On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:53:34 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>Cynic wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:27:27 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>>
>>> Ah Godwin. About time. I am not aware of any impending legislation that
>>> would put kp downloaders in cattle trucks and ship them off to gas
>>> chambers. Rest assured, should there be so, I would write to my MP.
>>
>> The effect on many people has been very similar.
>>
>>> All the law asks is for people to refrain from keeping indecent images
>>> that appear to be of children - without good reason. It doesn't seem
>>> much to ask, in the scheme of things.
>>
>> And if the law asked for every Jewish person to wear a distinctive arm
>> band, that would also surely not be too much to ask, in the scheme of
>> things, would it?
>>
>One is the slight restriction on one form of "entertainment" featuring
>acts of abuse against children. Have you any idea how ridiculous your
>comparisons are getting?
What is abusive about the children portrayed in the Klara and Edda
photo? They were indulging in horseplay! The CPS said the photo was
not indecent (let alone .ographic). And yet in another court you
would be locked up without any shadow of a doubt. Is it not ridiculous
for you to conveniently ignore this case and its wider ramifications?
Do you not want to deal with it? Do you shy away from this example,
because it kills your argument stone dead?
MM |