pedos have
>>already noticed this and acted upon it.
>
>Good. If pedos can get off using CGI porn then hopefully demand and
>supply of real life pedo porn will reduce.
Exactly. Banning this just increases the likelihood of abuse of real
children.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:21:30 +0100, "Derek Hornby"
><derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Child porn 'art' to be made illegal
>>Philip Johnston Home Affairs Editor
>>Daily Telegraph 3 April 2007
><snip>
>
>>Ministers said ''genuine works of art'' were not the target for
>>the new law - though there will be concern that heavy-handed
>>policing could see galleries raided.
>>
>
>Even the broadsheets are often guilty (as in this case) of stupidly
>over sensationalising their headlines.
>
>how can they have the headline that "art" is to be made illegal, when
>the second main paragraph states exactly the opposite;?
Because what is the difference between a "genuine" work of art and a
"not genuine" work of art? It is a meaningless distinction meant to
assuage someone that the law will not be used in circumstances it would
clearly apply to if you just give the words their only possible English
meaning.
--
Richard Miller
Cynic
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Because what is the difference between a "genuine" work of art and a
>"not genuine" work of art? It is a meaningless distinction meant to
>assuage someone that the law will not be used in circumstances it would
>clearly apply to if you just give the words their only possible English
>meaning.
Another article about the new law assured us that people who had such
drawings on their computer are almost certain to have real CP
photographs as well, and the authorities would not prosecute anyone
unless there were CP photos in addition to the drawings.
Which is obviously a load of tosh, because if that was the intention
there would be no need for the new law - convict the person for the
photographs and take the other stuff into consideration as an
aggravating factor when sentencing.
--
Cynic