Child pornography?
dnm
recently, out of interest, what is the legal definition of "child
pornography"? Could it be a photo of anyone under the age of 18 naked, or
must it be sexual in nature? And what about websites that offer naked photos
of under 18s but claim to be legal as they aren't "sexual", are these sites
actually legal or not?
RH
news:akgmv1$1fef0p$1...@ID-115737.news.dfncis.de...
I remember reading an article about this. Apparantly, these kind of (sick,
may I add) sites are legal in the US. This is because they ply their trade
as works of art, which is not illegal under US law. However, I think I am
correct in saying that viewing any of this kind of material in the UK is
highly illegal. The FBI recently took over numerous pay-sites offering
indecent pictures of minors, hosted in the US. They obtained CC numbers of
UK citizens subscribing to these sites, and promptly informed the law here.
AFAIK, two of these people arrested were police officers.
I, personally, am quite worried about the situation regarding these sites,
as I believe one of my "friends" subscribed me to a pornography mailing
list, and I regularly receive mails of description previously mentioned. I
delete them straight away, but I have no recourse if the law look at my
mail.
I hope this is of some help, and if you choose to view this material, may I
be the first to say that you are a sick perverted individual. If you want to
see naked children, imagine it, don't even try to bring it into the real
world. Stick to viewing consensual adults.
My 2pence :)
RH
A1 Essex Direct
news:akgpcc$1ifb4a$1...@ID-139958.news.dfncis.de...
> I, personally, am quite worried about the situation regarding these
sites,
> as I believe one of my "friends" subscribed me to a pornography mailing
> list, and I regularly receive mails of description previously mentioned. I
> delete them straight away, but I have no recourse if the law look at my
> mail.
Sine Friends you have,
Seroiousy if you have (i would have thought you had) tried to nsubscribe
from thes lists then keeping a hard copy of your mails and the reply to
being removed from the list should satify that you have done your best to
avoid the situation
Andy
Colin Wilson
I seem to remember a case where a picture of an unknown "asian" teenager
was handed to a jury in a child pornography case, and they had to use
their own judgement whether she was of legal age. The decision was based
solely on the "estimated" age of the girl in the picture (I think she was
later found to be over the age of consent).
I think the case dated back 5-6 years ago.
A1 Essex Direct
news:MPG.17d6145f6...@news.cis.dfn.de...
I seem to remember a case where a picture of an unknown "asian" teenager
> was handed to a jury in a child pornography case, and they had to use
> their own judgement whether she was of legal age. The decision was based
> solely on the "estimated" age of the girl in the picture (I think she was
> later found to be over the age of consent).
>
> I think the case dated back 5-6 years ago.
it must be very hard to tell in a photograph - Whatever race the
victim/picture of is
Andy
Colin Wilson
> > was handed to a jury in a child pornography case, and they had to use
> > their own judgement whether she was of legal age. The decision was based
> > solely on the "estimated" age of the girl in the picture (I think she was
> > later found to be over the age of consent).
> victim/picture of is
I know - I ran a BBS at the time, and while I didn`t collect this sort of
crap, I did know someone who did collected some pictures I would class as
"borderline" (afaik it _was_ all legal, but I remember the case because
of the possible implications of age guessing).
Colin Wilson
> I did know someone who did collected some pictures <snip>
Remind me to proof read what I type in future :-}
Fishfood
Protection of Children Act 1978 makes it an offence to take, make,
distribute etc. an indecent photograph of a child who is, or appears to be,
under the age of 16.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it an offence to possess such items.
'Indecent Photograph' also includes digital images and video footage etc.,
pseudo photographs being added to the legislation at a later date.
Sentences were increased to a maximum of 10 & 5 years imprisonment
respectively in 2000.
People convicted of such offences will be required to register as a sex
offender for a period of at least 5 years (dependent on sentence), as
defined by Part 1 Sex Offenders act 1997.
Fishfood
Andy Jeffries
> Protection of Children Act 1978 makes it an offence to take, make,
> distribute etc. an indecent photograph of a child who is, or appears to be,
> under the age of 16.
>
> Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it an offence to possess such items.
>
> 'Indecent Photograph' also includes digital images and video footage etc.,
> pseudo photographs being added to the legislation at a later date.
So how is indecent defined.
Cheers,
Andy
Andy Jeffries
> Seroiousy if you have (i would have thought you had) tried to nsubscribe
> from thes lists then keeping a hard copy of your mails and the reply to
> being removed from the list should satify that you have done your best to
> avoid the situation
However, it is generally accepted best practice to never reply to spam
emails. This only confirms that the email address is valid and that there
is a living person at the other end (more valuable for selling on).
To be honest, I would use something like SpamAssassin (or whatever
equivalent runs on Windows) to just filter out spam like that. If the
police knock on my door, they can check my POP3 account on the server and
they may find some disgusting emails, but if they download it on my
machine they will see it gets deleted before my inbox is shown to me.
Cheers,
Andy
dnm
How? I mean, is it taken that all posed nude photos are indecent, whether
they are sexual or not, effectively meaning that paintings and certain
artwork is illegal?
