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

Fool of an MP

[J'raxis]

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.

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: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:Fool of an MP

[metacell]

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

[dargaud]

"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.

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.

Re:Does this surprise anyone?

[Chrisq]

By that account the 2012 olympic logo should have been banned - it was well known that this depicts Lisa Simpson giving someone a blowjob.

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

Re:It's about time

[wonkey_monkey]

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.

it all depends on how you look at it

[Crypto Gnome]

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

The year is 1984, and thoughtcrime is death.

"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.

Cleveland Child abuse scandal

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Goodby Lolita

[hawguy]

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.

"Illegal" article on gawker

[CODiNE]

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.

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.

I never would have considered that...

[erroneus]

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:The slope

[serviscope_minor]

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.

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.