If the blogger does not clarify which [whatever your name is] he or she is blogging about, the blog post could be potentially slanderous. As someone who has followed anti-paedophile blogs closely, I may be able to help with identifying the blogger who potentially slandered you.
Feel free to contact me at blribbon at fastmail dot fm, with a link to the blog post in question.
"many employers do have a prescreen which would catch both that as well as the lack of a criminal conviction."
Many of the paedophiles outed on anti-paedophile blogs have never committed a criminal offence, but have simply been careless about posting personal information to online support groups for people who are attracted to children. If the person with whom "illini1022" shares a name isn't a sex offender, how will the lack of a criminal conviction prove that "illini1022" is not the paedophile in question?
"That's a common explanatory gloss, but it is not correct. "Indecent" isn't defined in the legislation (or any legislation) at all. It is for a magistrate or jury to decide as a matter of fact."
You are correct when you say that indecency is not defined by statutes, however its meaning is defined by precedents set in previous indecency and obscenity cases.
"They are aided in such decisions by the prosecution experts or police witnesses, who purport to grade material from their special experience and expertise in 'child protection'"
The grading of images is performed to aid sentencing, but not for deciding whether an image is "indecent". Images which do not meet the criteria for level 1 images have still been declared indecent; see my article here.
"Coincidentally, on Wednesday the UK introduced legislation that would make it an imprisonable offence to possess sexually explicit drawings that appear to be of minors."
Do you have a link to the text of the Bill? I can't find it at Parliament's website.
"You still should more directly address the question of whether the possession and/or distribution of child porn should be legal. I'm pretty comfortable declaring that should NOT be covered as free speech."
Well, distributing or downloading photographs is obviously not a form of free speech, but that is irrelevant as this story is based around UK law where there is no codified constitution protecting free speech.
I have said, many times, that accessing and possessing child pornography should not be illegal, as producers are motivated by profit or trade. Producing, purchasing, selling, requesting, or trading child pornography should be illegal, however those who download it for free presumably have the same effect as those who download music for free; they're certainly not encouraging production.
"It is almost if the IWF has a different view of child abuse than British law."
No, they have a very similar view. Parliament and Judges assume that non-sexual nude photographs of children are "abusive" and they have decided that simply accessing ("making") such images is abusive and should be illegal. Or maybe they simply can't cope with the idea of people being sexually aroused by pictures of children and so decided to go on a moral crusade, where "abusive" means "offending our morals". Either way, the IWF has a similar attitude to what constitutes "child abuse".
"Wouldn't it be better to tell the Internet Archive about the offending images? If it really is child porn then I'm sure they'll be only too happy to remove it."
The UK criminalises "indecent" images of children; defined as images which "offend against the recognised standards of propriety". The US criminalises "pornographic" images of children; defined as images which involve lewd or lascivious exhibition of the genital area.
An image can be "indecent" (illegal in the UK) without being "pornographic" (illegal in the US). The IWF may therefore be blocking access to the Internet Archive due to images which are not considered "child porn" in the US.
The fact that the IWF are blocking access to indecent images in the Internet Archive proves that they are a moralistic organisation rather than one which wishes to protect children. The dubious claim made by organisations such as the IWF is that simply viewing indecent images "creates a demand". While this claim is already flawed due to the fact that most producers take illegal images for profit/trade, the claim is undoubtedly wrong in the case of images on an archive which is almost certainly not operated by people who create indecent images. Just how would a producer be aware of the "increased demand" when he doesn't even know that the images are being viewed?
"I knew as soon as I saw this discussion you guys from annabelleigh.net would be out in force."
I've been here since 2006, when Epifora (an ISP which hosted pro-paedophile websites) was cut off by Verizon. I did not come from annabelleigh.net, though I do post there occasionally.
"I asked you last time we had a discussion how you could claim that most paedophiles don't really want to have sex with children and you didn't respond."
There are a myriad of ethical, social and legal reasons to avoid sex with children. I avoid sex with children for the same (or similar) reasons that most men don't walk up to a woman in the street and start groping her. Why is that so difficult to understand?
"Straight people download porn about having sex with adults of the opposite sex then they go out and do it, or at least attempt it; the same can be said of gay people with the caveat that it's adults of the same sex. Why would paedophiles view images (real or simulated) and then not want to have sex with children?"