Fishfood
"Andy Jeffries" <ne...@andyjeffries.remove.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.08.28....@andyjeffries.remove.co.uk...
The legislation does not define 'indecent' as such, as it would be virtually
impossible to do. It allows for the court (magistrates/jury) to decide for
themselves.
Fish
Fishfood
See my earlier answer to Andy. The acts do not legislate against paintings
or other art work, no matter how indecent.
Fishfood
Cynic
>> How? I mean, is it taken that all posed nude photos are indecent, whether
>> they are sexual or not, effectively meaning that paintings and certain
>> artwork is illegal?
> See my earlier answer to Andy. The acts do not legislate against paintings
> or other art work, no matter how indecent.
What??? You know full well that the law does not exclude a photograph from
being illegal because it is a "work of art". A defendant charged with
"making" or "possession" could use the fact that the photograph in question
was recognised as a work of art rather than having been produced for
pornographic purposes, but the magistrate/jury are free to decide whether it
is nevertheless indecent and therefore illegal without regard to that. A
man was last year convicted of "making" indecent images of children when the
only images concerned were studio shots of a nude girl taken by a recognised
woman artist, and were moreover available for sale at WH Smiths in a book of
photographic art.
So whilst an argument of artistic merit may well be used to attempt to
persuade the court that the photograph(s) in question are not indecent, such
an argument is by no means assured of success.
--
Cynic
Fishfood
"Cynic" <none@none> wrote in message news:3d735497$1...@news.teranews.com...
> "Fishfood" <fishf...@hotmail.com (remove X to email)> wrote
>
> >> How? I mean, is it taken that all posed nude photos are indecent,
whether
> >> they are sexual or not, effectively meaning that paintings and certain
> >> artwork is illegal?
>
> > See my earlier answer to Andy. The acts do not legislate against
paintings
> > or other art work, no matter how indecent.
>
> What??? You know full well that the law does not exclude a photograph
from
> being illegal because it is a "work of art".
You misunderstand me Cynic. My abilty and knowledge of art extends to a
badly drawn matchstick man. By 'artwork' I was referring to paintings &
drawings etc., and not photographs.
Fish
Fishfood
"Jon Thomas" <jthomas@ukl> wrote in message
news:d8m7nucchuc6vs23s...@4ax.com...
> possession of a book of images of scantily-clad and nude
> teenagers in the David Hamilton style (soft focus,'dreamy'
> style, no focus on the genitalia, and so on).
Yes, I am very familiar with the works of David Hamilton, Jock Sturgess &
others. Very suspect IMO, child pornography masquerading as art.
He wasn't
> allowed by the magistrates (on police objection - beats me
> how this works)
The police are not involved in making such an objection, are you sure you
have your facts right?
to call witnesses for artistic merit, and got a
> fine, five years on the SOR, and the usual publicity and
> harassment. Not to mention the time and public expense
> involved in bringing the prosecution. His solicitor told him
> that an appeal would fail, since the images were indecent!
>
> It's a mad world, my masters!
Why did he have these pictures? Did he have any other 'works of art'? How
did he come to police attention in the first place?
Fishfood
John O
"Cynic" <none@none> wrote in message news:3d735497$1...@news.teranews.com...
Interesting - I believe that the US Supreme Court recently took rather a
contrary view to this - particularly in respect of 'pseudo-photographs'.
>
> --
> Cynic
>
>
>
Cynic
>> What??? You know full well that the law does not exclude a
>> photograph from being illegal because it is a "work of art".
> You misunderstand me Cynic. My abilty and knowledge of art extends to a
> badly drawn matchstick man. By 'artwork' I was referring to paintings &
> drawings etc., and not photographs.
OK. Yes, it is true that at present nothing that is obviously *not* a
photograph is illegal, though something that *appears* to be a photograph
(but is not) could be illegal.
--
Cynic
Cynic
>> Indeed. I know of a case where a man was prosecuted for
>> possession of a book of images of scantily-clad and nude
>> teenagers in the David Hamilton style (soft focus,'dreamy'
>> style, no focus on the genitalia, and so on).
> Yes, I am very familiar with the works of David Hamilton, Jock Sturgess &
> others. Very suspect IMO, child pornography masquerading as art.
I have two questions. Firstly, if the works are available for legal sale in
the UK, how could they be deemed illegal to possess? Secondly, the
justification for the law is that child pornography involves serious harm to
children, and possession therefore encourages such harm. If the material
concerned obviously did *not* involve serious harm to children (which must
be the case seeing that they are permitted by most countries in Europe), how
do you justify the banning of the material?
> Why did he have these pictures? Did he have any other 'works of art'? How
> did he come to police attention in the first place?
The questions you ask would be pertinent to the question of whether he had a
sexual interest in children, but should be irrelevant to the question of
whether he should have been convicted over the photos in question. What you
appear to be arguing is that if the guy had a sexual interest in children,
it is right that he should be forbidden to possess *any* material that he
might find arousing. Perhaps you are even averse to a paedophile possessing
a children's clothing catalogue?
