www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1022387...ophile-loophole.html


This just does not feel right for some reason, are we criminalising thought?

And professorsapient.blogspot.com/2008/05/in...n-how-to-accuse.html

This just boggles the mind and you have to ask when will people learn!!!



Hope yer all well

Baz

Fortunately, the legislation is not retrospective - so Leonardo will not be prosecuted for all those cherubs (naked !) on the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

This does bring up a very interesting point.

I can fully agree that possession of indecent pictures of children is by proxy contributing to the abuse of that child. For that reason I accept it should be a criminal offence.

The computer generated images have no real person being subjected to abuse (The comment in the Daily Mail link "...turning real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons." is disingenuous).

The argument that something "may lead to... xyz" is on a slippery slope.

I'd be very interested to hear any reasons why computer generated images should be prohibited by law.

...anyone know more about some Japanese comic books, I've heard these contain rather sexually explicit drawings (perhaps even of young people) but these are read quite publicly with little or no concern form the general population. (I may be quite wrong about this)

Cheers in advance.

One country-and I can't remember which-has already made it a crime to possess stories that involve child sex.

You may find this ofensive and that is reasonable but this really is "thought crime" ie: people being criminalised for fantasy thought.

where will it end ?