Your argument is illogical, because there is nothing wrong with consensual sex between adults. The same cannot be said for sex with children, which is presumably one of the reasons why most child porn viewers don't molest children.
"I saw your post above where you cherry picked some studies that failed to show a link between viewing images and desire to have sex with children but we all know that if you just limit yourself to a few studies you can prove any point."
Okay. Can you find any studies with contrary findings?
"Rather than try to depict yourself as the victim of politicians playing some power game with your fantasies, isn't it really the case that sex with children (real or imagined) is all about power?"
Paedophilic fantasies are not typically based upon a desire for power; I actually like the idea of being controlled by a child (anything can happen in a fantasy, it doesn't need to be realistic). Many child molesters abuse children because they have a desire for power, but those offenders are rarely paedophilic.
There is little point in trying to build theories about something of which you have no knowledge.
"Even if you limit yourself to virtual images of children I find it very weird that you'd come out in public and defend what's essentially a rape fantasy."
A fantasy is a fantasy, and nobody has any right to police it.
"Arguably, banning the drawing of such things, and dissemination of such cartoons discourages sickos from watching the cartoons and being encouraged."
There is no evidence for the argument that viewing child porn cartoons increases the risk of a person molesting a child. There is evidence to the contrary, however. Hall, et al. (1995) found that "arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior", Freel (2003) found that "if someone is fully inhibited from sexually abusing children, no amount of emotional congruence, sexual arousal, or blockage will lead them to abuse children", while Sheldon & Howitt (2008) found that "fantasy deficit may be involved in contact offending against children."
"I was under the impression that the reason for child pornography laws was to protect children from exploitation."
That may have been the original intention when the first child pornography law was created (I believe that was in 1977), but those who now scream "think of the children!" are not really thinking of the children at all.
Child pornography is an emotional topic, so it is very easy to use the issue for political reasons. Campaigning for laws against issues which cause moral outrage are an easy way for a politician to raise his profile and/or attract support. Each campaigner has to find something slightly different to campaign for, so it's not surprising that someone eventually chose virtual child porn.
Of course, laws against child pornography are also a great way to justify intrusive and restrictive laws. Child porn (among other issues, such as terrorism) was used to justify Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (UK), which forces a person to provide any encryption keys which they know of, under penalty of imprisonment.
Laws against child pornography are an easy route to power, so it is not surprising that politicians use them regardless of the consequences to children and ethical paedophiles.
As someone who runs a potentially offensive but legal website, I will certainly be looking for ways to subvert website ratings if they are ever introduced.
"So you think that people that pay for images of this stuff don't contribute to the perpetuation of it?"
I agree with the AC. If the images are just of naked children (almost half of the child pornography cases in Ireland relate solely to pictures depicting no sexual activity whatsoever), that question is irrelevant, unless a child is actually forced to pose naked.
You're also making the assumption that everyone who is arrested for possessing child pornography has actually purchased child pornography. Many child pornography offenders are caught after taking their computer to a repair shop, having their IP address logged and traced, etc. They probably haven't harmed anyone, yet their life is now damaged beyond repair.
There should be a law against producing, purchasing, selling, requesting and trading pictures of children being molested (mere nudity should not be criminalised), but laws against accessing and possession do nothing to protect children; they simply provide an easy excuse for the government to exert control over citizens.
"Its still looked at as prevention, but instead of preventing the actual abuse, they want to prevent the thoughts that may lead to the abuse."
A study recently published by the British Psychological Society (Sheldon & Howitt, 2008) found that:
"Internet offenders may have less need to contact offend since they can generate fantasy more easily. The contact group may be unable to generate fantasies at all or may have weak and short-lived fantasies. Sex offenders are often described as concrete and/or unimaginative (Langevin, Lang, & Curnoe, 1998), and it is possible that contact child molesters do not have frequent or vivid fantasies and require activity with a child in order to generate later masturbatory thoughts.
[...]
Contact offenders seem to have less sexual fantasy pertinent to their offending than did Internet offenders. Fantasy deficit may be involved in contact offending against children."
If these researchers are correct, limiting a paedophilic fantasy is more dangerous than attempting to prevent it. In reality, paedophiles will always fantasise about children, even if a TV show featuring children is the only stimuli available.
"Justice Adams said the purpose of the legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images are depicted of "real" children.
However it was also to deter the production of other material, including cartoons, that could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children"."
