Dissenter wrote:
> 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.
>
I would suggest that *nothing* can substitute for it, not for very long,
that is. Which is rather the problem, isn't it?
--
Sue
|