Slashdot Mirror
Child Porn Arrest For Cameron Aide Who Helped Plan UK Net Filters
An anonymous reader writes "A senior aide to David Cameron resigned from Downing Street last month the day before being arrested on allegations relating to child abuse images. Patrick Rock, who was involved in drawing up the government's policy for the large internet firms on online pornography filters, resigned after No 10 was alerted to the allegations. Rock was arrested at his west London flat the next morning. Officers from the National Crime Agency subsequently examined computers and offices used in Downing Street by Rock, the deputy director of No 10's policy unit, according to the Daily Mail, which disclosed news of his arrest."
Because actual kids are being filned/photographed performing such acts? Since minors can't legally give consent for sex, they are the victims in this crime.
Here in the UK, drawings classify (which is not something I agree with), so I defy you to find the victim in that.
That said, Cameron has one hell of a time destinguishing fiction from reality.
he was just testing the filters!
I don't think laws should be passed based on what victims would like or dislike. That's not exactly the same as justice, the point of laws. In my humble opinion, justice is about preventing people from becoming victims, and trying to make it right when there are victims. People viewing the abuse and masturbating to it isn't the main reason why victims of child porn are victims. It's the abuse, not the viewing, that is the problem.
The second line about creating demand, I also disagree with. Prohibition seems to work only in very limited contexts, like preventing individual citizens from buying material useful for making nuclear weapons. Drugs, porn, sex, alchohol, cigarettes etc, prohibition only seems to increase the value of the stuff that is sold. And, I suppose, prevents the government from profiting off of the sale through taxes, which come to think of it might be an argument in favor of keeping child porn illegal.
Lastly, legalizing the sale or distribution of child porn which is already out there, while coming down extremely hard on the producers could in theory change the economics such that it's no longer profitable to make new child porn.
(Obligatory disclaimer that I'm completely fine with child porn continuing to be completely illegal, just that I think the rationale for it is questionable. My rationale too: I've failed to even convince myself with this post.)
Sounds just like alcohol abuse to me.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
What does Scotland have to do with anything?
Because you obviously can't find a True Scotsman in England and you seem to be looking for one.
I don't see how the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy applies here. The AC was pointing out that kiddie porn laws (in both the US and UK) are overly broad, and outlaw not only porn involving actual children, but adults posing as children, animation, and even abstract sketches. These laws would make some sense if there was any evidence that such artwork induces behavior that harms children. But no such evidence exists. Pointing that out is not illogical and not a fallacy. It also would not be illogical to point out the "child porn possession" is one of the safest and easiest ways to frame innocent people and destroy their careers.