On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:02:30 -0000, "Joe Lee"
wrote:
>What you haven't made clear is whether you believe the Law should be
>abolished ln lt's entirety, regardless of the severity of the nature of the
>images. I said "The same Offence applies to the possession of images of the
>most extreme & obscene forms of .ual abuse of children & which is
>classified as being at different levels. Is it your opinion that it's a
>question of degree & if so isn't a Jury best able to decide, or that anyone
>should be entitled to possess whatever level of imagery they want &
>therefore that the Offence should not even be on the Statute books ?"
>
>You snipped the question (which of course you're fully entitled to do) but
>ISTM an entirely relevabt question to ask in the context of this discussion.
I have made my views clear on many occasions. I do not believe that
it is right to criminalise someone for looking at or possessing *any*
book, picture or item of text. Whether the banned material is images
of child abuse or a book about communism or a book about bomb-making
makes no difference to me - IMO it is wrong to prohibit *any* text or
picture.
*If* the images depict illegal acts of child abuse, then by all means
find the vile people who produced them and prosecute. If a person is
accused of abusing a child or making a bomb, by all means use reading
material found in his possession as evidence in that crime. But do
*not* criminalise the mere possession of reading material or having an
*interest* in something, no matter how illegal the *something*.
The only way you could justify the banning of such material is to show
that its possession is likely to cause significant harm to others -
and I do not accept that any such thing has been shown.
--
Cynic
|