MP Seeking To Outlaw Written Accounts of Child Abuse

Fool of an MP by J'raxis · 2012-09-12 16:37 · Score: 5, Informative

Something this fool of a politician should read: Three reasons possession of child porn must be re-legalized in the coming decade by Rickard Falkvinge.

Abstract: This article argues that our current laws on the topic are counterproductive, because they protect child molesters instead of bringing them to justice, they criminalize a generation of normally-behaving teenagers which diverts valuable police resources from the criminals we should be going after, and they lead to censorship and electronic book burning as well as unacceptable collateral damage to innocent families. Child abuse as such is not condoned by anybody, and this article argues that current laws are counterproductive in preventing and prosecuting it.

--
Liberty in your lifetime

Re:Fool of an MP by wvmarle · 2012-09-12 16:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by mark-t · 2012-09-12 17:09 · Score: 3, Informative

The notion that people have no way to think about or discuss concepts that they have no words for is flawed, since, to use your own example, the concept of democracy clearly came about well before anybody had an actual word for it.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Fool of an MP by Pieroxy · 2012-09-12 17:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:Fool of an MP by KingAlanI · 2012-09-12 17:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

I agree that the absolutism of the laws can ensnare non-perverts. The specific point about ubiquity of Google Glasses and accidentally becoming a witness seems too far fetched for now. Punishing consensual acts of the barely underaged is definitely a problem, and kiddie porn law isn't the only example. Using this as a pretext for other bullshit is also definitely a problem.
http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/11/child-porn-laws-arent-as-bad-as-you-think-theyre-much-much-worse/
The biggest point added in his followup is about how ridiculous it is to criminalize fictional and/or nonsexual work.

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Re:Fool of an MP by freman · 2012-09-12 17:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:Fool of an MP by metacell · 2012-09-12 17:53 · Score: 4, Funny

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.
What do you mean? Newspeak has always existed.
It sounds like you're overdue for another re-education.
Re:Fool of an MP by shentino · 2012-09-12 18:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not to mention how easy it is to use kiddie porn hacks to sabotage someone else's reputation.
Re:Fool of an MP by xenobyte · 2012-09-12 20:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

Exactly. Outlawing even references to pedophile activities is a clear first step of implementing a true thought police. Also, it will of course make both the prevention and post-abuse treatment close to impossible, thus having the opposite effect of making it significantly easier for pedophiles to do their evil stuff.
Impressive - This is stupidity squared!

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Re:Fool of an MP by silentcoder · 2012-09-12 20:41 · Score: 2

> It seems clear from observation of other, closely related species (like mammals in general), that it is not a natural state of affairs when adults have sex with immature young
Sexual behavior between adults and immature young is extremely common in Bonobo societies. They are probably our closest relatives.
If you're going to use animals to measure "natural" behavior then you must at least limit it to those animals who, like humans, have sex for pleasure and not just procreation.
That is chimps, bonobos, dolphins and the like.
Dolphins have been observed engaging in gang-rape.
It seems more like a downside of sex-for-pleasure level of intelligence is that sometimes the pursuit of that pleasure crosses the boundaries of another person's rights. This happens in nature - but since animals don't have a concept of rights nobody complains.
In human society we DO have a concept of rights and THAT is what our response must be built upon. If you intrude on the rights of others then you are going too far.
A very young child clearly has not got the knowledge or maturity to make an informed consentual decision about sexual behavior with an adult who does, THAT's why they cannot GIVE consent and why we punish adults who take advantage of this.
On the other hand, children DO (ALL children) engage in sexual experimentation at a young age - without adult influence. Most adults forget that they did that. Unborn babies (of both sexes) have been observed on sonar masturbating in the womb.
We may be largely in denial about it - but we're secretly so aware of children's sexual experimentation with each other that we even have a NAME for it. We call it 'playing doctor'.
That's a natural and normal part of growing up - indeed we all did it even if most of us cannot remember it now, it's part of how we became normal human beings.
So your position is wrong, but the end result is much the same.

--
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Re:Fool of an MP by gweihir · 2012-09-12 22:17 · Score: 2

The notion that people have no way to think about or discuss concepts that they have no words for is flawed, since, to use your own example, the concept of democracy clearly came about well before anybody had an actual word for it.
Well, most people cannot. Some (few) very bright ones can. Democracy was also not a "clean room" invention, it evolved. But I really recommend to you to read "1984" by Orwell. It describes this concept quite credible.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:Fool of an MP by dargaud · 2012-09-12 22:42 · Score: 4, Funny

"I hate people who let their kids run around naked on the beach... It's hard to hide an erection in swimming trunks." — Squinky.

"What's black and blue and hates sex ? The 7 year old in my trunk."

"Never accept an invitation from a stranger unless he gives you candy." — Linda Festa.

"I love children and would like to have as many as possible. My cell-mate, on the other hand, robbed a convenience store."

