CJMorgan:"No need to tell porkies"
"I thought you wanted to join rstuart's campaign to legalise child pornography."

Quite right little fella fella, there's no need for me to tell lies, you've got that market cornered.

[Deleted for abuse]

rstuart, your mistake was in trying to engage with Morgan as a thinking adult with considered views. His entire outpur here has gone to show that he prefers not to think, but to have his opinions delivered to him pre-packaged in an easily regurgitated form - no further processing required.

Pelican, what do you find difficult to understand in rstuart's proposition? Is it the concept that some people might get off on seeing pictures of naked children but most don't? Is it the concept that normal people should not be judged by the standards applicable to abnormal ones? Is it the proposition that state regulation applicable to all should not be based on the most extreme examples of behaviour?

Or is it simply a knee-jerk response to the word "paedophile" - no further thought required, as in the Morgan Model?

It constantly amazes me that so many are so willing to get into a moral panic over so few.

@CJ Morgan: Did you miss the bit in the report to which I linked about the paedophile being convicted of indecent dealing of a child under 12?

You keep pounding this one drum. He pleaded guilty, which means whether broke any laws wasn't decided by a court. It seems likely he did break his restrictive supervision order in multiple ways, including by taking of those photos, so the Judge had no problem locking him up.

As for the photos, sadly CJ I fear you are right - it may well be the case that a picture of a naked child considered child porn. Or it might be a naked child on a beach is considered to have more privacy rights than a clothed one. If that is the case, most of us parents are probably paedophiles in the eyes of the law. (Recall the statute I linked to above equates pictures and observing, so you are not even allow to look at a naked child if this is so.) But if pictures of naked children aren't child porn and a guilty plea wasn't entered, then those charges would have been dismissed.

If you think otherwise, do what I did and link to the statute he broke. Otherwise, please give it up. You are flogging a dead horse.

@pelican: the use of the high rise building scenario reveals a scraping of the bottom of the barrel

Here are a few more scrapings for you:
- Several people convicted of looking at cartoons.
- A sunshine coast man prosecuted for posting a video of a man playing with his son.
- A Sydney man prosecuted for taking pictures of fully clothed kids in a public pool.

Like the high rise building scenario, these incidents devastated the lives of real people, good, hard working mums, dads and grandparents. You may think it is perfectly harmless punish people for thinking the wrong thing, but there is inevitable collateral damage. You are happy enough to take ownership of the laws. Well, be responsible enough to take responsibility for the damage they cause as well.

rstuart and anti
I understand your premise as borne out by anti's statement:

"Is it the concept that normal people should not be judged by the standards applicable to abnormal ones? Is it the proposition that state regulation applicable to all should not be based on the most extreme examples of behaviour?"

But the point is you can use all sorts of extreme examples of paranoia about child safety of which make up 0.01% of actual court decisions and court cases. The high rise one being of course one of the most stupid. It is easier to deal with the stupid ones but a lot harder to deal with the actual cases of abuse.

Allowing a man access to his child when there have been claims of abuse, the child did not want to return and he had been found downloading child porn. That is what this article is about.

Arguing that viewing child porn is perfectly acceptable as long as the person does not commit a physical act against a child belies the fact that child porn means that a child has already been abused just so those perverts can get their jollies.

That is why viewing without actually doing is illegal in this case.

'Arguing that viewing child porn is perfectly acceptable as long as the person does not commit a physical act against a child belies the fact that child porn means that a child has already been abused just so those perverts can get their jollies.'

Depends on your definition of porn pelican. CJ thinks any picture taken with a zoom lens of a naked child in a public place is child porn. Personally I disagree. If some nutter (Or Anne Geddes) wants to take pics of my kids getting changed at the beach (discretely), I see no victim. He can do whatever he likes with those pictures.

If I minded, I would cover my child with a towel to prevent this public display of nudity.

@pelican: Allowing a man access to his child when there have been claims of abuse, the child did not want to return and he had been found downloading child porn. That is what this article is about.

No. But I agree with everything you say, bar the final sentence. The article is an argument about whether the kids should be allowed access to their biological father, and you conveniently left half of that argument out.

Firstly, we don't know how strong the correlation between collecting child porn and child abuse is. It might be weak, or sporadic. Secondly, people in the family court lie, in fact they tell outrageous lies. Thirdly, children in these cases are manipulated by their parents, and in fact they often seem to be used as pawns by parents in their fight.

If those against points are true then ensuring the kids have access to the biological father would right thing to do. I have no idea what is true, and it looks to like like the Judge didn't either. If that is the case the final orders given by the Judge look entirely appropriate to me.

That, pelican is the full argument, not just the side you happen to agree with.

@pelican: Arguing that viewing child porn is perfectly acceptable as long as the person does not commit a physical act against a child belies the fact that child porn means that a child has already been abused just so those perverts can get their jollies.

It may seem "obvious" to you kids are abused primarily to make pictures of it. Unlike you I don't pretend to understand the minds of these people, so I look elsewhere. The statistics say there is, if anything, a negative correlation between the number of pictures floating around and abused kids. I have never seen any expert say the kids were abused primarily to make pictures. Never.

So, you assertion looks unlike unproven whimsy to me. Unlike you, I think prosecuting people on what is literally an unproven whim isn't upholding Justice. It is a perversion of Justice.

rstuart

I would like to listen to your unpopular views with an open mind, but Im finding it really hard to see how an increased availability of child-porn could possibly reduce the amount of child sexual abuse. What is the psychology behind this assertion? What is the mechanism that might make this claim plausible?