Firstly, child pornography is generally produced by people who wish to profit from such material or trade it with others. The belief that non-commercial demand encourages production is based on the assumption that child pornographers produce such images to distribute freely, which clearly contradicts claims that child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry.
The idea that viewing child sex cartoons encourages child pornographers to abuse actual children takes this argument to an even more ridiculous level. If someone can download child sex cartoons in order to get their fix, they are less likely to download real pictures of children. If commercial child pornographers make an increasing amount of money from child sex cartoons, they're more likely to draw cartoons than use real children. If there is an increasing demand for cartoons amongst people who trade child pornography, those who produce images for trading will be more likely to draw cartoons than use real children
There is no mechanism by which viewing child sex cartoons can lead to real children being used for child pornography; this is yet another example of blind moralism being placed above the welfare of children.
"The term is "indecent". Why has possession of this image never been prosecuted in 30 years of child porn being illegal?"
The nature of indeceny has changed over that 30 year period. An image is indecent if it "offends the recognised standards or propriety", therefore the legal status of an image can change if peoples' "standards" change. It's a law based on cultural perceptions of indecency, not a specific definition.
"I would suggest otherwise and so would Sir Elton John, Nan Goldin and the CPS, who were all involved with an image that was seized by police, who considered it obscene, but which was later returned, despite showing a young naked girl doing the splits in front of the camera"
Cases which become "high-profile" are generally not prosecuted if the images depict only nudity, for the simple reason that a prosecution or conviction would cause outrage amongst some members of the public. I also suspect that the authorities didn't want some of the UK's best lawyers challenging their laws against "child pornography", hence the refusal to prosecute images owned by Elton John.
"If that wasn't obscene, then it raises the question of what criteria the IWF are using to censor the internet."
They should "apply the recognised standards of propriety". For what it's worth, a jury of several members of the IWF would be considered to be as representative of the population as a typical jury.
"Nudity is not pornography and no well balanced jury is going to rule otherwise."
The test of illegality is one of indecency, not pornography. An image is considered to be "indecent" if it "offends against the recognised standards of propriety", even if it is not pornographic.
"If I photograph a cherub in the UK, say from a painting or a sculpture, would that also qualify me?"
Probably not, unless the original painting was deemed to have the appearance of a photograph, in which case you would have made a reference to a pseudo-photograph. It is possible, however, that such a photograph could be considered to be an indecent photograph of a (non-existant) child and therefore you would have "taken an indecent photograph of a child". I don't know of any case where the latter has been tested in court.
The government is considering legislation to criminalise any visual representation of "child sexual abuse", which includes any representation (cartoon, scuplture, etc) with "an excessive focus on a child's genitalia".
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
Re:So are you a peadophile, or do you bait them?
on
Google's Gatekeepers
·
· Score: 1
"Tbh, making those sorts of statements in public should be enough to get a surveillance warrant (in much the same way as admitting any crime should be enough to allow the police to start watching you) so I guess paedophiles at forums like that are at least out in the open."
Paedophilia (a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children) is not a crime, nor is it a reliable indicator of crime, so a surveillance warrant is not justified. I wouldn't be surprised if some authorities monitor the website illegally, as some authorities harass non-offending paedophiles in real life without having reasonable suspicion, but you are wrong to assume that the authorities are legally (or ethically) justified in monitoring people purely on the basis of their sexuality.
"it's also right that companies like Google and other organisations should take a stand against you. In fact this shows Google is an ethical company, just their ethics are different than yours."
The belief that someone should be censored for expressing offensive opinions is a moral belief, not an ethical belief; censoring speech does not protect anyone, it simply prevents them feeling uneasy or offended.
Furthermore, many people posting at Annabelleigh do not advocate the legalisation of adults having sex with children; should they also be censored when they are not harming anyone or even advocating the legalisation of harmful behaviour?
"I mean, civil rights? The right to bone tiny little girls? It's not bigoted to oppose that."
It's not bigoted to oppose that, but it's ignorant to assume that the majority of paedophiles actually want to do that.
"When you're part of a community or group which encourages a behaviour such as child sex via fantasy then all you're doing is encouraging that behaviour to become more common within someone's daily lives."
