Cynic wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:38:37 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>
>> Cynic wrote:
>>
>>> Though I suspect that like most people, you will only claim that there
>>> is a causal relationship if the direction fits the result you would
>>> like.
>
>> Of course. But, in this case I don't have a particular result in mind.
>> Ban it or put it on the shelves in WH Smith?
>
> Well as has been stated elsewhere, people have indeed been convicted
> of possessing images that WH Smith see fit to sell.
Problem is, I simply don't believe that *any* have been found guilty by
a jury when the only images they had were on the shelves in WH Smith.
> People who are
> taking photos of criminal acts would obviously not sell their images
> to WH Smith, so even if possession of such images were legal, it will
> not gain the creators of the images any income.
ISTR plenty of pictures of criminal acts in books in WH Smith. Speeding
motorists. Bank Raids, Illegal Wars. Drunken behaviour on streets. Drug
taking. I hadn't realised all those cameramen were doing this for free.
>
>> Lacking evidence one way
>> or the other, I have no good reason to argue that HMG's approach is
>> right or wrong, other than the underlying principle about obeying the law.
>
> As I said, surely the underlying principle of a free society is that
> you don't ban anything unless you *do* have evidence to show that a
> ban is absolutely necessary? So if something is banned without such
> evidence, that ban is *wrong*.
So we shouldn't put in a speed camera simply because the road appears to
be dangerous - we should wait for half a dozen fatalities? No need for
safety rails on balconies, until a few people have fallen off? No need
to test drugs for possible side effects before selling them - wait to
see if they have any in use?
>
> Would you condone banning anything that is not an emotive issue unless
> there was good *evidence* (as opposed to supposition) that a ban was
> necessary?
Yep. Banning a new cosmetic additive until it has been tested. There is
no evidence that it will do harm but people can manage without until
such time as it has been proved not to be a danger.
>
>> Part of it is what great harm is done by having such a law? The loss
>> seems a very tiny one.
>
> We could in that case ban bananas. The loss, after all, would not be
> great. We could then ban pineapples, on the grounds that they are
> also tropical fruit and so should join the bananas. Coconuts would
> quickly follow, and then having established the principle, we could
> gradually extend the ban to citrus fruits, g.s and finally *all*
> fruit.
A slight variation. Some genius produces a pinana. Should it immediately
be released for public consumption? Of course not. People can manage
without until such time as it has been proven not to be harmful.
>
>> For those that choose to break the law, the penalties can be very great.
>> But everyone must know this, by now.
>
> Which has *nothing* to do with whether the law is or is not justified.
I agree.
>
>> There are others in society in an even more difficult situation, through
>> absolutely no fault of their own. If there is to be any priority for
>> getting change, it should be to help them.
>
> And there are children who are being caused far greater harm than that
> caused by .ual abuse. You cannot use a greater injustice to justify
> a lesser one, or pass it off as inconsequential.
>
No, but I can prioritise. I don't see a problem with a law banning the
possession of kp any more than a law banning the possession of guns or
explosives. People can find other ways of amusing themselves - it is no
big deal.
--
Sue
|