--
Cynic
Axqi Rqvst
sweethearts and have been going together since then, and having sex
since the age of 14. Turns out they took videos of themselves doing
certain naughty acts oh so long ago.
Had to tell them that they were, in principle, guilty of child porn
and that the fact that the pix were of themselves and noncommercial
and shown to nobody was no defence.
Couldn't tell them to "get rid of it" 'cause that would be a crime in
itself (destroying the evidence) but they may have decided by
themselves that so doing was in their own best interest.
Cynic
> I was consulted by a married couple in their 20s that were childhood
> sweethearts and have been going together since then, and having sex
> since the age of 14. Turns out they took videos of themselves doing
> certain naughty acts oh so long ago.
>
> Had to tell them that they were, in principle, guilty of child porn
> and that the fact that the pix were of themselves and noncommercial
> and shown to nobody was no defence.
Far worse than that. The videos are themselves evidence of indecent
assault, and could be used to pursue that charge as well. Probably against
the man and not the woman, but potentially against both of them for
indecently assaulting each other. It is a peculiar fact that whilst a
person is unable to consent to any sexual act before the age of 16, they at
the same time are considered to have criminal responsibility by the age of
10 and so be guilty of an offence if they instigate sexual activity with
anyone who does not consent.
There is a special case whereby a person is permitted to indecently assault
themselves, which means that people between 10 and 15 cannot commit such a
crime to themselves, though IIUC this actually had to be tested by case-law.
--
Cynic
John O
"Cynic" <none@none> wrote in message news:3d74b...@news.teranews.com...
> "Axqi Rqvst" <akbar...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > I was consulted by a married couple in their 20s that were childhood
> > sweethearts and have been going together since then, and having sex
> > since the age of 14. Turns out they took videos of themselves doing
> > certain naughty acts oh so long ago.
> >
> > Had to tell them that they were, in principle, guilty of child porn
> > and that the fact that the pix were of themselves and noncommercial
> > and shown to nobody was no defence.
>
> Far worse than that. The videos are themselves evidence of indecent
> assault, and could be used to pursue that charge as well. Probably
against
> the man and not the woman, but potentially against both of them for
> indecently assaulting each other. It is a peculiar fact that whilst a
> person is unable to consent to any sexual act before the age of 16, they
at
> the same time are considered to have criminal responsibility by the age of
> 10 and so be guilty of an offence if they instigate sexual activity with
> anyone who does not consent.
I do love this one....espesh when various public Tribunes claim that we
should persecute the latest Folk Devils 'because it is the Law'. Probably
90% of the UK population are technically guilty of indecent assault and so
should be on the SOR.
However, I understand from one legal source that the DPP considers it not to
be in the public interest to prosecute such cases.
Hypocrite!
About time the Sun started a campaign to have all the perves locked up.
It would have to be the Sun, of course. They are such a bunch of wankers,
their journalists are the one body in the land one could assume would be
safely immune from the effects of such a clamp-down.
>
> There is a special case whereby a person is permitted to indecently
assault
> themselves, which means that people between 10 and 15 cannot commit such a
> crime to themselves, though IIUC this actually had to be tested by
case-law.
Interesting. In the d/s scene, there is something known as 'self-bondage' -
basically, individuals tying themselves up to get the 'feel' of it, in the
absence of anyone else to administer the ties....
(Of course, this can occasionally go wrong, if one does something silly like
uses handcuffs and then loses the key.....).
Presumably this could fall into the category above?
>
> --
> Cynic
>
>
>
Fishfood
"Cynic" <none@none> wrote in message news:3d74ab14$1...@news.teranews.com...
> "Fishfood" <fishf...@hotmail.com (remove X to email)> wrote
>
> >> Indeed. I know of a case where a man was prosecuted for
> >> possession of a book of images of scantily-clad and nude
> >> teenagers in the David Hamilton style (soft focus,'dreamy'
> >> style, no focus on the genitalia, and so on).
>
> > Yes, I am very familiar with the works of David Hamilton, Jock Sturgess
&
> > others. Very suspect IMO, child pornography masquerading as art.
>
> I have two questions. Firstly, if the works are available for legal sale
in
> the UK, how could they be deemed illegal to possess?
Are they available on legal sale? It's news to me.
Secondly, the
> justification for the law is that child pornography involves serious harm
to
> children, and possession therefore encourages such harm. If the material
> concerned obviously did *not* involve serious harm to children (which must
> be the case seeing that they are permitted by most countries in Europe),
how
> do you justify the banning of the material?
And why are you always so keen on eoples 'rights' to collect this sort of
material, do you not see a sinister side to it? Coincidentally I came across
a few scans today on a computer I was looking at, entitled 'The Lolita's of
David Hamilton'. Why do you think they were called Lolita's, perhaps because
certain men would be sexually attracted to them? As it happens these are
amongst the mildest pictures in this mans collection.
> > Why did he have these pictures? Did he have any other 'works of art'?
How
> > did he come to police attention in the first place?
