Your People Need You!
12 June 2007Man Jailed for Possessing Cartoon “Child Erotica”
London, UK
A man has today been sentenced to 5 years in prison for possessing child erotica, defined by the new Protection of Proper Thoughts Act 2007 as “any non-photographic image which is likely to lead to the arousal of someone who has an inappropiate interest in children.”
The defence stated that the man, who we can confirm to be Mr Paul Smith (pictured above), has no previous convictions involving child abuse and is a caring, dedicated teacher of 30 years. But according to the recent Act, the fact that the man has an inappropiate interest in children makes any cartoons depiciting child erotica - in his possession - illegal.
Michelle Ellman of children’s charity “Kidshope” stated, “This man has an inappropiate interest in children and when he sees such images, he has sexual thoughts which are unlike our thoughts. He is not like us, and since we can make him suffer because of this, we must ruin his life and destroy anyone who cares about him.”
The prosecution is likely to appeal the sentence, claiming that the man should not be released until he thinks like everyone else. “He is not like us, which means we can’t understand what he’s thinking. That frightens me and therefore he should not be treated as a human member of society.”
–
This story is, of course, false…. however…. There is currently a proposal in the UK to criminalise depictions of child erotica which are not photo-realistic. Please see our Campaigns page for more information.
12 Responses to “Your People Need You!”
June 13th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
It’s still child pornography, even though it’s not created by a camera. Blue ribbon the dickhead pedophile should know better! I guess he’s syill talking out of his arse!
June 13th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Surely you’re not suggesting that such laws really are about thought crime, are you?
What happened to your fake child protection campaigns?
June 13th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
‘Looking at an image with a “lewd or lascvicious purpose”‘ could be the offence.
http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=6652198
WM
June 13th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
“‘Looking at an image with a “lewd or lascvicious purpose”‘ could be the offence.”
Not only would that be highly unreasonable, it would be impossible to enforce.
I doubt that many defendants would admit to being attracted to children if charged with such an “offence.”
June 14th, 2007 at 8:16 am
It could be based on the ‘objective view’ of a jury.
What a ‘reasonable man’ would view it as being.
WM
June 14th, 2007 at 10:05 am
“‘objective view’”
“‘reasonable man’”
I guess that rules John Reid out of jury service
June 18th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Upon my word, you really had me going. I’m delighted to discover it was a joke on your part.
June 18th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
It wasn’t simply a joke, it was an exaggerated example of what will happen if this proposal becomes legislation.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Blue, you’re obviously leaving some significant variables off the table with your little scenario. In your simple example, how did we learn about said instructor’s pictures/cartoons? Were they found on a computer? How about on his desk? Access is primary and the intent or reason to access this individual’s material is probably important wouldn’t you agree?
June 21st, 2007 at 4:08 pm
“In your simple example, how did we learn about said instructor’s pictures/cartoons? Were they found on a computer? How about on his desk? Access is primary and the intent or reason to access this individual’s material is probably important wouldn’t you agree?
I’m not sure of what you’re actually trying to say here, so I’m going to assume that you think it’s okay for a paedophile to be arrested for possessing non-photographic images.
Let’s assume that Law Enforcement learned about him because he bought the images. If he bought images which do not involve real children, he has not encouraged someone to abuse children, he has encouraged that person to produce more images which do not involve real children. Is that a positive, negative, or neutral situation?
If his intention is to masturbate over non-photographic images in order to prevent himself actually abusing a child, is that a positive, negative, or neutral situation?
If his intention is to buy images that don’t involve real children, in order to avoid buying abusive photographs of real children (which would encourage and fund abuse), is that a positive, negative, or neutral situation?
If he just wants the non-photographic images to masturbate over for pure fun, is he actually harming anyone?
You appear to support such absurd legislation because you don’t like the thoughts which paedophiles have, yet you also appear to ignore the obvious dangers of such legislation. Do you care more about protecting children from abuse, or more about the purity of peoples’ thoughts?
For the record, I don’t understand why anyone would find any cartoon arousing, but criminalising thought is very, very dangerous and it must be prevented.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
ThoughtCrime. I read the consultation paper. I particularly liked the part that deals with sentencing. Orwell would have had the right answer - Room 101.
October 12th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
We already have *that* law in Canada. The shame…