"Perverts aren't the leading cause of pedophilia, it's sexy children."

"My girlfriend accused me of being a pedophile. I said: 'That's a pretty big word for a third grader'."

"Q: What's the difference between pedophilia and necrophilia?
A: 4 Minutes"

"Pedophiles... Fucking immature assholes."

"A man is walking through the woods with a little girl at night. Suddenly the girl squeezes his hand and says: 'This place is creepy! I'm scared!' The guy looks down at her and replies: 'YOU'RE scared!? Imagine how I must feel? I have to walk back alone'..."

"I'm going to guess that the phrase 'wants children' means something different, depending on whether you're on a dating site, or on alt.sex.lolita. Yes ?"
OK, OK, I'll leave now.

--
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Re:Fool of an MP by bluefoxlucid · 2012-09-13 00:20 · Score: 2

In human society we DO have a concept of rights and THAT is what our response must be built upon. If you intrude on the rights of others then you are going too far.
A very young child clearly has not got the knowledge or maturity to make an informed consentual decision about sexual behavior with an adult who does, THAT's why they cannot GIVE consent and why we punish adults who take advantage of this.
Careful, that's a dangerous position. A very young child clearly has not the knowledge or maturity to make moral decisions, and therefor teaching a child your morals and ethics should be a punishable offense. A very young child clearly cannot make informed consensual decision about beliefs, therefor we should outlaw the teaching of religion to children. A very young child clearly hasn't the ability to discern truth from myth, therefor we should teach truth in schools by informing all children that Santa Clause is not real (probably a good idea) and punish parents for teaching their children to believe lies (probably not a good idea). A very young child clearly hasn't the knowledge or maturity to understand complex social forces, and therefor we should execute parents who raise their children to be over-entitled liberals that vote in people like Barrack Obama.
Our society has its own beliefs. To fit in with society, you have to fit in with its beliefs. To survive, you must fit in with society. Sexualizing children would effectively make them dangerous to society--they would grow up thinking this is normal, and behave similarly. We all have our own beliefs that clash with society around us and we tend to just accept that the vast majority of the world is stupid and we can do what we want--mostly this is harmless, for example I wear Vibram FiveFingers in public and I always wear flat shoes (from Converse All-Stars to Merrell Barefoot) because the high heal and strong arch support standard in all shoes is bad for your joints and muscles and will cause foot, knee, hip, and back problems. When those beliefs start to include "I can stick my penis in small children" and your behavior is mainly "those folks are stupid, I'm going to put it in their daughter's mouth when they're not watching," then you start becoming dangerous.
"Dangerous" how is always up for debate (mainly in terms of magnitude) and the list is of course quite long, but the social behavior is offensive to society and the social shift it would cause if left unchecked is perceived as extremely threatening. We consider our moral opinions on these things as an important basis for our society; allowing that to shift would destroy our society, and at the moment we believe the current way is the better way. If we actually believed it was harmful, obviously we'd encourage a slow, comfortable social shift.
That's how a society with morals and ethics works. Anything against its morals and ethics is a threat if it spreads. Bestiality is treated like pedophilia--you can be arrested for it and the social reaction is massive, it's like we're frightened of the neighbor that had sex with a dog. Be mindful: it's a good argument to show that society clings to its morals by pointing out that basically nobody is harmed by the neighbor screwing the dog; but it's a strawman argument to try to apply that directly to sex with children, as mainly no other people are involved with sex with animals, whereas children are involved with sex with children and it absolutely does affect their development.
In short, though: We do it because we've decided that this is what we do, and because we believe under our current understanding that not doing it this way would cause harm to individuals and to society as a whole. One side is emotional, one side is scientific, currently both sides are in agreement with each other. It has nothing to do with how much "consent" a child can give or how prepared they are to "understand and make their own decisions," because we rape their minds teaching them morals and ethics and even political and religious beliefs in the first place--which is probably much more damaging, ESPECIALLY the politics.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Fool of an MP by slim · 2012-09-13 00:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Banging 16 year olds is simply both illegal and unfavorable in today's society
It's legal at 16 in the UK, and "unfavorable" is very subjective indeed.
It's an extremely complex moral area, and the law has to cut through the crap by applying somewhat arbitrary limits. Obviously it's a nonsense that sexual intercourse with someone aged 15 years and 364 days is wrong, but doing it the very next day is fine. But it's also nonsense that driving with 799mg/L of alcohol in your blood is fine, while driving with 800mg/L is wrong. But the only manageable way to codify this stuff into law is to draw a line at some arbitrary point somewhere near where the public consensus is.
Re:Fool of an MP by J'raxis · 2012-09-13 01:17 · Score: 2

This is the slippery slope. Think this MP would have ever been able to seriously propose this law if, first actual child pornography hadn't already been outlawed decades ago, followed by virtual/cartoon CP more recently?
It is the slow steady creep of laws passed to stop actual, physical crimes turning into laws to restrict thought.

