Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Protecting the rights of imaginary children
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
veritas |
Solihull Exile wrote:
This is an important topic,that unfortunately lost its way!
Jailing people for art and thoughts will set a precedent,that will undoubtedly lead on to others being jailed for things not related to CP.
the slippery slope etc..
this is true as we see now with a new 'register' proposal for wife/husband batterers.
Laws that are enacted by inflaming emotions will multiply. |
|
Solihull Exile |
This is an important topic,that unfortunately lost its way!
Jailing people for art and thoughts will set a precedent,that will undoubtedly lead on to others being jailed for things not related to CP. |
|
GeminiUK |
Locked Out wrote:
"But you allow him to accuse me of being a paedophile or a sex offender?"
No, he hasn't because I didn't. I said your thinking is frighteningly similar to that of many sex offenders I met in jug.
There's a huge difference.
Leave it out,it's getting boring!
If ur judgement on sex matters is so good why did u end up in prison for sex offences?
Leave the judgementalising to others,carry on posting of course,no problems there,but at the moment ur looking like a prat! Sorry to say because usually ur not.But we're getting a bit bored of this sniping,and U started it,so that's why ur getting told this. |
|
Chris Retro |
This was highlighted by Stuart Goldsmith in his book "Privacy" (have a look for it on eBay) around 13/14 years ago. He stated catergorically that "Child Porn" would be used an emotive yardstick to change wholesale laws, and indeed it was. I personally find the idea of photographs of child abuse extremely distasteful but as the book highlights if you can be convicted of looking at or owning "a picture" (drawing or photo) then you can be convicted for having ANY photo or drawing dependent on the point of view of someone deciding what we should and should not look at. He actually used the argument of "what if the photos were computer generated so nobody had been harmed or abused ever" to argue why such laws were incredibly dangerous for the liberty of us all. |
|
Blue Boy |
Blue Boy wrote:
quote]
Dear Backit, The problem is that you can't comment on the subject of the laws covering underage sex objectively.[/quote]
Apologies for the grammatical mistake, my posting should have read :
"Dear Backit, The problem is that you are incapable of commenting objectively on the subject of the laws covering underage sex"
Your ability to comment on the subject has never been in doubt, it's just the lack of logic or reason you apply when you do so. |
|
|
|