>
> The questions you ask would be pertinent to the question of whether he had
a
> sexual interest in children, but should be irrelevant to the question of
> whether he should have been convicted over the photos in question. What
you
> appear to be arguing is that if the guy had a sexual interest in children,
> it is right that he should be forbidden to possess *any* material that he
> might find arousing.
I don't know if you have seen this sort of material but the photographs, if
not actually sexual in content, could certainly be classed as alluring.
Fish
Fishfood
"John O" <aud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d740b26$0$24156$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...
What was their view John, and do you have a link you could post?
Fish
John O
"Fishfood" <fishf...@hotmail.com (remove X to email)> wrote in message
news:al3hsa$ecd$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Suggest you try this one:
http://www.usscplus.com/online/index.asp?case=9920036
(Let me know if it works....)
You would probably guess that I am, on the whole, in favour of the arguments
advanced, since the UK Law, as currently, seems to go a long way beyond
prosecuting for harm done - and actually prosecutes on the basis of a theory
about future harm that may be done if something isn't done now.
In my opinion, a very dangerous principle indeed.
>
> Fish
>
>
John O
rather think that the opinion expressed by no less than the US Supreme COurt
in the link I post at the bottom should provide a great deal of food for
thought for all those involved in this debate.
"John O" <aud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d7688c9$0$24504$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...
Fishfood
>
> "Fishfood" <fishf...@hotmail.com (remove X to email)> wrote in message
> news:al3hsa$ecd$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > Interesting - I believe that the US Supreme Court recently took rather
a
> > > contrary view to this - particularly in respect of
'pseudo-photographs'.
> >
> > What was their view John, and do you have a link you could post?
>
> Suggest you try this one:
>
> http://www.usscplus.com/online/index.asp?case=9920036
>
> (Let me know if it works....)
>
> You would probably guess that I am, on the whole, in favour of the
arguments
> advanced, since the UK Law, as currently, seems to go a long way beyond
> prosecuting for harm done - and actually prosecutes on the basis of a
theory
> about future harm that may be done if something isn't done now.
>
> In my opinion, a very dangerous principle indeed.
The link works, thankyou, though too long of a read for tonight. I've copied
it to a zip disk & will have a read at work tomorrow. One thing I will say
about pseudo images ( I don't know which way the report goes on this), is
that if one reads the Hansards report of the Commons debate prior to thses
images being made illegal in the UK, you will find that the reasoning was
that the authorities were finding it difficult to differentiate between real
and made up images of child pornography, thus creating a loophole. I haven't
read it for a couple of years, but believe that people were beginning to run
a defence along the lines of 'It isn't a real picture, it has been
manipulated/created by a computer', and there were difficulties in
disproving this.
Fish
John O
Interesting. The US Supreme Court tackles this and appears to dismiss it as
myth - on the grounds that they don't know of any cases where it was
actually run successsfully as a defence!
>
> Fish
>
>
bigbrian
You'll be glad to know this specific issue is addressed in the article
:-)
Brian
PeteM
<fishf...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>"Cynic" <none@none> wrote in message news:3d74ab14$1...@news.teranews.com...
>> "Fishfood" <fishf...@hotmail.com (remove X to email)> wrote
>>
>> >> Indeed. I know of a case where a man was prosecuted for
>> >> possession of a book of images of scantily-clad and nude
>> >> teenagers in the David Hamilton style (soft focus,'dreamy'
>> >> style, no focus on the genitalia, and so on).
>>
>> > Yes, I am very familiar with the works of David Hamilton, Jock Sturgess
>&
>> > others. Very suspect IMO, child pornography masquerading as art.
>>
>> I have two questions. Firstly, if the works are available for legal sale
>in
>> the UK, how could they be deemed illegal to possess?
>
>Are they available on legal sale? It's news to me.
>
> Secondly, the
>> justification for the law is that child pornography involves serious harm
>to
>> children, and possession therefore encourages such harm. If the material
>> concerned obviously did *not* involve serious harm to children (which must
>> be the case seeing that they are permitted by most countries in Europe),
>how
>> do you justify the banning of the material?
>
>And why are you always so keen on eoples 'rights' to collect this sort of
>material,
Because it is a widely accepted moral principle that people should have
the legal right to do anything that is not known to be harmful to
others.
I now foresee two alternative lines of argument:
(a) You do not accept the above principle. This ends the discussion,
since it is then purely a matter of differing values;
(b) You accept the above principle but claim that collection of such
material in fact hurts others. In that case it is up to you to show us
how.
> do you not see a sinister side to it?
What does "sinister" mean? Something that policemen disapprove of?
>Coincidentally I came across
>a few scans today on a computer I was looking at, entitled 'The Lolita's of
>David Hamilton'. Why do you think they were called Lolita's, perhaps because
>certain men would be sexually attracted to them?
So what? Is it a bad thing *in itself* for someone to have pictures that
he finds sexually attractive? If it is, why? If not, what specific point
are you making?
>As it happens these are
>amongst the mildest pictures in this mans collection.
>
>> > Why did he have these pictures? Did he have any other 'works of art'?
>How
>> > did he come to police attention in the first place?
