Slashdot Mirror

Credit card fraud wouldn't happen nearly to the degree it does if there were less bottom feeding parasitical criminals who do not belong in our midst.

There, fixed that for you.

Criminal scum always have an excuse/justification for their behaviour. The same way rapists, thieves and/or murderers do. The same way a paedophile does when using brute force to push his penis into a toddler or baby's anus or vagina, thereby tearing it. The screams of pain make it titillating.

Let's not gloss over the consequences of these peoples actions. Any crime hurts someone, somewhere.

"Having erotic fantasties about molesting a child is only a small step away from acting out those fantasies."

Are you also one of those people who believes that a man who is attracted to a woman is a "small step" from raping her if she doesn't want to have sex with him? Or do you understand the concept of self-control? It's not difficult.

"a young child does not have the emotional or intellectual maturity to consent to such acts."

I've never argued that a child does. You're setting up a straw man argument here (and showing the ridiculous, presumptious nature of your arguments).

"In a similar way to how the police monitor other suspicious activity to prevent crime, it is completely correct that they monitor known paedophiles."

No. They have no right to harass someone on the basis of their sexuality (which is not an activity); it is unethical, discriminatory, and in some countries (such as the UK) it is also illegal.

"I can see that you don't like this, but obviously, you are biased."

Whereas you are not? I think you're one of the "I was molested by a paedophile so all paedophiles must be child molesters" trolls. You can't apply the behaviour of one "paedophile" (note that most child molesters are not paedophiles) to every other paedophile, especially when 33% of men experience significant sexual arousal to pre-pubescent children.

As for me not liking the popular myths which you rehash, I feel a little more strongly than that. I am going to make my point very publicly, by creating a website which encourages non-offending paedophiles to work with children. The website will include a selection of job/volunteer adverts from other websites, advice on how to avoid having one's sexuality discovered in interviews, and an explanation of why most paedophiles are safe to work around children. No matter how much the misinformed masses will hate me, the controversy should at least attract attention to my arguments.

"The UK government has further detailed plans to track all communications -- mobile phone calls, text messages, email and browser sessions -- in the fight against terrorism, pedophiles and organized crime. The government said it's not looking to see what you're saying, just to whom and when and how."

Like everyone else, paedophiles choose to communicate with like-minded people. This does not mean that we're breaking the law; we discuss sexuality, politics and unrelated topics. We also discuss children (from TV, places of work, etc), but we can have such a discussion without plotting to commit crimes.

While the UK government claim that they will only target people who are suspected of illegal activity, the UK authorities simply cannot be trusted to differentiate between someone who is attracted to children and someone who actually tries to act on that attraction. Despite having been informed of the difference between paedophiles and sex offenders, the Metropolitan Police have refused to explain the meaning of their plans to engage in "proactive disruption of 130 individuals with a sexual interest in children". In other words, their so-called "Paedophile unit" is happy to knowingly and unashamedly harass innocent people.

People who aren't even attracted to children are also at risk from the proposed database, as it's very difficult for most people to know whether they're communicating with a paedophile. Studies have indicated that up to 33% of adult men experience sexual arousal to "pedophilic stimuli" (pre-pubescent children). Few people can connect their friends or colleagues to a penile plethysmograph, and very few people will admit to being attracted to chidlren (for obvious reasons), so this database could put anyone at risk of being investigated.

This extension of the authorities' powers will lead to more innocent people being harassed, as many of the iron tentacles of the UK state cannot be trusted to act in a sane or balanced manner.

"The UK government has further detailed plans to track all communications -- mobile phone calls, text messages, email and browser sessions -- in the fight against terrorism, pedophiles and organized crime. The government said it's not looking to see what you're saying, just to whom and when and how."

Like everyone else, paedophiles choose to communicate with like-minded people. This does not mean that we're breaking the law; we discuss sexuality, politics and unrelated topics. We also discuss children (from TV, places of work, etc), but we can have such a discussion without plotting to commit crimes.

