MP Seeking To Outlaw Written Accounts of Child Abuse

First time accepted submitter Anduril1986 writes "A UK Conservative MP is seeking to expand censorship in another 'think of the children' debate. The plan this time is to make it illegal to possess written accounts of child abuse. According to Sir Paul Beresford, the MP for Mole Valley such writing 'fuels the fantasies' of offenders and could lead to the physical abuse of children."

Comments

Does this surprise anyone?

[JoshuaZ]

This is the logical culmination. We've already had decisions that making a sexual cartoon involving Bart Simpson is child porn http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7770781.stm. This isn't much farther than that.

It's about time

[hawguy]

It's about time someone is passing a law against any written words about any illegal or illicit activity. Let's burn all the crime mysteries since they just foster and encourage people to commit crimes and murders. And those thrillers that glorify spies and espionage are a clear threat to governments anywhere. Any book that describes any immoral activity should be immediately banned as well, if no one reads about adultery they'll never commit adultery.

From now on, only stories about unicorns and rainbows should be allowed to be published.

Child abuse is abhorrent and should be severely punished, but is there any evidence that reading any type of extreme (or non-extreme) porn leads one to perform that activity?

Re:It's about time

[Dyinobal]

Stories about unicorns just fuel for beastiality fantasies.

Re:It's about time

[jamstar7]

Except the cartoon stuff, which is still illegal. Come to think of it, isn't Twilight considered 'kiddie porn' in that a hundred year old vampire seduces a teenager? And if not, why not? And don't hand me that 'she consented to it' cause by definition, a girl below the age of concent can't consent which makes it statutory rape regardless of who initiated the sex.

Re:It's about time

[mrxak]

I'm pretty sure nobody abuses children because they think they can be famous online or they think they'll make a buck (especially the latter... I have never heard of anyone actually getting rich off of child pornographyâ"you'd think they'd make a big deal when they caught the person). They abuse children because they fucking like it. I'm pretty sure, if there was no means in existence to record, in any medium, the abuse of children, they'd still be abusing children. Again, they like doing it, and it provides for them pleasures above and beyond any possible motives for producing or releasing visual, audio, or written accounts of it.

We already have laws against child abuse, in all its many abhorrent forms. We even outlaw consensual acts that don't fit into the moral codes of behavior of those making the laws. Statutory rape is the obvious example, but there are laws against many other things that are less talked about, and even things that are more broadly accepted like anal or oral sex, prostitution, adultery, certain fetishes, and so on. Then there's unwise behaviors but nonetheless entirely consensual ones such as nude self-photography that is illegal if somebody is underage, even if they are legally able to engage in sexual acts with whomever they choose. Now some of these are still on the books from a more conservative time and rather difficult to enforce, but others are newer, or more widely supported to this day, and these crimes are gone after with a lot of zeal.

Okay... point is, we have laws already that cover the acts depicted in child pornography, whether it is pictures, drawings, video, or written accounts. Are those laws not effective? Then make them stronger. But we've pretty much done the opposite. Possession of child pornography, in many cases, carries more severe penalties than actually raping a child! Which do we think causes more actual harm, the assault, or the images or descriptions of the assault the child may not even know are out there?

Then there's the fact that these images or depictions are evidence of a crime. Possession of evidence of a crime shouldn't be criminalized, because it makes convicting the perpetrator harder. As horrifying as child abuse is, let's think this through. Is it easier or harder to convict a child abuser if they record the abuse that they've done? Is it harder or easier to determine a crime has occurred, and find out who did it, if the record is distributed?