>>
>> The questions you ask would be pertinent to the question of whether he had
>a
>> sexual interest in children, but should be irrelevant to the question of
>> whether he should have been convicted over the photos in question. What
>you
>> appear to be arguing is that if the guy had a sexual interest in children,
>> it is right that he should be forbidden to possess *any* material that he
>> might find arousing.
>
>I don't know if you have seen this sort of material but the photographs, if
>not actually sexual in content, could certainly be classed as alluring.
Again: So what? Is it a bad thing *in itself* to have alluring pix? If
it isn't, then what point are you making?
--
PeteM
PeteM
<fishf...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>"John O" <aud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3d7688c9$0$24504$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...
>>
>> "Fishfood" <fishf...@hotmail.com (remove X to email)> wrote in message
>> news:al3hsa$ecd$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>> > > Interesting - I believe that the US Supreme Court recently took rather
>a
>> > > contrary view to this - particularly in respect of
>'pseudo-photographs'.
>> >
>> > What was their view John, and do you have a link you could post?
>>
>> Suggest you try this one:
>>
>> http://www.usscplus.com/online/index.asp?case=9920036
>>
>> (Let me know if it works....)
>>
>> You would probably guess that I am, on the whole, in favour of the
>arguments
>> advanced, since the UK Law, as currently, seems to go a long way beyond
>> prosecuting for harm done - and actually prosecutes on the basis of a
>theory
>> about future harm that may be done if something isn't done now.
>>
>> In my opinion, a very dangerous principle indeed.
>
>The link works, thankyou, though too long of a read for tonight. I've copied
>it to a zip disk & will have a read at work tomorrow.
You should also read the well known Canadian judgement R v Sharpe 1999,
in which civil liberties issues are discussed at length.
In particular the judgement notes the very special danger posed by laws
that criminalise simple possession of certain types of document.
--
PeteM
Fishfood
"PeteM" <pe...@rockall.net> wrote in message
news:G$Q5hKAyF...@rockall.gov...
You mean:
"First, s. 163.1(1) is overly broad by capturing the possession of visual or
written representations of the sexuality of children or young persons that
are purely the products of their creators' imaginations and involve no
children or youth in their production. This includes stories, diary entries,
paintings, drawings, sketches, sculptures and other representations which
may be self-authored and which are never disseminated."
Possession of this type of material would not constitute an offence in the
uk.
Fish
Fishfood
I believe it was in the UK, hence the addition of 'pseudo-photographs' to
existing child porn laws by the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994.
Fishfood
Fishfood
"Mike Zanker" <ab...@zanker.org> wrote in message
news:Xns928084CD866...@130.133.1.4...
> "Fishfood" <fishf...@hotmail.com (remove X to email)> wrote in
> news:al3hh3$u5v$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
> > Are they available on legal sale? It's news to me.
>
> so next time I was in Waterstones I had a look and there were a couple
> of David Hamilton books - one was called something like the Innocent
> Age and the other was just a collection of all sorts of photographs,
> including young women. There was nothing that I would personally class
> as pornography but I could imagine The Sun or NOTW making something out
> of it.
>
I'm surprised that they sell this stuff, much of which features under 10's.
Despite what Cynic says we do not prosecute on this stuff alone as it is
just about within the Law. It *is* difficult trying to decide what is
indecent or not, but every time we have seized these books there has always
been much stronger stuff accompanying it.
> > And why are you always so keen on eoples 'rights' to collect this
> > sort of material, do you not see a sinister side to it?
>
> That's a bit evasive :) I think he has a valid point. If it's on sale
> in high street book shops why shouldn't people have a right to collect
> it? It's nothing like the sort of material that people had on your TV
> documentary earlier this year.
Agreed yes, but Cynic has a habit of jumping to the defence of 'people who
appreciate the young female form', always pushing at the borders
>
> > Coincidentally I came across a few scans today on a computer I was
> > looking at, entitled 'The Lolita's of David Hamilton'. Why do you
> > think they were called Lolita's, perhaps because certain men would
> > be sexually attracted to them?
>
> Probably - but these same men will likely be aroused by all sorts of
> material depicting young girls - magazines, catalogues, etc.
As stated, we have always found much stronger stuff when we have seized the
Hamilton material, which proves my point to an extent.
>
> > I don't know if you have seen this sort of material but the
> > photographs, if not actually sexual in content, could certainly be
> > classed as alluring.
>
> So would paintings and very explicit pencil drawings like Julian
> whatsisname had but you have already said that they are not legislated
> against. I'd personally find it more worrying that someone had the
> latter rather than DH photos.
>
Julian Levene. The worrying thing was that most of those sexual drawings had
been made by young girls whilst in the company of Levene & his friends. One
of them in particular, not featured in the programme and now in her
thirties, swore that he had never indecently assaulted her although the
photographs we found later disproved this. She & her mother were still
friends of his at the time of his arrest.
Fish
bigbrian
Without wishing to put words into his mouth, I suspect he was thinking
more along the lines of...
"the offence of possession of child pornography was defined too
broadly in s. 163.1. Specifically, the Court was concerned that the
definition captured, for example, material that was created without
abusing children, not intended for dissemination or to be published or
sold (such as diaries)"
which certainly could constitute an offence in the UK.