--
Liberty in your lifetime
Re:Fool of an MP by gstoddart · 2012-09-13 03:56 · Score: 2

Pumped up Kicks is not the same thing as explicit descriptions of child rape
Obviously not, but it was chosen as an example of something else appalling which we don't outlaw, and which likely nobody would even try.
But what about talking about consensual activities with a 17 year old or someone just slightly under the age of consent? What about a teenager who write some fantasy erotica about a girl in his class? We've already had teenagers declared as sex offenders for receiving naughty cell phone pics of their girlfriend. At that point, it's not even "child rape", it's just two people who aren't of the age of consent -- like that never happened throughout history.
Hell, what adult male hasn't driven down the road and thought "woah, pretty girl" only to get closer and realize it's a very precocious teenager who looked more like someone in their 20's? Should that be illegal now? (It was especially troubling when the "visible thong" was trendy.)

If it is not okay for an adult to have sex with a young child, why is it okay to have an explicit written account of an adult having sex with a young child?
If it's not OK to shoot people, why do we have video games which depict this? If you can't steal cars, why do we have video games called "Grand Theft Auto"?
As you said, it is really difficult to draw the line.

Or phrased a little more generically, how does society balance the freedoms of people against the risk those freedoms may cause to others?
And *that* is a very old question for which there isn't really an easy answer, which was my entire point. Especially when you start factoring in political or religious agendas in which people don't like certain freedoms. Sodomy laws are a fine example of this -- do you know in some places it might be illegal for a married couple to have anal sex?
You can slide through a lot of shades of grey in many of these cases. And, like with technology, people try to pass these laws and end up making them over-broad and useless.
And, for the record, I don't claim to have any answers to these questions -- and I'm sure as hell not advocating for child pornography. But the devil is definitely in the details for a lot of these things.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Does this surprise anyone? by JoshuaZ · 2012-09-12 16:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Does this surprise anyone? by jamstar7 · 2012-09-12 17:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

Yeah, it's like outlawing science fiction to keep people from going to the Moon.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:Does this surprise anyone? by Chrisq · 2012-09-12 20:45 · Score: 5, Funny

By that account the 2012 olympic logo should have been banned - it was well known that this depicts Lisa Simpson giving someone a blowjob.
Re:Does this surprise anyone? by sootman · 2012-09-13 05:26 · Score: 3, Funny

Yeah, they should have done a logo like the OGC, which encourages good, healthy wanking instead of disgusting, sinful pedophilia.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.

Wow by fredgiblet · 2012-09-12 16:39 · Score: 2

What a bastion of freedom.

It's about time by hawguy · 2012-09-12 16:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 16:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

What is child abuse? I tried to look it up, but my search results were all blank...
(also, child abuse covers more than just sexual abuse)
Re:It's about time by Dyinobal · 2012-09-12 17:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Stories about unicorns just fuel for beastiality fantasies.
Re:It's about time by MaskedSlacker · 2012-09-12 17:10 · Score: 2

I think child pornography, depicting actual abuse, is illegal because it was created for the sole purpose of creating the video
What? Are you stupid?
Child porn is illegal because its production requires the molestation of a child. It is (essentially) prima facie proof of a severe crime.
Re:It's about time by jamstar7 · 2012-09-12 17:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:It's about time by mrxak · 2012-09-12 18:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
Re:It's about time by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-12 18:46 · Score: 2

Yes, and possessing prima facie proof of a severe crime is perfectly legal in any other case (e.g. rape, or, say, aggravated murder).
Re:It's about time by JaredOfEuropa · 2012-09-12 19:25 · Score: 2

There is evidence that access to extreme porn fuels fantasies and thus increases the propensity to turn thought into act. There is also evidence that access to extreme porn helps certain people to get their jollies, reducing the urge to actually engage in such extreme sex. In other words, it depends on whom you ask.

Even it it turns out that access to child porn increases the occurrence of child abuse, there is still the matter of balance. Child abuse needs to be stamped out, but not at all cost. If the cost is innocents going to jail (like the teenagers making naked pics of each other) or the introduction of something eerily close to thoughtcrime (like banning cartoons depicting child porn), then I say the cost is too high. Especially because outlawing the possession of child porn has done very little to stop production on one end, and actual child abuse on the other.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:It's about time by wonkey_monkey · 2012-09-12 20:47 · Score: 5, Funny

May be the teenager is from one of states, and her parent gave the vampire their consent?
No, no - you have to give permission for a vampire to enter your house, not your daughter.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:It's about time by serviscope_minor · 2012-09-12 22:32 · Score: 2

If the cost is innocents going to jail (like the teenagers making naked pics of each other) or the introduction of something eerily close to thoughtcrime
It's not eerily close to thoughtcrime, it IS thoughtcrime.
Especially because outlawing the possession of child porn has done very little to stop production on one end, and actual child abuse on the other.
Certainly.
Most abuse is and always will be perpetrated by mambers of close family.
Raging against the almost mythical beast of the internet pedo won't do a damn thing to stop some sick father diddling his kids. In fact if anything it's actively harmful because it distracts people away from the much larger and more serious problem.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:It's about time by mayberry42 · 2012-09-12 22:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Stories about unicorns just fuel for beastiality fantasies.
Agreed. It's time for a new law (or constitutional amendment): scientific evidence should take precedence over witchhunting paranoia when drafting new laws.