The community doesn't encourage people to engage in child sex, whether through fantasy or in real life. Paedophiles will, however, fantasise about sex with children regardless of external factors, so the communities in which we participate are irrelevant in that respect. Although such communities don't encourage illegal behaviour - meaning that your argument has failed - the idea of paedophilia (an attraction, not a behaviour) becoming a central feature of the life of someone with a paedophilic orientation is very relevant. The reason why paedophilia may become a central feature of a paedophile's life is because of the insane public obsession over paedophiles; society treats a paedophile as having an identity comprised purely of sexual urges. More disturbing is the assumption that all paedophiles will offend and are unable to control their "monstrous" urges. The latter may have a dangerous effect on some paedophiles, though I personally treat the assumption as the bullshit which it is.
"The members get twisted into their own delusions into believing that this kind of behaviour is normal, at which point it escalates from not just reading child sex novels but perhaps to something more such as child pornography."
You're conflating behaviour with fantasy; don't underestimate the ethical, social and legal barriers between the two. I would like to point out that the website in question is not a repository of sex stories, it's a discussion board. You clearly haven't even read the website which we're discussing.
Furthermore, I question your assumption that viewing child pornography is harmful (though I feel it should be avoided for legal reasons). Child pornography is created for the purpose of profit and trade, not for people who view freely available images. The suggestion that viewing freely available images encourages producers of child pornography is like suggesting that downloading free music helps the recording industry. The recording industry doesn't like their music to be freely downloaded (hence the outrageous lawsuits), so it is ridiculous to assume that the child pornography industry wishes for their images to be viewed without purchase. Simply viewing child pornography is not harmful, although I would second an argument that paying for abusive child pornography is harmful.
"At some point their desires transition into the real world, where other people are effected."
Where is your evidence for this? You may be able to provide random cases of this happening, but there is no evidence of this happening to the majority of paedophiles, or even to a significant minority of paedophiles.
"You consider things to be morally just."
I believe in ethics (which is one of many barriers between fantasy and reality), however I have never subscribed to moralism. Moralism is a selfish concept which is concerned purely with pushing one's own beliefs and instincts onto others.
"Look at that child molester in Australia, I forget the name. He never admitted doing anything wrong, because by his standards he didn't. He fantasised about having sex with children for so long that his brain just swung the moral compass right around to the point where he was deluding himself and just went ahead with having sex with children."
How can you possibly know why he abused children?
A study published by the British Psychological Society found that "fantasy deficit may be involved in contact offending against children" (Sheldon & Howitt, 2008). The study compared paedophilic non-contact child sex offenders with paedophilic contact child sex offenders. It suggested that paedop
"If they are not discussing the relevant topic at hand (i.e., young children), then this is behavior they could engage in from any location, obviating the 'need' for a community dedicated to pedophiles."
Have you not considered the possibility that a marginalised group may not wish to associate with the majority who want them to be imprisoned/censored merely because of what they think?
"On the other hand, if they are discussing the topic at hand, this sort of site should be closed."
You still haven't explained how the website is "harmful" and you haven't rebutted the positive effects which a sense of community has for a marginalised group and those who members of the marginalised group may interact with. Your moral beliefs do not negate the importance of the welfare of children and the ethical treatment of paedophiles.
Re:They blacklist sites without checking the reaso
on
Google's Gatekeepers
·
· Score: 1
"What the fuck? And you're surprised this crap is blacklisted?"
Maybe you could explain why you wish for a legal discussion forum for paedophiles to be censored. It is not a "how-to-molest-children" forum, it is not a place for exchanging illegal material, it is simply a place where people who are attracted to girls can discuss their feelings.
If someone is isolated from their community, has nowhere to turn for support and has nothing to lose, they are less likely to care about consequences (for themselves or others) than if they have a community. Your support of the censorship of places where paedophiles can form a community and receive emotional support is therefore rather thoughtless.
Most paedophiles do not commit offences against children, but oppression and hatred will only increase the probability of a person becoming dangerous.
Re:They blacklist sites without checking the reaso
on
Google's Gatekeepers
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"90% of the people in this country will tell you that www.annabelleigh.net crosses the line. I'm guessing over 50% will have a strong reaction against it and would prefer that Google make sure it doesn't come up in their search results."
It doesn't cross a legal line, so presumably you are referrring to a "moral" line. When you begin to moralise the internet, who can say where or when the resultant censorship will end?
"So, you can see it as Google repressing a very small portion of the population, or you can see it as Google's doing the rest of us a big favor."
Google is not doing a "big favor" for anyone. Censoring controversial material doesn't help readers; it simply makes them ignorant.
Slashdot Mirror
If the blogger does not clarify which [whatever your name is] he or she is blogging about, the blog post could be potentially slanderous. As someone who has followed anti-paedophile blogs closely, I may be able to help with identifying the blogger who potentially slandered you.
Feel free to contact me at blribbon at fastmail dot fm, with a link to the blog post in question.
"many employers do have a prescreen which would catch both that as well as the lack of a criminal conviction."
Many of the paedophiles outed on anti-paedophile blogs have never committed a criminal offence, but have simply been careless about posting personal information to online support groups for people who are attracted to children. If the person with whom "illini1022" shares a name isn't a sex offender, how will the lack of a criminal conviction prove that "illini1022" is not the paedophile in question?
"That's a common explanatory gloss, but it is not correct. "Indecent" isn't defined in the legislation (or any legislation) at all. It is for a magistrate or jury to decide as a matter of fact."
You are correct when you say that indecency is not defined by statutes, however its meaning is defined by precedents set in previous indecency and obscenity cases.
"They are aided in such decisions by the prosecution experts or police witnesses, who purport to grade material from their special experience and expertise in 'child protection'"
The grading of images is performed to aid sentencing, but not for deciding whether an image is "indecent". Images which do not meet the criteria for level 1 images have still been declared indecent; see my article here.
"Coincidentally, on Wednesday the UK introduced legislation that would make it an imprisonable offence to possess sexually explicit drawings that appear to be of minors."
Do you have a link to the text of the Bill? I can't find it at Parliament's website.
"You still should more directly address the question of whether the possession and/or distribution of child porn should be legal. I'm pretty comfortable declaring that should NOT be covered as free speech."
Well, distributing or downloading photographs is obviously not a form of free speech, but that is irrelevant as this story is based around UK law where there is no codified constitution protecting free speech.
I have said, many times, that accessing and possessing child pornography should not be illegal, as producers are motivated by profit or trade. Producing, purchasing, selling, requesting, or trading child pornography should be illegal, however those who download it for free presumably have the same effect as those who download music for free; they're certainly not encouraging production.
"It is almost if the IWF has a different view of child abuse than British law."
No, they have a very similar view. Parliament and Judges assume that non-sexual nude photographs of children are "abusive" and they have decided that simply accessing ("making") such images is abusive and should be illegal. Or maybe they simply can't cope with the idea of people being sexually aroused by pictures of children and so decided to go on a moral crusade, where "abusive" means "offending our morals". Either way, the IWF has a similar attitude to what constitutes "child abuse".
"Wouldn't it be better to tell the Internet Archive about the offending images? If it really is child porn then I'm sure they'll be only too happy to remove it."
The UK criminalises "indecent" images of children; defined as images which "offend against the recognised standards of propriety". The US criminalises "pornographic" images of children; defined as images which involve lewd or lascivious exhibition of the genital area.
An image can be "indecent" (illegal in the UK) without being "pornographic" (illegal in the US). The IWF may therefore be blocking access to the Internet Archive due to images which are not considered "child porn" in the US.
The fact that the IWF are blocking access to indecent images in the Internet Archive proves that they are a moralistic organisation rather than one which wishes to protect children. The dubious claim made by organisations such as the IWF is that simply viewing indecent images "creates a demand". While this claim is already flawed due to the fact that most producers take illegal images for profit/trade, the claim is undoubtedly wrong in the case of images on an archive which is almost certainly not operated by people who create indecent images. Just how would a producer be aware of the "increased demand" when he doesn't even know that the images are being viewed?
"I knew as soon as I saw this discussion you guys from annabelleigh.net would be out in force."
I've been here since 2006, when Epifora (an ISP which hosted pro-paedophile websites) was cut off by Verizon. I did not come from annabelleigh.net, though I do post there occasionally.
"I asked you last time we had a discussion how you could claim that most paedophiles don't really want to have sex with children and you didn't respond."
There are a myriad of ethical, social and legal reasons to avoid sex with children. I avoid sex with children for the same (or similar) reasons that most men don't walk up to a woman in the street and start groping her. Why is that so difficult to understand?
"Straight people download porn about having sex with adults of the opposite sex then they go out and do it, or at least attempt it; the same can be said of gay people with the caveat that it's adults of the same sex. Why would paedophiles view images (real or simulated) and then not want to have sex with children?"
Your argument is illogical, because there is nothing wrong with consensual sex between adults. The same cannot be said for sex with children, which is presumably one of the reasons why most child porn viewers don't molest children.
"I saw your post above where you cherry picked some studies that failed to show a link between viewing images and desire to have sex with children but we all know that if you just limit yourself to a few studies you can prove any point."
Okay. Can you find any studies with contrary findings?
"Rather than try to depict yourself as the victim of politicians playing some power game with your fantasies, isn't it really the case that sex with children (real or imagined) is all about power?"
Paedophilic fantasies are not typically based upon a desire for power; I actually like the idea of being controlled by a child (anything can happen in a fantasy, it doesn't need to be realistic). Many child molesters abuse children because they have a desire for power, but those offenders are rarely paedophilic.
There is little point in trying to build theories about something of which you have no knowledge.
"Even if you limit yourself to virtual images of children I find it very weird that you'd come out in public and defend what's essentially a rape fantasy."
A fantasy is a fantasy, and nobody has any right to police it.
"Arguably, banning the drawing of such things, and dissemination of such cartoons discourages sickos from watching the cartoons and being encouraged."
There is no evidence for the argument that viewing child porn cartoons increases the risk of a person molesting a child. There is evidence to the contrary, however. Hall, et al. (1995) found that "arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior", Freel (2003) found that "if someone is fully inhibited from sexually abusing children, no amount of emotional congruence, sexual arousal, or blockage will lead them to abuse children", while Sheldon & Howitt (2008) found that "fantasy deficit may be involved in contact offending against children."
"I was under the impression that the reason for child pornography laws was to protect children from exploitation."
That may have been the original intention when the first child pornography law was created (I believe that was in 1977), but those who now scream "think of the children!" are not really thinking of the children at all.
Child pornography is an emotional topic, so it is very easy to use the issue for political reasons. Campaigning for laws against issues which cause moral outrage are an easy way for a politician to raise his profile and/or attract support. Each campaigner has to find something slightly different to campaign for, so it's not surprising that someone eventually chose virtual child porn.
Of course, laws against child pornography are also a great way to justify intrusive and restrictive laws. Child porn (among other issues, such as terrorism) was used to justify Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (UK), which forces a person to provide any encryption keys which they know of, under penalty of imprisonment.
Laws against child pornography are an easy route to power, so it is not surprising that politicians use them regardless of the consequences to children and ethical paedophiles.
As someone who runs a potentially offensive but legal website, I will certainly be looking for ways to subvert website ratings if they are ever introduced.
"So you think that people that pay for images of this stuff don't contribute to the perpetuation of it?"
I agree with the AC. If the images are just of naked children (almost half of the child pornography cases in Ireland relate solely to pictures depicting no sexual activity whatsoever), that question is irrelevant, unless a child is actually forced to pose naked.
You're also making the assumption that everyone who is arrested for possessing child pornography has actually purchased child pornography. Many child pornography offenders are caught after taking their computer to a repair shop, having their IP address logged and traced, etc. They probably haven't harmed anyone, yet their life is now damaged beyond repair.
There should be a law against producing, purchasing, selling, requesting and trading pictures of children being molested (mere nudity should not be criminalised), but laws against accessing and possession do nothing to protect children; they simply provide an easy excuse for the government to exert control over citizens.
"Its still looked at as prevention, but instead of preventing the actual abuse, they want to prevent the thoughts that may lead to the abuse."
A study recently published by the British Psychological Society (Sheldon & Howitt, 2008) found that:
If these researchers are correct, limiting a paedophilic fantasy is more dangerous than attempting to prevent it. In reality, paedophiles will always fantasise about children, even if a TV show featuring children is the only stimuli available.
"Justice Adams said the purpose of the legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images are depicted of "real" children.
However it was also to deter the production of other material, including cartoons, that could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children"."
Firstly, child pornography is generally produced by people who wish to profit from such material or trade it with others. The belief that non-commercial demand encourages production is based on the assumption that child pornographers produce such images to distribute freely, which clearly contradicts claims that child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry.
The idea that viewing child sex cartoons encourages child pornographers to abuse actual children takes this argument to an even more ridiculous level. If someone can download child sex cartoons in order to get their fix, they are less likely to download real pictures of children. If commercial child pornographers make an increasing amount of money from child sex cartoons, they're more likely to draw cartoons than use real children. If there is an increasing demand for cartoons amongst people who trade child pornography, those who produce images for trading will be more likely to draw cartoons than use real children
There is no mechanism by which viewing child sex cartoons can lead to real children being used for child pornography; this is yet another example of blind moralism being placed above the welfare of children.
"The term is "indecent". Why has possession of this image never been prosecuted in 30 years of child porn being illegal?"
The nature of indeceny has changed over that 30 year period. An image is indecent if it "offends the recognised standards or propriety", therefore the legal status of an image can change if peoples' "standards" change. It's a law based on cultural perceptions of indecency, not a specific definition.
"I thank all the gods for the Slashdot link location notifier."
It's just academic text, not child pornography.
"I would suggest otherwise and so would Sir Elton John, Nan Goldin and the CPS, who were all involved with an image that was seized by police, who considered it obscene, but which was later returned, despite showing a young naked girl doing the splits in front of the camera"
Cases which become "high-profile" are generally not prosecuted if the images depict only nudity, for the simple reason that a prosecution or conviction would cause outrage amongst some members of the public. I also suspect that the authorities didn't want some of the UK's best lawyers challenging their laws against "child pornography", hence the refusal to prosecute images owned by Elton John.
People have been convicted of making, taking, or possessing indecent images of children ("child pornography") for images depicting mere nudity. See http://newgon.com/wiki/Indecent_images_of_children#Indecency
"If that wasn't obscene, then it raises the question of what criteria the IWF are using to censor the internet."
They should "apply the recognised standards of propriety". For what it's worth, a jury of several members of the IWF would be considered to be as representative of the population as a typical jury.
"Nudity is not pornography and no well balanced jury is going to rule otherwise."
The test of illegality is one of indecency, not pornography. An image is considered to be "indecent" if it "offends against the recognised standards of propriety", even if it is not pornographic.
People have been convicted of making, taking, or possessing indecent images of children ("child pornography") for images depicting mere nudity. See http://newgon.com/wiki/Indecent_images_of_children#Indecency
"If I photograph a cherub in the UK, say from a painting or a sculpture, would that also qualify me?"
Probably not, unless the original painting was deemed to have the appearance of a photograph, in which case you would have made a reference to a pseudo-photograph. It is possible, however, that such a photograph could be considered to be an indecent photograph of a (non-existant) child and therefore you would have "taken an indecent photograph of a child". I don't know of any case where the latter has been tested in court.
The government is considering legislation to criminalise any visual representation of "child sexual abuse", which includes any representation (cartoon, scuplture, etc) with "an excessive focus on a child's genitalia".
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
"Tbh, making those sorts of statements in public should be enough to get a surveillance warrant (in much the same way as admitting any crime should be enough to allow the police to start watching you) so I guess paedophiles at forums like that are at least out in the open."
Paedophilia (a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children) is not a crime, nor is it a reliable indicator of crime, so a surveillance warrant is not justified. I wouldn't be surprised if some authorities monitor the website illegally, as some authorities harass non-offending paedophiles in real life without having reasonable suspicion, but you are wrong to assume that the authorities are legally (or ethically) justified in monitoring people purely on the basis of their sexuality.
"it's also right that companies like Google and other organisations should take a stand against you. In fact this shows Google is an ethical company, just their ethics are different than yours."
The belief that someone should be censored for expressing offensive opinions is a moral belief, not an ethical belief; censoring speech does not protect anyone, it simply prevents them feeling uneasy or offended.
Furthermore, many people posting at Annabelleigh do not advocate the legalisation of adults having sex with children; should they also be censored when they are not harming anyone or even advocating the legalisation of harmful behaviour?
"I mean, civil rights? The right to bone tiny little girls? It's not bigoted to oppose that."
It's not bigoted to oppose that, but it's ignorant to assume that the majority of paedophiles actually want to do that.
"When you're part of a community or group which encourages a behaviour such as child sex via fantasy then all you're doing is encouraging that behaviour to become more common within someone's daily lives."