" The court also speculated that, among other things, the definition
could cover a young couple where one or both partners are younger than
18 recording their own consensual lawful sexual activities. The judges
decided that s. 163.1 (4) impaired the freedom of expression beyond
what was necessary to achieve the stated goal of protecting children"
which if you allow for the differences in the ages of consent, could
also be an offence in the UK, couldn't it?
Brian
Fishfood
As stated in my reply to Mike, I have never come across a case in which
there has not been stronger material accompanying the Hamilton stuff.
> (b) You accept the above principle but claim that collection of such
> material in fact hurts others. In that case it is up to you to show us
> how.
I believe that people who collect indecent photographs of children, given
that the Hamilton material may fall just outside that category, are a
potential danger to children.
> > do you not see a sinister side to it?
>
> What does "sinister" mean? Something that policemen disapprove of?
Not quite. Whilst you may argue the theoretics of such a scenario, I have to
deal with the realities and clearly see the fixated, obsessive and perverted
behaviour of such individuals.
> >Coincidentally I came across
> >a few scans today on a computer I was looking at, entitled 'The Lolita's
of
> >David Hamilton'. Why do you think they were called Lolita's, perhaps
because
> >certain men would be sexually attracted to them?
>
> So what? Is it a bad thing *in itself* for someone to have pictures that
> he finds sexually attractive? If it is, why? If not, what specific point
> are you making?
I don't know your family situation Pete, but say for instance you have a
seven year old daughter who you regularly leave with a baby sitter. Would
you feel that your daughter would be safe staying overnight with her if you
knew that her husband collected such material?
Fish
Cynic
(remove X to email)> wrote:
>I'm surprised that they sell this stuff, much of which features under 10's.
>Despite what Cynic says we do not prosecute on this stuff alone as it is
>just about within the Law.
Such material *has* been prosecuted alone and convictions obtained. I
know of 2 cases that I am 100% certain about, and another 2 cases
where I have anecdotal accounts that are probably true. The second
case that I know about is the one I have written of often, and
involved material found *only* in the defendant's email database - it
had been sent unsolicited and was of scanned images taken from art
books that are legal in the UK. The other case you also know about.
I don't want to publish names on Usenet, but you know my email address
if you need confirmation. ISTM that whilst such material will not be
prosecuted in isolation, a prosecution might well be pursued if the
defendant is suspected of something else but there is insufficient
evidence to prosecute on the other charge. IOW it is a sort of
"revenge" prosecution by the police if they cannot secure a conviction
on something different.
> It *is* difficult trying to decide what is
>indecent or not, but every time we have seized these books there has always
>been much stronger stuff accompanying it.
IYE maybe. There have been cases pursued where there has been no
"stronger stuff". It is not for you to decide whether the material is
indecent - that is for the Court to decide. Therefore you are
perfectly justified in testing any photograph that has an outside
possibility of being indecent by charging the person and putting it
before the court. In today's climate of hysteria about paedophillia,
it is quite likely that a magistrate or a jury will be persuaded to
judge almost anything as being indecent in order to convict a person
they are told is a paedophile. You may recall the quite serious
judgements made by an unsuspecting guest on the "Brass Eye" satire
whereby quite ridiculous photographs were judged to be indecent when
the guest believed they had been made by a paedophile.
>> > And why are you always so keen on eoples 'rights' to collect this
>> > sort of material, do you not see a sinister side to it?
>>
>> That's a bit evasive :) I think he has a valid point. If it's on sale
>> in high street book shops why shouldn't people have a right to collect
>> it? It's nothing like the sort of material that people had on your TV
>> documentary earlier this year.
>
>Agreed yes, but Cynic has a habit of jumping to the defence of 'people who
>appreciate the young female form', always pushing at the borders
Huh? This is *not* my position in defence of such material. You
appear to have pidgeon-holed me into a category and are stating what
you think my position is. My main point has always been the same.
Whilst there is an *arguable* case to be made to justify the
illegality of collecting photographs that depict illegal acts and/or
where children have been harmed, I cannot see the justification in
banning photographs that depict perfectly legal acts where nobody has
been harmed. Your argument is centered on the effect of the
photograph on the person viewing it. If the person is aroused by the
photograph due to having a sexual interest in children, then you want
the photograph banned.
IMO the photograph should be judged in isolation. If a jury would
consider it not to be indecent if found in possession of the child's
mother, it should not be indecent if found anywhere else. You always
ask the question *why* the person has the photograph. I say that it
makes no difference in terms of the offence in question. Perhaps the
person enjoys looking at children in a non-sexual way, perhaps the
person gets sexually aroused by the photograph, perhaps there is a
different reason altogether. IMO it makes bugger-all difference to
the question of legality of the photograph.
>> > Coincidentally I came across a few scans today on a computer I was
>> > looking at, entitled 'The Lolita's of David Hamilton'. Why do you
>> > think they were called Lolita's, perhaps because certain men would
>> > be sexually attracted to them?