Thought police by ktappe · 2012-09-12 16:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

I notice he has made exceptions for existing works such as "Lolita" ... of course because to ban that he would be castigated. But he doesn't seem to have an exception for the psychiatrists who possess such descriptions as they are attempting to treat patients.Or researchers who possess such descriptions as they are attempting to write papers about human sexual behavior. Nope; those are all arrest-worthy to this person.....who is likely having such thoughts himself, just as gay bashers are more likely than not to be gay themselves.

But overall this is nothing more than the thought police coming around again. "Now that we control the pictures, we must control the words!"

--
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007

Re:Thought police by stephanruby · 2012-09-12 18:41 · Score: 2

I notice he has made exceptions for existing works such as "Lolita"...
So I assume Maya Angelou's previous written account of how her uncle molested her would be ok in that case, it's just any new material she writes about that trauma that would get her books burned and her readers prosecuted??

it all depends on how you look at it by Crypto+Gnome · 2012-09-12 16:44 · Score: 4, Funny

Pretty soon it will be illegal to "think of the children".

The year is 1984, and thoughtcrime is death.

--
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.

Re:it all depends on how you look at it by freman · 2012-09-12 17:59 · Score: 3, Funny

Every time I hear someone say "Think of the children" I bite my tongue to prevent myself from saying "like paedophiles do"

Why child porn possession laws are bad by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 16:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

Read the links before you mod the post. The toxicity that exists around the subject impairs most people from having a serious discussion about the subject, and instead rely on the reaction they've been trained to have. Try to resist this reaction as you read the following two well-written articles:

http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/

http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/11/child-porn-laws-arent-as-bad-as-you-think-theyre-much-much-worse/

"could"? by cheekyjohnson · 2012-09-12 16:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Re:"could"? by N1AK · 2012-09-12 20:17 · Score: 2

Actually, can we just ban moronic politicians?
Do a pole of his constituents and ask them "Do you think that 'vile' descriptions of child abuse should be banned"? and I'd bet you'd get an overwhelming majority for it. Doing what your constituents want is hardly moronic. No opponent can challenge his position without intrinsically being labelled as defending child abusers

Sure it's nice to blame politicians but again and again we see evidence that they are on average more 'liberal' than the voters. In the UK the majority of voters would like to see the death penalty brought back for certain crimes; MPs are overwhelmingly against it. We're ruining things because our representatives do what we want; which is hardly shocking as they wouldn't be our representative if they didn't.
Re:"could"? by cheekyjohnson · 2012-09-13 01:23 · Score: 2

I knew someone would bring that up. Yes, I feel the voters are moronic in many ways, but even if he's pandering for votes, I also feel the politician himself is moronic for even considering this as a solution. I'm going to have to blame everyone in this case, so I'd agree it's not just the politician at fault.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Goodby Lolita by Required+Snark · 2012-09-12 16:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Goodby Lolita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita

Goodby Lord of the Flies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies

Feel free to say goodby to other great books. Add them to the list.

It's OK, it for the good of the children...

--
Why is Snark Required?

Re:Goodby Lolita by hawguy · 2012-09-12 16:59 · Score: 4, Informative

Goodby Lolita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita
Goodby Lord of the Flies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies
Feel free to say goodby to other great books. Add them to the list.
It's OK, it for the good of the children...
He specifically excluded some existing literature:

Only "absolutely vile" material would be targeted, he said, adding by way of example that well-known novels such as Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita - which explores a middle-aged man's obsession and sexual involvement with a 12-year old girl - would not be covered.
Though it's not clear how that law would decide what is "absolutely vile" and what's not, as I'm sure there are some people that think Lolita is absolutely vile, and others that would not find any porn to be vile.
Re:Goodby Lolita by jxander · 2012-09-12 17:50 · Score: 2

Romeo and Juliette was a 3-day fling between a 17* year old boy and a 13 year old girl, that caused the deaths of 6 people.
It would most certainly make the MPs cut for "absolutely vile"
*Romeo's age is never explicitly stated, but contextual clues put him in his late teens, possibly even early 20s.