I have no interest in watching people get murdered, but if somebody gets murdered, I'd rather there be a record of it. Society apparently agrees, or at least is more tolerant, because I can, if I choose, find all the video, pictures, or written accounts of people being murdered as I like, and it's all legal to possess or view. I have no interest in watching children get abused, but if a child is being abused, I'd much rather it was documented, and distributed widely, so that the person who did it is more easily found and convicted. Society disagrees, which is pretty screwed up. I don't know why this is controversial, but apparently if you say that murder is worse than child abuse, people get upset and say you sympathize with child abusers. I say they're both pretty bad, but I say if the criminal is stupid enough to record him or herself doing a crime, we should absolutely encourage them gathering and distributing evidence against themselves. Since child abuse so often happens behind closed doors in the privacy of people's homes with very little physical evidence after the fact, a lot of crimes that happen we might never know about if such evidence wasn't being self-collected by perpetrators or witnesses.

And, last but not least, I don't buy into the "it encourages criminal acts" argument. Please. I have killed more people in video games, or written about violent acts as a fiction writer, than I'll ever meet in real life, and I've yet to kill a single actual person in all my years. I've read news stories about real violent acts, and I've never even been in a fist fight. I've certa

"could"?

[cheekyjohnson]

"could lead to the physical abuse of children."

So not only does it want to ban the material entirely because of a few 'bad guys', he also doesn't even know if what he's saying is actually true. Can we ban all books and other media depicting any violence or sexual content whatsoever because they could (but likely wouldn't actually be the cause of it) lead a minuscule portion of the population to commit crimes, too? Actually, can we just ban moronic politicians? They are, without a doubt, ruining just about everything, for everyone.

My first hand experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I was molested as a child (by a relative, but not my parents), and it seriously messed me up. When I was a teen, I sought help though online support groups, and really healed a lot though talking about it. I'm still not really normal, but it could have been a lot worse. Should I be prosecuted for posting my story (including some details) online in the forum where I received so much help?
This is utterly absurd.

Re:Fool of an MP

[wvmarle]

Actually the porn/arousal part was the last on my mind when I read the headline.

The first thing I thought is, how are we going to record any actual child abuse? How about social workers detailing such events, are they falling foul of the law with their reports?

Probably there will be some exception there.

For the rest, from the face of it, this suggestion sounds a bit like "let's bury it, then it doesn't exist any more". Like how the Party tried to introduce Newspeak, key of which was not so much a "simplification" of the language but the absence of certain words (like "democracy") so people would have no way to think about or discuss those concepts.

Re:Fool of an MP

[Pieroxy]

We should forbid birth and thus make reproduction illegal. It is proven that birth leads in 100% of cases to death, hence, we will defeat death itself by this move.

Re:Planning on banning the bible too?

[Sasayaki]

I wouldn't be worried about the outrage of Christians from the Bible getting caught up in this law (it's certainly possible though). They'll mostly just be angry and not comply with the law (not that anyone would really).

I'd be more worried about them banning the Koran.

After all, Mohammad the Prophet had a wife named Aisha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha) who was betrothed to him at 6 or 7 and the union was consummated at age 9. The text even explicitly says that she was still playing with her toys when all this was going on.

Now, such marriages were not seen as improper in a historical context, but hey. This law is specifically about removing all text, irrespective of context, since it might "give people ideas". Never mind that books like The Lonely Bones don't glorify child rape at all (the movie was much, much more sanitized than the book). It could give people ideas!

So sure. Go ahead and tell people you're banning the Koran because it encourages paedophiles. That seems like a safe thing to do.

Re:Fool of an MP

[freman]

We need to outlaw children - that way paedophiles can't see them anywhere, can't hear of them, can't imagine them and in a generation it'll be pointless.

Re:Don't ever let the fundies know about it !!

[Pieroxy]

> Care to explain how someone can "find" God?

The problem is you are looking outward instead of inward.

There are as many paths to find God as there are religions, that is, infinite ways.

Here is but one path: When you have a hobby where you are so caught up in the pure enjoyment that time seems to stops, you are *starting* your journey.

There is no *single* right answer, because everyone has the ability to experience god in their own unique way.

Right. This answers perfectly my question. God is a feeling or a state of mind, nothing else. Most certainly not a superior being all powerful and forgiving.

Thanks for the clarification.