>>
>> Probably - but these same men will likely be aroused by all sorts of
>> material depicting young girls - magazines, catalogues, etc.
>
>As stated, we have always found much stronger stuff when we have seized the
>Hamilton material, which proves my point to an extent.
You make a point that I have never contested. Your point being that
people with such material quite likely have a sexual interest in
children. You may not like the idea, I may not like that idea, but
there is nothing we can do to prevent some people being sexually
aroused by children, and nor is that condition alone illegal. Acting
on that interest *with a real child* is indeed illegal, as it should
be. Using photographs that did not involve harm to any child in order
to obtain sexual satisfaction should not, IMO, be regarded as illegal.
I'd much rather they use such photographs than a real child.
>> > I don't know if you have seen this sort of material but the
>> > photographs, if not actually sexual in content, could certainly be
>> > classed as alluring.
>> So would paintings and very explicit pencil drawings like Julian
>> whatsisname had but you have already said that they are not legislated
>> against. I'd personally find it more worrying that someone had the
>> latter rather than DH photos.
>Julian Levene. The worrying thing was that most of those sexual drawings had
>been made by young girls whilst in the company of Levene & his friends. One
>of them in particular, not featured in the programme and now in her
>thirties, swore that he had never indecently assaulted her although the
>photographs we found later disproved this. She & her mother were still
>friends of his at the time of his arrest.
It is a fact that many would like to deny that not all children are at
all harmed by sexual contact with adults. There are many factors that
determine whether harm will result. A child who was *not* harmed by
such experiences - who may in fact have enjoyed it - might well be
very reluctant to do anything that would harm the paedophile who
carried out those acts.
Many child protection professionals deny the fact that non-harmful
adult/child sex can possibly occur. This is being "in denial" just
the same, but opposite to the position of many paedophiles that such
harm will not, or is unlikely to occur. Neither side will convince
the other, because both sides can see the lie in the position of the
other. It is like telling a teenager that drugs will kill. The
teenager sees friends taking certain drugs and not coming to harm, and
knows the statement is a lie. Much better to tell the teenager that
whilst it is possible to take drugs and not suffer any ill effects, it
is extremely likely that drugs will eventually cause quite a bit of
harm to the drug taker.
The fact wrt paedophilia is that sexual acts with a child are *very
likely* to harm the child. There are a variety of reasons for that,
many not under the control of the paedophile carrying out the acts.
--
Cynic
Cynic
(remove X to email)> wrote:
>> I now foresee two alternative lines of argument:
>>
>> (a) You do not accept the above principle. This ends the discussion,
>> since it is then purely a matter of differing values;
>As stated in my reply to Mike, I have never come across a case in which
>there has not been stronger material accompanying the Hamilton stuff.
Completely misses the point. If a man had photographs of cars on his
computer and also photographs of child-pornography, is that a reason
to declare the photos or cars illegal because they were found together
with illegal stuff?
Simply prosecute the "stronger stuff" and ignore the Hamilton stuff -
or use it as indicative evidence of deliberate intent if you need to.
>> (b) You accept the above principle but claim that collection of such
>> material in fact hurts others. In that case it is up to you to show us
>> how.
>I believe that people who collect indecent photographs of children, given
>that the Hamilton material may fall just outside that category, are a
>potential danger to children.
You may well be correct in that assumption, but the emphasis is on the
word "potential". How does it affect the issue at stake? Do you
believe that if we prevent them collecting such material they will
*cease* being a potential danger to children?
You hope to stop the crimes by removing the symptoms. That does not
work. Following your logic, it should be a crime to possess other
material that is of a similar indicative nature, such as fictional
text or drawings.
Straight question: Do you believe that it *should* be a crime in the
UK to possess pornographic text about children? If not, how do you
justify the difference between such material and photographs in which
no child was harmed?
>> > do you not see a sinister side to it?
>>
>> What does "sinister" mean? Something that policemen disapprove of?
>
>Not quite. Whilst you may argue the theoretics of such a scenario, I have to
>deal with the realities and clearly see the fixated, obsessive and perverted
>behaviour of such individuals.
Again, you take a behavioural symptom displayed by a particular type
of unsavoury individual, and villify the symptom in isolation. I
question your inferred assumption that *all* people who possess such
images are equally as bad. Prosecute things the person has *done* by
all means, but not what such people might look at.
>I don't know your family situation Pete, but say for instance you have a
>seven year old daughter who you regularly leave with a baby sitter. Would
>you feel that your daughter would be safe staying overnight with her if you
>knew that her husband collected such material?
The question as to whether a person is considered safe to leave with a
child has nothing to do with the question of whether the things that
aroused such an opinion should be declared illegal. There are many
types of people who I would not want to leave alone with a young
child. A person who has a violent temper, and collects pictures of
guns and mutilated corpses, for instance. That does not mean that I
would expect it to be made illegal to collect pictures of guns or to
lose one's temper.