--
This signature is false.
Re:Goodby Lolita by metacell · 2012-09-12 22:29 · Score: 2

Correct, there are people who find "Lolita" vile. And more importantly, at the time it was published, it was banned in many places. It's only in retrospect it's considered an important part of literary history.
If we outlawed written depictions of sexual abuse, we could write in exceptions for literary classics, but that would only protect those works who are *already* considered classics. It would prevent new classics from being created.
Re:Goodby Lolita by PopeRatzo · 2012-09-13 00:35 · Score: 2

But Lolita doesn't contain any explicit description of child abuse
OK, so by your standard, if someone were to write child pornography based only upon masturbating while watching children play, would that be an "explicit description of child abuse"? The child's not being touched, just watched. By this law, it could very well be considered illegal. I'm not saying it shouldn't be considered illegal, just that this law is bad.
See, this gets very tricky, friend. You've thought this thing through but it's very dangerous. Yes, juries make judgement calls all the time, but they do so on laws based on standards. When those standards include the word "reasonable", we run into trouble.
Regarding "Lolita" it's not as cut and dried as you would think. I'm convinced, after a great deal of research, that Nabokov was intentionally giving scenes in the book a prurient sensibility. He was seeking to arouse. He was also trying to make the reader complicit in what is considered a great transgression socially. It was a daredevil high-wire act of genius unlike almost any in literature.
I have a daughter on the verge of becoming an adult. The issue of protecting children is one that I've thought about and discussed with my wife and others to great length. I've seen the way our society sexualizes children and I've got a big problem with it. But I fear laws like this one because they require an insight into human nature that we can only have using the most intrusive means. Thought crimes. And ultimately, laws like this really don't protect kids.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

My first hand experience by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 16:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:My first hand experience by slim · 2012-09-12 22:52 · Score: 2

Would your story "reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal".
No. So this guy doesn't want to ban your forum posting.
But it does raise questions. Clearly a description of your ordeal could be written in different ways; it could be written from the perspective of the abuser. It could project "the child loved it really" thoughts into the victim. It could revel in the sadism. It could revel in projected masochism. Of course your version wouldn't do any of these things. But how does a law manage to distinguish, when the interpretation might be very subjective?
Also, I imagine there's some sadists who would get turned on by a victim's account; who actually enjoys the damage they've done. But you can't ban everything that presses every weirdo's buttons, because you then deprive decent people to whom it has value.
Re:My first hand experience by slim · 2012-09-12 23:38 · Score: 2

I can see how "reasonably assumed" could go wrong with this proposed law (and to be clear: I'm opposed to censorship in principle).
However in the specific scenario described, no jury would convict, and it would be very unlikely to go to court: A harrowing account from the victim's perspective, on a forum for fellow victims.
I'm much more worried about art. Brett Easton Ellis's American Psycho contains passages which in isolation are indistinguishable from porn, and morph into gruelling violence -- and in context it's art. Now, that doesn't involve children. But you can hypothesise a novel that used porn-like language to describe child abuse, in order to make a wider artistic point. I think that kind of stuff is legitimate, but you could probably a jury who would "reasonably assume" it was just porn.
Re:My first hand experience by argStyopa · 2012-09-13 00:14 · Score: 2

Since you're here & now produced a "written account of child abuse", I'm afraid that you are now going to be arrested.
Sorry about that.

--
-Styopa

Cleveland Child abuse scandal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 16:58 · Score: 4, Informative

UK already has secret witnesses, that can give testimony/lies unchallenged to the court without the defendant being able to hear or challenge them. If this gets its way another part of the prosecution of people will be kept secret and we won't be able to check on how the courts are performing. If people can't see the inner workings of the courts then how can they check the court is working???

So in court lies will be spouted about what happened, and they can do it knowing that people who know the truth that would reveal the perjury will never be able to see the account, and thus the perjury will go unpunished.

It will expose everyone to a bogus child abuse claim.

Look at the Cleveland Child abuse scandal, where some nutter from social services started doing anal dilatation tests on kids and got it into her head all these kids were being abused up the bum, because she'd just been on a course and pumped full of BS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_child_abuse_scandal

They (Dr Marietta Higgs and Dr Geoffrey Wyatt) destroyed many families, and ruined the lives of many children, and yet if the evidence was secret, she would never have been revealed as a quack.

They got convictions against many parents (most subsequently overturned), foster parents the children were sent to were prosecuted, neighbours, you name it, they brought a child abuse case them.

The step to other 'bad' texts is not far by G3ckoG33k · 2012-09-12 16:59 · Score: 2

The step to other 'bad' texts is not far. Soon you can't say that Christians are really, really nice folks whereas the Jews and the Moslems are bad people and destroy the will Earth. Soon yoy can't say that atheists are the only well founded cynics. Soon you can't look for similarities between Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin, Dolly Parton, Patrick Dempsey, George W Bush, Pol Pot, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Johnny Weissmüller. Soon you can't find uncensored books. The step to other 'bad' texts is not far, so stop this reasoning about making it illegal to possess written accounts of child abuse. The small steps are more treacherous than you may think now.

