On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:46:30 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>Oh, if those prosecuted for kp had been campaining to get the law
>changed, whilst keeping it it - then they would have had no problem.
>They are quite entitled to have the view that kp should come installed
>as part of the OS. They are quite entitled (terrorism act permitting) to
>walk up and down with a placard outside Downing Street.
What do you seriously think would happen to anyone who tried? If they
weren't stoned to death by the mob, they would be fitted up by the
police like Tom O'Carroll. (Not that he was campaigning specifically
about ..)
>This crime is
>*nothing* to do with freedom of speech. They can *think* what they like.
>It is not a thought-crime.
Motivation, in practice, is taken into account, when deciding whether
pictures found in someone's possession are indecent. Ergo, thought
crime.
>It is a deliberate act against the law as
>much as driving past a speed camera is a deliberate act. There are no
>other higher principles at stake. They want this form of entertainment.
>This form of entertainment isn't available to them legally. So they
>choose to break the law.
That's like saying that . is just a form of entertainment. It's much
more than that, unless you are too old to remember. Whether you regard
paedophilia to be a 'perversion' of the . drive (as homo.uality
was not so long ago in this country) is beside the point - . is ..
What can substitute for it? Well, . is one possibility, but that is
banned too.
--
Dissenter |