You seem to confuse the issues. I have no problem with most of your
statements about behavioural signs that are cause for serious concern
over the possibility that a person has a sexual interest in children
and thus is a potential danger to them. That is one issue that I
suspect we would agree almost completely - and I would like to see
such people assessed properly and managed in a way to reduce that
potential danger as much as possible. The other issue however is of
what actual acts should be made illegal. On that we differ a lot. I
would not criminalise any of the symptoms displayed by a person who
has a sexual interest in children - only those acts that will lead
directly to signficant harm to a child.
--
Cynic
smicker
Eh? are you saying this stuff in waterstones was accompanied by
something worse?
smicker
PeteM
<fishf...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>I believe that people who collect indecent photographs of children, given
>that the Hamilton material may fall just outside that category, are a
>potential danger to children.
Everybody's a potential danger to children. I'd rather have the police
prosecute people for what they actually *have* done rather than what
they *might* do.
>
>> > do you not see a sinister side to it?
>>
>> What does "sinister" mean? Something that policemen disapprove of?
>
>Not quite. Whilst you may argue the theoretics of such a scenario, I have to
>deal with the realities and clearly see the fixated, obsessive and perverted
>behaviour of such individuals.
By all means prosecute such people for molesting children. But how do
you justify prosecuting "fixated, obsessive and perverted behaviour"
that is not in fact molesting of children?
You are transferring your feelings of contempt for people who harm
children to other behaviour that such people sometimes exhibit. Well
known psychological irrationality, sometimes called the reverse halo
effect.
>
>> >Coincidentally I came across
>> >a few scans today on a computer I was looking at, entitled 'The Lolita's
>of
>> >David Hamilton'. Why do you think they were called Lolita's, perhaps
>because
>> >certain men would be sexually attracted to them?
>>
>> So what? Is it a bad thing *in itself* for someone to have pictures that
>> he finds sexually attractive? If it is, why? If not, what specific point
>> are you making?
>
>I don't know your family situation Pete, but say for instance you have a
>seven year old daughter who you regularly leave with a baby sitter. Would
>you feel that your daughter would be safe staying overnight with her if you
>knew that her husband collected such material?
Perhaps not, if I genuinely believed he is sexually attracted to young
girls, but again, so what? That doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to
collect this material. I'd prefer not to let my kids stay in a house
full of heavy smokers, but I'm not expecting anybody to alter their
private behaviour to suit my personal preferences.
In giving this example you are confusing the symptoms of a condition
with its causes. The guy wants to look at child porn because he is
attracted to young girls, not the other way around. It is a *symptom* of
his sexuality, not a cause of it.
My turn for a what-if. Suppose, by a strange quirk of sexuality, that
paedophiles were often driven to collect old bicycle tyres. Would it
then be reasonable to prosecute possession of old bicycle tyres? If not,
why is it reasonable to prosecute possession of pseudophotographic child
porn?
[I predict you will reply that possession of pseudophotographic child
porn *does* influence people to molest children. Then I will ask you to
produce evidence for this claim, and then you will not be able to
produce any, probably accusing me of being "theoretical" :-) ]
--
PeteM
John O
IT is more than an interesting point. The idea that bad leads on to worse
is one of those popular myths that may often out to be untrue when tested by
actual behaviour.
The opposite could very well be true: it may be that individuals who might
otherwise molest are able to use the material to substitute for actual
interference. It might even be that over-abuse of such material can lead to
extinction of a particular behaviour through saturation. That is certainly
a possibility within Skinnerian theories of learning.
How should we react if, in later years, it turns out that preventing
individuals from having access to such material resulted in a small but
statistically significant increase in the number of children abused?
And more to the point, without cast-iron evidence that the effect of such
material is always in one direction, how should we react to people who have
urged us to adopt that approach - without the backing of scientific research
to do so.
Somewhere up there, I suspect, with government ministers who dishonestly
urged us to eat beef before the scientific evidence was in.
>
> --
> PeteM
PeteM
<fishf...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>You mean:
>
>"First, s. 163.1(1) is overly broad by capturing the possession of visual or
>written representations of the sexuality of children or young persons that
>are purely the products of their creators' imaginations and involve no
>children or youth in their production. This includes stories, diary entries,
>paintings, drawings, sketches, sculptures and other representations which
>may be self-authored and which are never disseminated."
>
>Possession of this type of material would not constitute an offence in the
>uk.
Possessing indecent pseudophotographs of children is an offence, is it
not?
Here's just one pithy comment from the R V Sharpe appeal court
judgement:
"... There is good reason for such freedom from intrusion [into private
expressive documents] being a profound constitutional value. This has
been the century of the Gestapo and the KGB - of a state encouraging
betrayal by children of their parents to the authorities, of smashing
down doors and burning books, all in the name of some concept of the
greater good. Even if the possession of material which advocates or
counsels crime may lead to the inference that the possessor has bad
thoughts and thence to the conclusion that he might or even will commit
the crime thus advocated, it is not within our political ethic to make
the possession itself a crime ... I conclude, therefore, that
legislation which makes simple possession of expressive materials a
crime can never be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society.
Such legislation bears the hallmark of tyranny."
The Gestapo! Chew that one over before your next 6am raid, Fishy :-)
--
PeteM