Or for victims of child abuse by Sycraft-fu · 2012-09-12 17:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

You find that there are books of child abuse stories. These are not out there for pervy fantasies, they are out there to help other victims. They can read the accounts, understand they are not alone in what happened to them. Likewise writing about it can help people come to terms with it, to remember and cope with the past.

Are there pervs who get their kicks on it? Probably. But hey, people seem to get their kicks on all kinds of things. I've never got foot fetishists myself but there you go. However it is far more valuable for victims as a means for dealing with and understanding what happened to them. Victims of child abuse can feel like they alone in the world experienced this. Stories of other survivors can help them see that they are not alone.

Planning on banning the bible too? by mark-t · 2012-09-12 17:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because there's plenty of horrendous accounts in that text.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:Planning on banning the bible too? by Sasayaki · 2012-09-12 17:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8

"Illegal" article on gawker by CODiNE · 2012-09-12 17:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

This article was up the other day, it has a shocking description of how abuse happens and the thought process of the abuser. Was that necessary to the overall article? It certainly caused a bit of controversy. Overall however the article presents pedophiles not as a pure embodiment of evil but as sick people who need help and counseling. That is, distinguishing pedophiles from child molesters who have acted on that impulse. It seems that allowing people who have such a bent to get help and counseling without completely destroying their lives would be better to society overall than being out for their blood or driving them to suicide from despair. Strangely the description in the article while sickening did add a human angle to the problem and helped me personally to not jump to condemn someone who might be sexually stuck as a 12 year old in an adult's body. Just... get... help.

--
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz

Genital Mutilation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 17:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Meanwhile, physical and sexual abuse of children in the form of male genital mutilation continues to be ignored.

Because by Greyfox · 2012-09-12 17:57 · Score: 2

If you don't hear about it, it must not exist? You may be unwilling to look upon the darkest evil and depravity that our species has to offer, but I assure you that hiding your eyes will not make it go away. Sure, it's an easy solution to make you feel better, but perhaps you should expend a little more mental effort and try to come up with a better solution.

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Re:exemption by Required+Snark · 2012-09-12 18:07 · Score: 2

Those with an axe to grind will always find an excuse to ban books to promote their cause. Pretending that some things are excluded because they are "literature" is no barrier.

Banning Adventures of Huckleberry Finn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huckelberry_finn#Controversy

Banning The Diary of Anne Frank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diary_of_Anne_Frank#Banning

As for the difference between literature and pornography, look no further then Naked Lunch by W. S. Burroughs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_Lunch#Literary_significance_and_reception

Naked Lunch is considered Burroughs' seminal work, and one of the landmark publications in the history of American literature. Extremely controversial in both its subject matter and its use of obscene language (something Burroughs recognized and intended), the book was banned in Boston and Los Angeles in the United States, and several European publishers were harassed. It was one of the most recent American books over which an obscenity trial was held. The book was banned in Boston in 1962 due to obscenity (notably child murder and acts of pedophilia), but that decision was reversed in 1966 by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The Appeals Court found the book did not violate obscenity statutes, as it was found to have some social value. The hearing included testimony in support of the work by Allen Ginsberg and Norman Mailer.

I read all of these books by the time I finished high school with no apparent harm. I don't expect Naked Lunch to be on any high school reading list, but is a prime target for censorship because it is obscene. It is also great literature.

--
Why is Snark Required?

half right, in my mind by circletimessquare · 2012-09-12 18:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

the way i see pedophilia: it's sort of like being a homosexual, it's an innate biological desire

biologically, if you are born a pedophile, it's like being born with cancer. through no fault of your own, your genetics has created a mind that finds the wrong thing to focus on sexually. it's a biological error. it's "wrong", it's an "error" BIOLOGICALLY, because attraction to the same sex or prepubescent children results in no offspring

however, homosexuality is not MORALLY wrong, because it is between consenting adults. therefore, homosexuality should be 100% legal

meanwhile, pedophilia means you are attracted to someone whereby any actions you take on your attraction results in inevitable psychological harm, because a prepubescent child can never informed consent to sex. and you have permanently warped their self-image, confidence, and how they think about transgressive, inappropriate, unwanted behavior at a very impressionable age. you've done real substantial damage to another human being. simply by acting on your erroneous but innate and irremovable desires as a pedophile

what a horrible hell

the worst part is, if i am correct about pedophilia being like homosexuality, we must admit then that it can never be cured. you can't cure homosexuality (nor should you try)

but then if pedophilia is an innate biological attraction, it means you are dealing with a human being who is doomed. i mean really, really doomed. to a lifetime of suffering. they must continually suppress their natural desires. what does this do to their happiness? or, act on their desires, and be a horrible transgressive criminal. that's their choice

what a horrible curse. cancer sounds better

willpower is not infinite. no matter how moral the person. therefore everyone who is a pedophile is a potential time bomb. you simply cannot trust them on their own in society

perhaps this explains why so many pedophiles are attracted to the priesthood. as a moral person, who is aware they carry around a permanent desire that means they are in constant danger of acting immorally in a moment of weakness, their reaction is to embrace moral fortitude as hard as they can. and yet so many still fall, and still transgress against children, simply because you are dealing with a strong innate desire and the human mind is not a steel cage, we all have moments of weakness

someday, they will be alone with a child, through accident or chance, no matter how hard they try not to be, and if that day overlaps with a moment of weakness, that we all have, then you have doomed an innocent child to suffer a transgression which will screw them up psychologically. imagine carrying around this curse!

