The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Images of children: there's no harm in looking > Comments

Images of children: there's no harm in looking : Comments

By Bob Ryan, published 25/7/2017

The crime of child sexual abuse is not in the image, nor is it in the looking; it is in the abusive act itself.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All
@ ALTRAV. You obviously have a strong opinion, so why not join the discussion? The question is not whether some people are sick and/or disgusting but whether the subject child is harmed by the looking.
The question is put in very clear language at the end of the article, here it is again:
So! Exactly why is viewing and possessing freely available but proscribed images of children a criminal offence?
Perhaps you have a very sound argument somehwere, let's all have a look at it.
Posted by Robert99, Friday, 28 July 2017 1:53:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert99, I am embarrassed to say that I am not as well versed in the English language as yourself and some other commentors. Because of this I have difficulty in understanding many responses. The devil is in the detail, but I will attempt to respond to what I understand to be the point/s. I believe I have understood the title. My response is based purely on socially accepted standards. I have taken your title to imply that the 'looking' at pics of children had to do with a desire to admire or ogle the child in the pic. Your title is too broad and leaves me to the conclusion that I have eluded to previously. I believe I have explained the difference in looking by pointing out that different people have different reasons for looking at pics of children. To all these people I say; GET HELP! I have chosen to highlight the 'bad' side of the argument. I do not subscribe to these new 'politically correct' notions I have heard where there are those who are attracted to children and they even have a name for it. It came to light when the debate of same sex marriage was the topic of the day. I'm sorry Robert99 but this is my response to what I have understood from your article. I can see where you are trying to mitigate an otherwise indefensible act. AH well, it's good to see freedom of speech is alive and well.
Posted by ALTRAV, Friday, 28 July 2017 4:50:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALTRAV. First, thanks for a considered and polite response. Second, you're right, the title is too broad but that's because the legal definition of of child pornography is itself too broad, as the article demonstrates.

My argument is, the mere act of looking at even the most disgusting images should not be a crime but the law makes it so. I DO NOT defend the making or trading in images that portray sex with young children.

I'm not, as you say,trying to mitigate an otherwise indefensible act but even if I were, an indefensible act, while most likely offensive, is not necessarily a criminal act. For example, if someone parks in your driveway, blocking your movements, while there's lots of kerbside space everywhere, that's indefensible. You'd be more than offended, you'd be furious but that doesn't make it a crime. The law can make looking at images an "offence" any time it likes — a bit like (dare I say it?) low-level speeding.

What do you make of The Simpson's case?
Posted by Robert99, Friday, 28 July 2017 8:25:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy