The Paedophile Next Door

Grayson

floggg wrote: »

I know research shows that (adult) rape cases are lower in countries where porn is relatively easily available - I imagine simply be providing a form of release to potential rapists.

I#ve read that too but you have to wonder about it. The countries with little access to pornography are generally more repressive and have very bad views of woman anyway.

ALiasEX

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Exactly, that's like banning driving because someone decides to drink drive.

In any case cartoons aren't real people, how is someone meant to tell if a cartoon character is 18 years old or 17?

How is a viewer meant to tell a real person is 18 years or 17? They can't but they can usually tell when the person is much younger as you can with a cartoon.

floggg

Grayson wrote: »

I#ve read that too but you have to wonder about it. The countries with little access to pornography are generally more repressive and have very bad views of woman anyway.

I think the research generally cited is from western counties - e.g. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm

Granted I think it just establishes a link between porn/Internet access and rape rates, so we can't conclude definitely it's the reason for lower rates.

If you think about it logically though, a quick fap tend to get rid of any sexual charge one might be feeling fairly easily.

So if a potential rapist is feeling horny, I'd rather him load up a cartoon version of redtube before he leaves the house than walk around feeling unsatisfied.

ALiasEX

floggg wrote: »

Granted I think it just establishes a link between porn/Internet access and rape rates, so we can't conclude definitely it's the reason for lower rates.

Too many cat videos to watch.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ALiasEX wrote: »

Too many cat videos to watch.

Won;t someone please think of the kittens?!

MadDog76

floggg wrote: »

I would wonder whether as a while it does harm children.

I know research shows that (adult) rape cases are lower in countries where porn is relatively easily available - I imagine simply be providing a form of release to potential rapists.

So I think it's a reasonable conclusion that a paedophile with access to some form of porn that he can get off is also less of a risk to children. Obviously they should never have real child porn but it a hentai film gets them off, then i think it's better that they are at home jerking off into a sock than walking around sexuality frustrated.

And even if there is some "degrading" I imagine that the damage would not out weigh the benefit of providing them with a release.

Sure they can just use their now infamous "self control" method instead ....... :rolleyes:

Shep_Dog

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Exactly, that's like banning driving because someone decides to drink drive.

No, it's like banning drink driving because it often harms people

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

In any case cartoons aren't real people, how is someone meant to tell if a cartoon character is 18 years old or 17?

A jury will decide for them when they get prosecuted.

o1s1n

ALiasEX wrote: »

How is a viewer meant to tell a real person is 18 years or 17? They can't but they can usually tell when the person is much younger as you can with a cartoon.

It's a farcical law which makes zero sense and basically amounts to censorship and percieved thought crimes.

People should be able to draw whatever the hell they want. Its a drawing.

Its basically 100% open to interpretation. How realistic does the drawing have to be? Is a nude stick man child porn? What if its drawn it in a pram?

IMO this is in the same league as the Mohammed drawings fiasco. Bad taste, insensitive but ffs, they're only drawings. Nobody died.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

o1s1n wrote: »

It's a farcical law which makes zero sense and basically amounts to censorship and percieved thought crimes.

People should be able to draw whatever the hell they want. Its a drawing.

Its basically 100% open to interpretation. How realistic does the drawing have to be? Is a nude stick man child porn? What if its drawn it in a pram?

IMO this is in the same league as the Mohammed drawings fiasco. Bad taste, insensitive but ffs, they're only drawings. Nobody died.

And then there's the case of this...
WARNING - Link is NSFW (unless you work for an art gallery)

Shep_Dog

o1s1n wrote: »

People should be able to draw whatever the hell they want. Its a drawing.
Its basically 100% open to interpretation. How realistic does the drawing have to be? Is a nude stick man child porn? What if its drawn it in a pram?

No, you cannot draw or write anything you want. Society puts the protection of children as its highest priority.

If the law were too perscriptive it would make very difficult to secure prosecutions as there would be loopholes where people could work around the letter of the law. So, it has to be broad to make it easier to form a case against someone.

The new bill widens the definitions further and includes attempted offences, following advice from child protection advocates.

In any case of doubt, the mattter can be decided by a jury.

looking_around

Shep_Dog wrote: »

No, you cannot draw or write anything you want. Society puts the protection of children as its highest priority.

If the law were too perscriptive it would make very difficult to secure prosecutions as there would be loopholes where people could work around the letter of the law. So, it has to be broad to make it easier to form a case against someone.

The new bill widens the definitions further and includes attempted offences, following advice from child protection advocates.

In any case of doubt, the mattter can be decided by a jury.

Ok..so why are the books "flowers in the attic" legal?
what about "kushiels dart"? that starts off with kids trained into prostitution(labelled as a religious aspect).

You can indeed write anything you want.

The problem with loose laws..is some things are legal and other very similar, almost the same things are not, simply based on who's judging it.
That's a bad way to make and enforce laws imo.

anonyanony

looking_around wrote: »

Ok..so why are the books "flowers in the attic" legal?
what about "kushiels dart"? that starts off with kids trained into prostitution(labelled as a religious aspect).

You can indeed write anything you want.

The problem with loose laws..is some things are legal and other very similar, almost the same things are not, simply based on who's judging it.
That's a bad way to make and enforce laws imo.

I remember I had to the hassle I had to import lost girls on release not sure if it's still classed as maybe illegal but amazon.co.uk now sell it, sometimes these laws are pretty stupid.

Shep_Dog

looking_around wrote: »

Ok..so why are the books "flowers in the attic" legal?
what about "kushiels dart"? that starts off with kids trained into prostitution(labelled as a religious aspect).

Presumably because they were examined by the censor and not banned?

looking_around wrote: »

You can indeed write anything you want.

True, and you can then be prosecuted for writing it.

looking_around wrote: »

The problem with loose laws..is some things are legal and other very similar, almost the same things are not, simply based on who's judging it.

That's the intention: To put potential paedophiles in front of a court where they can be judged. If the laws are too specific, they'll know how to avoid being prosecuted.

looking_around

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Presumably because they were examined by the censor and not banned?

True, and you can then be prosecuted for writing it.

That's the intention: To put potential paedophiles in front of a court where they can be judged. If the laws are too specific, they'll know how to avoid being prosecuted.

I guess you've never read either of the books?

please do so, at the very least go read some summaries and then tell me how you're ok with censorship based on who judges it.
and not actually based on the clear legality of it.

because the problem with "the judge decides"..is that it can be a slippery slope, risking prosecuting innocents, or banning things that are harmless.....but society has been ok with that before, so it's no surprise.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Shep_Dog wrote: »

If the law were too perscriptive it would make very difficult to secure prosecutions as there would be loopholes where people could work around the letter of the law. So, it has to be broad to make it easier to form a case against someone.

Making a case or getting at the truth?

You're under the assumption that every artist who paints/writes about a child is automatically guilty before you even get them to court - you just want it made easier to get a conviction, regarless of whether the person is guilty or not.

More convictions =/= a safer society.

The new bill widens the definitions further and includes attempted offences, following advice from child protection advocates.

In any case of doubt, the mattter can be decided by a jury.

That's the dangerous thing, because the jury never get to see the images.

"The book contains a scene wehre a group of six or seven children participate in group sex."
"Guilty!"
The book in question is Stephen King's "It" - available in most bookstores.

"The book contains a scene in which children are picked up and throw repeatedly and forceuflly into the gournd!"
"Guilty!"
That one's The Bible.

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Presumably because they were examined by the censor and not banned?

True, and you can then be prosecuted for writing it.

That's the intention: To put potential paedophiles in front of a court where they can be judged. If the laws are too specific, they'll know how to avoid being prosecuted.

The censor passing it doesn't mean a damn thing. Either it depicts abuse it doesn't. The fact that it's legal to watch it or read it doesn't change that.

You are also trying to create a scene where the law is prejudiced before a trial has even begun which is pretty much unconstitutional. The idea that anyone is a "potential" anything before a court sits is farcical. As is the idea that, if convicted, he MUST therefore be a pedophile (or, if aquitted, he isn't).

Piliger

looking_around wrote: »

because the problem with "the judge decides"..is that it can be a slippery slope, risking prosecuting innocents, or banning things that are harmless.....but society has been ok with that before, so it's no surprise.

Absolutely 10000% right. This is exactly how a climate of fear through uncertainty in any area of the law is achieved. By enacting vague uncertain laws, a government creates fear and thus suppresses activity.

I have taken part, as a writer, in some discussions of this issue recently on the web - as it pertains to Ireland - and it is clear that there is a high level of fear among writers here in Ireland about writing anything at all, a storyline or minor storyline, that involves anyone under the age of consent. The fear of breaking the law in some w ay that no one can predict, has the effect now of suppressing literature exploring important issues for teens and for society.

porsche959

Piliger wrote: »

The fear of breaking the law in some w ay that no one can predict, has the effect now of suppressing literature exploring important issues for teens and for society.

Which important issues? Which suppression? Which literature, specifically, is being 'suppressed'?

Piliger

porsche959 wrote: »

I find this surprising. I don't think any writer that is not in the business of glorifying child abuse would have any particular reason to be fearful. Those that are in that business probably might, but I think most of society would say, well, good if they are fearful.

You are surprised ? Really ? Except it is not society that decides on who to prosecute. And where did you get this 'glorifying child abuse' come from

Which important issues? Which suppression? Which literature, specifically, is being 'suppressed'?

For example writing fiction books that deal with underage teens learning to deal with media sexualisation that they have to deal with at such an early age ? I mean you are aware that MANY underage teens have sex right ? Writers cannot be sure that their books, where even only a small part may deal with actual sex going on, will not be targeted by the prosecutor and publishers in Ireland are already issuing warning on this to their writers. The uncertainty means that investing money in a venture that could end up in the courts is just not worth it.

porsche959

Piliger wrote: »

You are surprised ? Really ? Except it is not society that decides on who to prosecute. And where did you get this 'glorifying child abuse' come from

Well, for example, it is known that pro-child abuse groups like the Peadophile Information Exchange and NAMBLA try to normalise child abuse and paedophilia under the guise of 'freedom', 'sex rights', and other such bilge. They tried to infiltrate the gay rights movement in the 1970s, before they were, fortunately, suppressed, but their advocates still exist today, I hope you realise this.

Piliger wrote: »

For example writing fiction books that deal with underage teens learning to deal with media sexualisation that they have to deal with at such an early age ? I mean you are aware that MANY underage teens have sex right ?

"I mean you are aware that MANY underage teens have sex right ? "

But of course.

Are you aware that MANY child abusers seek to groom teenagers who are not ready for a sexual relationship?

Piliger wrote: »

Writers cannot be sure that their books, where even only a small part may deal with actual sex going on, will not be targeted by the prosecutor and publishers in Ireland are already issuing warning on this to their writers. The uncertainty means that investing money in a venture that could end up in the courts is just not worth it.

Well, good, then. The anti-censorship obsession in society, has frankly, gone too far. Freedom of speech has limits -
some ideas are bad, and shouldn't be encouraged.

Shep_Dog

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Making a case or getting at the truth?
You're under the assumption that every artist who paints/writes about a child is automatically guilty before you even get them to court - you just want it made easier to get a conviction, regarless of whether the person is guilty or not

You are also trying to create a scene where the law is prejudiced before a trial has even begun which is pretty much unconstitutional.

I am merely stating facts. Automatic guilt flows from this part of the law which places the onus on the accused to prove their innocence:

(3) In any proceedings for an offence under section 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 a person shall be deemed, unless the contrary is proved, to be or have been a child, or to be or have been depicted or represented as a child, at any time if the person appears to the court to be or have been a child, or to be or have been so depicted or represented, at that time.

"The book contains a scene in which children are picked up and throw repeatedly and forceuflly into the gournd!""Guilty!"That one's The Bible.

If there is no sexual aspect, then it's not illegal. Depictions of violence against children are not illegal.

Shep_Dog

Piliger wrote: »

I have taken part, as a writer, in some discussions of this issue recently on the web - as it pertains to Ireland - and it is clear that there is a high level of fear among writers here in Ireland about writing anything at all, a storyline or minor storyline, that involves anyone under the age of consent. The fear of breaking the law in some w ay that no one can predict, has the effect now of suppressing literature exploring important issues for teens and for society.

It is entirely plausible that a publication, be it photographic or writing, presently on general sale in Ireland could be found to have been illegal at some point in the future. The illegality would be retrospective. The publisher and writer would then be liable to prosecution for creation/distribution of child pornography. The Gardai could seize the sales records and pursue the purchasers.

Indeed, the broadening of definitions in the new law will introduce the possibility, for example, that pictures people posess now in a book of photographic works, and for which they would not be prosecuted today, would form the basis of a prosecution in the future.

No doubt, a judge, passing sentence would show some leniency, but the offence would be proven and all concerned would be branded as sex offenders and subject to the usual controls and sanctions.

looking_around

porsche959 wrote: »

"I mean you are aware that MANY underage teens have sex right ? "

But of course.

Are you aware that MANY child abusers seek to groom teenagers who are not ready for a sexual relationship?



Well, good, then. The anti-censorship obsession in society, has frankly, gone too far. Freedom of speech has limits -
some ideas are bad, and shouldn't be encouraged.

what about books that highlight abuse? highlight the harm it causes? these books are at risk of being banned, simply because someone doesn't like them. by banning these things all we're doing is brushing them under the carpet. pretending we can just eradicate it all. that hasn't helped before, why would it help now?

looking_around

Shep_Dog wrote: »

If there is no sexual aspect, then it's not illegal. Depictions of violence against children are not illegal.

and that seems fair/ok/right to you?

what's the difference between sex and violence? they're both very harmful to children, why..in your own view, is one ok and not the other?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Shep_Dog wrote: »

I am merely stating facts. Automatic guilt flows from this part of the law which places the onus on the accused to prove their innocence:


If there is no sexual aspect, then it's not illegal. Depictions of violence against children are not illegal.

That law actually contravenes Human Rights (innocent until proven guilty) and there are a huge number of artworks - written, painted and filmed - that possession of is therefore illegal. And regardless of whether or not the law deems them to be legal or not the point remains unchallenged: either they are or are not dangerous in the hands of a pediophile (and therefore, in the opinions expressed by you) and should be banned outright.

The idae that if we ban enough things, we'll make a the world safer is a fallacy. It justy leads to ignorance and closed societies which leads to more abuse - cases in point: most of 20th century Ireland, modern day China and the more strick Islamic states.

The biblical one I thtrew in deliberately: child abuse doesn't have to be sexual. The law you stated doesn't specify sexual. It's very possible to abuse a child without the slightest interest in pedophilia.

floggg

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That law actually contravenes Human Rights (innocent until proven guilty) and there are a huge number of artworks - written, painted and filmed - that possession of is therefore illegal. And regardless of whether or not the law deems them to be legal or not the point remains unchallenged: either they are or are not dangerous in the hands of a pediophile (and therefore, in the opinions expressed by you) and should be banned outright.

The idae that if we ban enough things, we'll make a the world safer is a fallacy. It justy leads to ignorance and closed societies which leads to more abuse - cases in point: most of 20th century Ireland, modern day China and the more strick Islamic states.

The biblical one I thtrew in deliberately: child abuse doesn't have to be sexual. The law you stated doesn't specify sexual. It's very possible to abuse a child without the slightest interest in pedophilia.

You both have misunderstood the law.

The section cited creates a rebuttable presumption of fact. It's is presumed Its a child unless the contrary is established.

That doesn't mean there is automatic guilt.

You would also have to look at whether the person was knowingly in possession of the material and whether any defence is open to them.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

floggg wrote: »

You both have misunderstood the law.

The section cited creates a rebuttable presumption of fact. It's is presumed Its a child unless the contrary is established.

That doesn't mean there is automatic guilt.

You would also have to look at whether the person was knowingly in possession of the material and whether any defence is open to them.

Fair enough, but I only had the snippet to go on (which took a few attempts, as it didn't read a complete sentence).

I'd imagine knowingly in possession was an easy one if it's a painting on a wall or a book on a shelf. My question is: can it be proven that having them leads to child sexual abuse (and notice, I didn't say pedophilia) or that banning them makes children any safery (practically, not in theory).

Piliger

porsche959 wrote: »

Well, good, then. The anti-censorship obsession in society, has frankly, gone too far. Freedom of speech has limits -
some ideas are bad, and shouldn't be encouraged.

So writing about murder should be banned too ? Writing about all crime ? No book should be able to refer to a rape scene or a murder scene ?

All 'bad' ideas' should be banned ?

Piliger

floggg wrote: »

You both have misunderstood the law.

The section cited creates a rebuttable presumption of fact. It's is presumed Its a child unless the contrary is established.

That doesn't mean there is automatic guilt.

You would also have to look at whether the person was knowingly in possession of the material and whether any defence is open to them.

But people cannot afford and risk the chance of having to lose their house or business to pay the legal fees.

Shep_Dog

floggg wrote: »

The section cited creates a rebuttable presumption of fact. It's is presumed Its a child unless the contrary is established. That doesn't mean there is automatic guilt.

But it does introduce a prejudice against the defendant.