The community doesn't encourage people to engage in child sex, whether through fantasy or in real life. Paedophiles will, however, fantasise about sex with children regardless of external factors, so the communities in which we participate are irrelevant in that respect. Although such communities don't encourage illegal behaviour - meaning that your argument has failed - the idea of paedophilia (an attraction, not a behaviour) becoming a central feature of the life of someone with a paedophilic orientation is very relevant. The reason why paedophilia may become a central feature of a paedophile's life is because of the insane public obsession over paedophiles; society treats a paedophile as having an identity comprised purely of sexual urges. More disturbing is the assumption that all paedophiles will offend and are unable to control their "monstrous" urges. The latter may have a dangerous effect on some paedophiles, though I personally treat the assumption as the bullshit which it is.
"The members get twisted into their own delusions into believing that this kind of behaviour is normal, at which point it escalates from not just reading child sex novels but perhaps to something more such as child pornography."
You're conflating behaviour with fantasy; don't underestimate the ethical, social and legal barriers between the two. I would like to point out that the website in question is not a repository of sex stories, it's a discussion board. You clearly haven't even read the website which we're discussing.
Furthermore, I question your assumption that viewing child pornography is harmful (though I feel it should be avoided for legal reasons). Child pornography is created for the purpose of profit and trade, not for people who view freely available images. The suggestion that viewing freely available images encourages producers of child pornography is like suggesting that downloading free music helps the recording industry. The recording industry doesn't like their music to be freely downloaded (hence the outrageous lawsuits), so it is ridiculous to assume that the child pornography industry wishes for their images to be viewed without purchase. Simply viewing child pornography is not harmful, although I would second an argument that paying for abusive child pornography is harmful.
You should also consider the nature of child pornography.
"At some point their desires transition into the real world, where other people are effected."
Where is your evidence for this? You may be able to provide random cases of this happening, but there is no evidence of this happening to the majority of paedophiles, or even to a significant minority of paedophiles.
"You consider things to be morally just."
I believe in ethics (which is one of many barriers between fantasy and reality), however I have never subscribed to moralism. Moralism is a selfish concept which is concerned purely with pushing one's own beliefs and instincts onto others.
"Look at that child molester in Australia, I forget the name. He never admitted doing anything wrong, because by his standards he didn't. He fantasised about having sex with children for so long that his brain just swung the moral compass right around to the point where he was deluding himself and just went ahead with having sex with children."
How can you possibly know why he abused children?
A study published by the British Psychological Society found that "fantasy deficit may be involved in contact offending against children" (Sheldon & Howitt, 2008). The study compared paedophilic non-contact child sex offenders with paedophilic contact child sex offenders. It suggested that paedop
"If they are not discussing the relevant topic at hand (i.e., young children), then this is behavior they could engage in from any location, obviating the 'need' for a community dedicated to pedophiles."
Have you not considered the possibility that a marginalised group may not wish to associate with the majority who want them to be imprisoned/censored merely because of what they think?
"On the other hand, if they are discussing the topic at hand, this sort of site should be closed."
You still haven't explained how the website is "harmful" and you haven't rebutted the positive effects which a sense of community has for a marginalised group and those who members of the marginalised group may interact with. Your moral beliefs do not negate the importance of the welfare of children and the ethical treatment of paedophiles.
"What the fuck? And you're surprised this crap is blacklisted?"
Maybe you could explain why you wish for a legal discussion forum for paedophiles to be censored. It is not a "how-to-molest-children" forum, it is not a place for exchanging illegal material, it is simply a place where people who are attracted to girls can discuss their feelings.
If someone is isolated from their community, has nowhere to turn for support and has nothing to lose, they are less likely to care about consequences (for themselves or others) than if they have a community. Your support of the censorship of places where paedophiles can form a community and receive emotional support is therefore rather thoughtless.
Most paedophiles do not commit offences against children, but oppression and hatred will only increase the probability of a person becoming dangerous.
"90% of the people in this country will tell you that www.annabelleigh.net crosses the line. I'm guessing over 50% will have a strong reaction against it and would prefer that Google make sure it doesn't come up in their search results."
It doesn't cross a legal line, so presumably you are referrring to a "moral" line. When you begin to moralise the internet, who can say where or when the resultant censorship will end?
"So, you can see it as Google repressing a very small portion of the population, or you can see it as Google's doing the rest of us a big favor."
Google is not doing a "big favor" for anyone. Censoring controversial material doesn't help readers; it simply makes them ignorant.