we are left with a horrible conclusion: the only way to "treat" pedophiles, in my mind, is permanent banishment from society

it is an awful thought

but i honestly cannot think of a superior arrangement if pedophilia is like homosexuality and is therefore innate. such people, once identified, simply cannot be allowed to roam freely in society where there is also children, because we have as our duty as moral people to understand the danger they present to children, and themselves

permanent banishment. can anyone think of a better way? castration has been shown to not work. but my mind finds it an inescapable conclusion about the nature of the pedophilia, if i understand it correctly

depressing

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

I guess his constituents... by dadioflex · 2012-09-12 18:11 · Score: 2

... didn't "Let the Right One In" when they cast their votes. See what I did there?

The slope by AliasMarlowe · 2012-09-12 18:25 · Score: 2

The slope is long and slippery, and leads down a long way. We'd never agree to a great leap downwards, but every incremental movement downwards is easier than a nudge in the opposite direction.
In other words, this MP is severely 'tarded. Alas, so are many regular folks.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

Re:The slope by serviscope_minor · 2012-09-12 22:20 · Score: 5, Informative

The slope is long and slippery
The slippery slope argument is usually a bad one.
Not in this case. There is evidence that the slope is not only slippery, but steep, with a tail wind and a hoard of Daily Mail readers standing at the top willing to give a good shove to any hapless fool who they can get their hands on.
Some examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore aka "Sorry we ruined your life and made you die, but it turns out that your stolen creit card was used by pedos. kthxbye"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/12/nick-cohen-simon-walsh-cps-pornography-prosecution aka "Let's haul some poor bastard over the coals and wreck his life to test a badly written new law"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000 aka "You have no right to silence. But only if you're a terrorist. NOT hahaha! Also if we think you might be a pedo. Good luck proving you can't remember something"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroners_and_Justice_Act_2009 aka "It's illegal if people think that it looks illegal even if it is provably legal otherwise. Good luck with that you filthy pedo lol"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6918001/Man-cleared-of-porn-charge-after-tiger-sex-image-found-to-be-joke.html aka "Friend sends you a legal joke video SO WE'LL RUIN YOUR LIFE!!!"
etc.
It is entirely clear that this slope is slippery and lunatics like Beresford take a perverted glee in adding libricant.
If a law can be used for ill, sooner or later it will be eve nif the MPs claim it won't.
If a law is broad, the only reason *you* haven't been prosecuted is blind luck, not because you haven't done anything wrong.
A funny thing to do would be to send some random data to this MP, and tell the police (anonymously) that you sent him encrypted kiddie porn for money. Make sure you snail mail a few copies on USB sticks as well, and include some legal but dubious stuff in the clear, too. Then the stupid bastard ought to have to prove his innocence under his own law.
That would never happen, but I can't think of anyone more deserving for it to happen to.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.

It's about time. by neoshroom · 2012-09-12 18:52 · Score: 2

I for one approve this MP's attempt to ban Charles Dickens novels.

__

--
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.

Re:It will only bury the problem by BlueStrat · 2012-09-12 18:53 · Score: 2

How can something be fought if it is illegal to describe it? How do you get people onside, if you can't describe what they are supposed to be opposing. Saying "Trust me" doesn't really cut it.

It's quaint that you think government cares about getting people "onside" (onboard?).

Apparently you never got the memo.

They dictate, the serfs obey.

"Comprehension (or approval) is not a requisite of cooperation."

It's like how the laws on the barn wall from the book "Animal Farm" slowly morphed.

I wish governments on both sides of the pond would stop viewing books like Animal Farm, 1984, Atlas Shrugged, Brave New World, etc etc as instruction manuals. It would save us the trouble of having to hang the bastards every few generations or so.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

You automatically call it 'Abuse' by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 20:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Bart Simpson being choked is *not* abuse, but if you draw him having sex that *is*??? Not only that it's consensual sex in the cartoon, yet whether it was 'abuse' never could be questioned, because the language is defined now that underage sex is abuse (Bart has been '10' for 22 years now, although he's actually voiced by an adult woman).

The thinking is all broken there.

Prosecutors with dodgy cases would add a child abuse allegation simply to be able to suppress the evidence from public scrutiny. Just as now they make terrorism claims to make use of the 'state-secrets' doctrine in the US. If you create a path for abuse of the legal system, it will be abused.