While the UK government claim that they will only target people who are suspected of illegal activity, the UK authorities simply cannot be trusted to differentiate between someone who is attracted to children and someone who actually tries to act on that attraction. Despite having been informed of the difference between paedophiles and sex offenders, the Metropolitan Police have refused to explain the meaning of their plans to engage in "proactive disruption of 130 individuals with a sexual interest in children". In other words, their so-called "Paedophile unit" is happy to knowingly and unashamedly harass innocent people.

People who aren't even attracted to children are also at risk from the proposed database, as it's very difficult for most people to know whether they're communicating with a paedophile. Studies have indicated that up to 33% of adult men experience sexual arousal to "pedophilic stimuli" (pre-pubescent children). Few people can connect their friends or colleagues to a penile plethysmograph, and very few people will admit to being attracted to chidlren (for obvious reasons), so this database could put anyone at risk of being investigated.

This extension of the authorities' powers will lead to more innocent people being harassed, as many of the iron tentacles of the UK state cannot be trusted to act in a sane or balanced manner.

Attraction to children appears to be fairly common. Of course, I would imagine that only a tiny fraction of these people possess any child porn.

* The content of indecent images

I thank all the gods for the Slashdot link location notifier.

Me too. And for the first time in my life, I thought to myself, that I would be safer visiting a site from work than from my own home. At work I'm somewhat more anonymous. This is getting ridiculous!

Yeah, but do you think your employers would hesitate to dive into the logs and see who pulled up that URL, if the police asked?

Not that I think that scenario is terribly likely - I'm just saying, I don't expect that "somewhat anonymous" by virtue of connecting through your employer's net connection gets you much...

* The content of indecent images

I thank all the gods for the Slashdot link location notifier.

Me too. And for the first time in my life, I thought to myself, that I would be safer visiting a site from work than from my own home. At work I'm somewhat more anonymous. This is getting ridiculous!

* The content of indecent images

I thank all the gods for the Slashdot link location notifier.

Yes, it makes it so much easier to judge a book by it's cover and avoid being exposed to points of view you might not agree with. You don't want to learn about witch hunts and unjust prosecution because hey, think of the children. It doesn't matter that the courts, the legislature, and the police are slowly broadening the definition of 'child pornography; because its just kiddy diddlers - right? They'll never come for you after all.

* The content of indecent images

I thank all the gods for the Slashdot link location notifier.

Under UK law, an image of a naked child is usually considered child pornography; context is irrelevant. Garda (the Irish police) reported that, between 2000-2004, 44% of "child pornography" cases in Ireland involved images which depicted no sexual activity whatsoever*. Child pornography laws in Ireland are very similar to those of the UK.

In a strict legal sense, this censorship is justified; the problem is the law itself, which should not define nudity as "pornography". The frequently used term "child abuse images" is used to invoke strong emotions and discredit those who disagree with the current laws. Don't forget that if the IWF fail to maintain outrage over child pornography, they'll lose their funding.

I have written a detailed summary of UK child pornography laws, here

* The content of indecent images

"I'm not trying to defend child molesters here; that is probably one of the worst crimes imaginable. I'm just saying that just because you're a registered sex offender, it does not always mean you're a kiddy porn hungry pervert."

It is also ridiculous to assume that people who view child pornography always molest children. The only study which found a significant correlation was withdrawn from peer review; the researchers admitted that a sample bias prevented the study from being applicable to the general population of child pornography viewers.

Most people who view child pornography are likely to have a sexual preference for children, whereas most child molesters do not have a sexual preference for children*. Suggesting that someone is automatically a danger to children for using child pornography, especially if they have not encouraged further production by paying or trading, is absurd.

* Occurrence of Paedophilia in Contact Child Sex Offenders

You're very welcome to support the anti-paedophile crusade, but shallow perceptions of paedophiles lead to hysterical responses like this.

It won't be long before the UK and US has taken away all of its citizens' freedoms under the guise of "protecting children from paedophiles".

You seem to believe that people should be imprisoned for being attracted to children. Around 25-33% of men are aroused by children*; who is going to pay for that level of imprisonment?

Occurrence of Paedophilia in the General Population