Monday, November 22, 2010

Thought police.

I just watched a commercial which gave us statistics on what percentage of men arrested for pedophilia had pictures of children aged 3 to 5 on their computers.

I don't know about you, but I feel that this is a wedge issue. We're willing to call these men criminals because they look at photographs. It's certainly a slippery-slope 'crime' inasmuchas the 'perpetrators' are kind of being linked to the people who took the pictures, being likened to 'the kind of person' who would take pictures of this kind and distribute them if they could.

I just don't see a line that we can draw on this issue though.

"Laws have been enacted to criminalize "obscene images of children, no matter how they are made," for inciting abuse."


If I draw two stick figures 'doing the nasty' and one is, say, twice as big as the other, this could be interpreted to be a man abusing a child, and I could be arrested for inciting abuse??

Apparently, I'm breaking the law, here in Canada for peeking at this website.

Given this law, I'm thinking that I would really be committing a crime if I were to have a Shirley Temple movie collection, because there's is no doubt in my mind that she was a bit of a sex symbol pandering to men's lust for the 'forbidden' as much as our(everyone's) love of humour and such.

"The definitive Supreme Court of Canada decision, R. v. Sharpe, interprets the statute to include purely fictional material even when no real children were involved in its production."

There may well be 'something wrong' with grown men who are obsessed with sexually explicit stories or pictures of children, but I think that there is 'something just as wrong' with people obsessed by imagining that these men ought to be imprisoned for it.

It seems to me to be 'the seed of a crime', and taken to it's most ridiculous, we really ought to be arrested for admiring something we cannot afford to buy, since we could only be thinking of stealing it. After all, 'thou shalt not covet!'

I want to add that since those moral people seem to know exactly what is allowed and what isn't, what if there is no crime, but it looks like a crime.

For example, women all have different faces and bodies, some look very young for their age. What if I had a sexually explicit picture of a 21 year old woman who just looked like she was underage(as defined by them)?

If I share this picture, am I guilty of something because of her looks now?


mac said...

But the kids in the site you linked were not nude or anything.
One should question the asshole that sexualizes children in photos that aren't really sexual???

All that being said. Pedophiles are a disgusting lot.

pboyfloyd said...

I agree Mac, they're sick fucks. There is something wrong with their heads.

But do we arrest and prosecute people for being sick fucks, or for stuff that they have done to children?

Seems to me that the kids likely don't understand what is happening, perhaps think it is a game, and the guy who is taking the photos is definitely breaking the law.

But if the photo is uploaded 50,000 times, are 50,000 people as guilty as the one who took the photo?

Now whatever you think of that situation, there's the fact that they'll bust you for owning drawings or stories, and even stories that you made up yourself and have never distributed!

It's happened. The 'guilty' guy was ordered to pay $3000 to some organization because there was no REAL victim, the victim was imaginary.

There's something wrong with this.

pboyfloyd said...

You forgot to mention that there were no kids on the site I linked to, it was just a drawing. Nevertheless a guy was arrested for looking at pics like that.

mac said...

It is very disturbing that one can be arrested for thoughts.

So much for Eric's positions that the mind cannot be imprisoned ????