The situation now with divorce cases is that the wife will throw in an unsubstantiated claim of abuse in order to gain sole custody. The risk for them is that false claim is open to inspection outside. What if they can shut down the details of the divorce case simply by adding in a claim of abuse?

He should be ashamed.

I never would have considered that... by erroneus · 2012-09-12 21:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

Long, long ago, I was married to a woman who ridiculously accused me a cheating on her at every turn. At first I thought "cute jealousy" but it persisted. Then it became unreasonable and unrealistic... then disturbing. Turned out that she was a cheater. She was the one cheating and she simply projected her tendencies upon me. And that's when it occured to me how many people see things. Most people tend to see others as they see themselves.

Ben Folds did a song "Trusted" that goes like "It seems to me if you can't trust You can't be trusted" which neatly puts into words how I have come to understand certain bits of individual human behavior. A person who is suspicious of others is a person who is likely to take advantage of others... and on and on and on.

What I'm getting at is all these weird child porn related laws where stories and accounts and other things generated from the minds of people are to be banned, limited, prohibited and criminalized must surely arise from the minds of pedophiles. I realize it seems naive to see things as I do -- that pedophiles need help, and all that, but we are criminalizing thought here. And the legislation is surely coming from the minds of people who would think to think of these things because frankly, it never would have occurred to me that such things would become "erotic material" for someone else.

Surely these legislators are or are connected with pedophiles themselves.

Re:Don't ever let the fundies know about it !! by Arancaytar · 2012-09-12 21:37 · Score: 2

Before making a claim to anything happening "regardless of it's [sic] truth", you may want to post something true (or at least not batshit insane) and compare for reference.

Be careful by Kupfernigk · 2012-09-12 21:43 · Score: 2

Political affiliation is no guide to intelligence. Many years ago I quit Mensa because it was full of right-wing loonies with 4-sigma-plus IQs. And Boris Johnson (London mayor) was an Eton scholar, which puts him in the top 0.1% IQ-wise.

No, the difference is more subtle. Right-wingers tend, inter pares, to have less intellectual curiosity and are less likely to challenge the status quo. But then, that is more or less a definition of "right wing".

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."

Re:Don't ever let the fundies know about it !! by Pieroxy · 2012-09-13 03:26 · Score: 2

I have an IRL friend who recently found God after being raised as an athiest.

Care to explain how someone can "find" God? For the elephants, I can bring you to a zoo and show you one. You'll be able to touch it, smell it, see it. How is it so with God?

If anything, God is a concept, nothing more.

As for "Saint Thomas" having existed, what does it have to do with anything? John Malkovitch does exists, it doesn't mean everything in the movie "Being John Malkovitch" is true. Stop confusing the issues.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!

Re:Don't ever let the fundies know about it !! by tragedy · 2012-09-13 03:35 · Score: 2

Well, let's see.

eugenics/abortion-related (Planned Parenthood/Margaret Sanger) and their collective-good-over-individual-good views on how healthcare and other resources and services should be allocated. ("spread the wealth", "collective salvation", "collective gov-run healthcare" etc etc)

I don't really follow your logic. Supporting rights to reproductive control (including, but by no means limited to, abortion) as Planned Parenthood does is not "love for all things eugenics/abortion-related". Margeret Sanger, for example, had some slightly disturbing views on eugenics, but was soundly against the Nazi method of doing it, as are pretty much all "Liberals" and "Progressives" I know of. Her views on immigration (tied to her eugenics views) were pretty soundly on the side of modern US "Conservatives". As it stands today, most of the people I know of who are in favor of forced eugenics (as opposed to genetic screening for defects and medical advice for at risk couples) are quite firmly on the "Conservative" side.

As for "collective-good-over-individual-good" regarding healthcare, I'm baffled as to the logic behind that statement. Socialized healthcare systems are precisely about individual good as opposed to collective good (although they tend to promote collective good as well through vaccinations and so forth). The every man for himself and let the weak die off (or banish them from the tribe/outright kill them) attitude is the collective good approach (a naive one, of course).

Re:Don't ever let the fundies know about it !! by tmosley · 2012-09-13 03:38 · Score: 2

I don't think the third and fourth centuries AD really count as "the Middle Ages", especially given that he lived in the part of the Roman Empire that would last another 800 years.

Also, if you have "experienced" God, then you probably have some sort of personality disorder, or you simply believe in belief. If you really believed in the Christian God, you would be doing all manner of totally insane things that would quickly get you removed from society, probably not long after you had stoned someone to death for eating meat on a Friday.

Re:Don't ever let the fundies know about it !! by Pieroxy · 2012-09-13 04:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

> 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.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!

Slashdot Mirror

MP Seeking To Outlaw Written Accounts of Child Abuse

72 of 454 comments (clear)