Ex-paedophile group leader Freeman jailed over child rape drawings

The former leader of a paedophile group has been jailed for possessing indecent pictures, films and drawings of children.

Steven Freeman, who led the Paedophile Information Exchange (Pie), became the first person to be convicted for making drawings of children being raped.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14169406

First thing I want to say is... I have no idea what they are talking about when they say "rape" drawings. The term "rape" has been used to describe everything from forceful penetration to a kiss on the lips that it has lost all meaning to me.

The second thing I want to say is... I don't care. Even if these were the most sadistic, evilest drawings imaginable that even Satan himself was disgusted, it wouldn't matter. They're just drawings. No one is hurt. No real person is hurt. Why are we throwing people in jail for drawings?

Very well said, Ted.

I think any sane person, taking a step back and looking at this in a detached manner, would conclude that locking up somebody as the worst kind of criminal, for merely drawing pictures, is a form of collective madness, on a par even with the witch burnings of the 17th century.

It just goes to show that any society, no matter how advanced in terms of technology, or indeed morally progressive in other areas, can so easily revert back to medieval type superstition and ignorance. At least when a climate is formed that is so hysterical that it forbids any rational discussion of the matter in hand - for fear of 'cognitive distortion' accusations and the like.

The irony is, of course, that paedohysteria has been created both by advancements in technology (the internet), and improved education (and the consequent extension of adolescence and the blurring of childhood and adulthood).

Vile and horrible as they may be they're still art,and as no known people were ever put at risk then it does seem ridiculous to jail people for viewing art.
This is the thin end of the wedge.Next will they jail alcoholics for potentially being drunk drivers? Or maybe smokers for being the carriers of potential secondary smoking diseases?
Evil Nazis/Maoists/Stalinists punish people for thoughts,not acts,we haven't learnt our lessons yet.

Caravaggio should be arrested immediately

Blackit wrote:
Very well said, Ted.

I think any sane person, taking a step back and looking at this in a detached manner, would conclude that locking up somebody as the worst kind of criminal, for merely drawing pictures, is a form of collective madness, on a par even with the witch burnings of the 17th century.

This individual was the leader of the Paedophile Information Exchange and was found with over 3,000 drawings along with other material. I consider myself a very sane person and I'm certainly not shedding any tears.

Blue Boy wrote:
Blackit wrote:
Very well said, Ted.

I think any sane person, taking a step back and looking at this in a detached manner, would conclude that locking up somebody as the worst kind of criminal, for merely drawing pictures, is a form of collective madness, on a par even with the witch burnings of the 17th century.

This individual was the leader of the Paedophile Information Exchange and was found with over 3,000 drawings along with other material. I consider myself a very sane person and I'm certainly not shedding any tears.

'And then they came for me...'
Whatever else he may have had (no details supplied in the article) he can of course be punished for,but the fact remains he was still punished for art,even if it was disgusting.

Just my take on it,and always interesting to hear different viewpoints.

@Blue Boy. I agree. Obviously if 'art' is based on actual events it is wrong. But sometimes people rape children. So if a rapist draws it...it becomes okay? What tripe.

Blue Boy wrote:
Blackit wrote:
Very well said, Ted.

I think any sane person, taking a step back and looking at this in a detached manner, would conclude that locking up somebody as the worst kind of criminal, for merely drawing pictures, is a form of collective madness, on a par even with the witch burnings of the 17th century.

This individual was the leader of the Paedophile Information Exchange and was found with over 3,000 drawings along with other material. I consider myself a very sane person and I'm certainly not shedding any tears.

I'm not asking you to shed tears for him, we're trying to objectively consider whether the government should have the right to enter your home and lock you away on the basis of drawings that you made or that you own.

That fact that you think his prosecution is justified on the basis of his former membership of a political organization just demonstrates the disturbing thought crime nature of it.

Also, bear in mind the fact that in most countries feminists have legally defined any 'consensual' sex with somebody below a certain age (13 in the UK) as rape. Therefore, somebody drawing a picture of a man having sex with a smiling 12 year old is drawing a picture of a 'child being raped' according to female law.

"...his former membership of a political {my italics}organization..."


A telling piece of text. Now we're beginning to see where you're really coming from.

Locked Out wrote:
"...his former membership of a political {my italics}organization..."


A telling piece of text. Now we're beginning to see where you're really coming from.

As far as I know, the paedophile information exchange was a political activist group seeking the lowering of the age of consent, and which was at one point taken fairly seriously. Whether or not it also served as a means for paedophiles to engage in illegal activities is another matter. I imagine that many individual paedophiles within its ranks already knew each other, and when they were arrested for sharing illicit porn or whatever then the authorities would gladly use that as a justification to shut down and discredit the entire organisation, as they did in America with NAMBLA.

But actually you don't know where I am coming from and I must confess that I am a little ignorent of true paedophilia.

Blackit wrote:

quote]

..... we're trying to objectively consider whether ........[/quote]


Dear Backit, The problem is that you can't comment on the subject of the laws covering underage sex objectively.

Blue Boy wrote:
Blackit wrote:

quote]

..... we're trying to objectively consider whether ........


Dear Backit, The problem is that you can't comment on the subject of the laws covering underage sex objectively.[/quote]

Really? First of all, you seem to be confusing people here. I'm not an admitted sex offender and child abuser. But hypothetically assuming that I did have more of an attraction to nubile teenage girls than other men here, or the average man - do you think it also follows that homosexuals can't objectively comment on laws against homosexuality? Can black people think objectively on laws against racism? Can women argue objectively on issues of sexism? The difference between myself and Angel, for example, who clearly does have a selfish sexual interest in limiting sexual competition to herself through the law, is that I supply arguments that can be judged on the merits. Whereas, she, like you and Locked Out, don't.

Try harder next time.

Blackit wrote:
Locked Out wrote:
"...his former membership of a political {my italics}organization..."


A telling piece of text. Now we're beginning to see where you're really coming from.

As far as I know, the paedophile information exchange was a political activist group seeking the lowering of the age of consent, and which was at one point taken fairly seriously. Whether or not it also served as a means for paedophiles to engage in illegal activities is another matter. I imagine that many individual paedophiles within its ranks already knew each other, and when they were arrested for sharing illicit porn or whatever then the authorities would gladly use that as a justification to shut down and discredit the entire organisation, as they did in America with NAMBLA.

But actually you don't know where I am coming from and I must confess that I am a little ignorent of true paedophilia.

It should be noted that this reply was edited by whoever moderated it.

Moderator's comment; we remove personal insult or assumptions which seem inaccurate.

Blackit wrote:
Blackit wrote:
Locked Out wrote:
"...his former membership of a political {my italics}organization..."


A telling piece of text. Now we're beginning to see where you're really coming from.

As far as I know, the paedophile information exchange was a political activist group seeking the lowering of the age of consent, and which was at one point taken fairly seriously. Whether or not it also served as a means for paedophiles to engage in illegal activities is another matter. I imagine that many individual paedophiles within its ranks already knew each other, and when they were arrested for sharing illicit porn or whatever then the authorities would gladly use that as a justification to shut down and discredit the entire organisation, as they did in America with NAMBLA.

But actually you don't know where I am coming from and I must confess that I am a little ignorent of true paedophilia.

It should be noted that this reply was edited by whoever moderated it.

Moderator's comment; we remove personal insult or assumptions which seem inaccurate.

But you allow him to accuse me of being a paedophile or a sex offender?

"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.

I think the definition of "cognitive distortion" is seeing something which is almost accurate but not quite. Just as the danger of exaggeration and inflation for effect is a great temptation to stress a point whereas it tends to provoke disbelief. Many posters have excellent points to make which they destroy by expressing them as extremes rather than ingredients.

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.

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.

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.

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.