You can say things like that until the cows come home, but I will *not* treat it as evidence that he actually did something bad to a child in another country.So why do you think that he was banned from contact with children as part of his first sentence? Is he less likely to try to abuse kids in a country where for a few dollars you can probably do whatever the hell you want without fear of the law?
The individual risk is anyone's guess but he's in a category that represents a higher threat to children than normal. I obviously don't want someone like that in a trust relationship with my child and it's a very short ethical hop to not wanting them in a trust relationship with any child anywhere on the planet. Because there is some evidence of him seeking contact with children when abroad, the police believe they may be able to restrict his future travel - I don't think there is anything else worth saying on this aspect of this story.
I don't need one - look at the charges, look at the sentence, look at the quotes from the judge's little speech. Failing that, if it were making=creating originals, wouldn't the media have been **all over it**?Without a transcript of what was said in court (is there one available?) we're unlikely to find out which definition was in use
I don't have a problem with that, but my standards, especially if I were promoting an ethical argument on this notoriously emotive (and thus muddled) topic, would compel me, same as the law of the land does, to distinguish between someone:Therefore money made by Sparklebox was used to harm children. I don't see why you have such a problem with this fact.
a) viewing CP
b) raping a child
The harm in the viewing is an abstract variety and not the direct molestation that probably springs to most peoples minds when you casually say someone "harmed children".
 The "to a degree complicit in" argument does work for me in the same way as buying Nike footballs back when they were made with child labour, but you can't claim it's stunningly obvious when it has apparently defeated a few judge's over the years "because they didn't have a victim" in front of them.
Last edited by PiqueABoo; 31st January 2010 at 01:28 PM. Reason: typo
The things that has sometimes been difficult to get across, without the media scare-mongering that whips up witch-hunts, is that this is not a victimless crime. This is on 3 levels.
1 - The direct assaults and violations of the victims of whom the imagery is made.
2 - The continuing requirement for this imagery and the viewing / transfer of it creates a market which means that the direct assault and violation of victims goes beyond the initial crime and turns it into a business. A significant number of those running such businesses are abusers themselves, but if you equated it to drug dealing ... that might help some people understand the seriousness of it being a business.
Please note that the victims in these cases are the the children.
3 - This one might be not be an obvious one to some people. The final 'victim' is the person who is 'normalised' to these assaults and violations by these images, possibly then going on to commit violations and assaults themselves. There is research into what triggers people to view these images and become normalised instead of repulsed but if the images were not around this might mean that the 'viewer' is a normal, balanced member of society. This is, of course, not to be seen in any way an excuse for why they do it (which papers jump on when they hear of this sort of research ... ) or even mitigation, but a view of trying to spot the problem earlier and deal with it, or even prevent it in the first place. There is a reason why there are a number of high profile abusers who were abused themselves ... and that is down to the normalisation process. If they can be counselled then it significantly reduces and removes the chance that they might be triggered to commit such offences themselves. And yes ... I also know that sections of the media call this bleeding-heart liberalism.
pap (25th March 2010)
It was interesting at one of my schools when one of my "Im the head - i'm right -your wrong" types was telling me that I didn't understand the situation
I thought - well I've been across it for last 6 months and I told my heads before Lancs sent anything out and its a complex and morally ambiguous area.
But as with all grey matters (and a few black and white issues as well) we all come to slightly (or widely) different opinions.
I believe (just my opinion) that the sites not dangerous - hes not dangerous to anyone close to me or mine but I wouldn't want any chance of him getting any monetary/physical reward with regard to children/education if he can't stick to society norms re child sex.
I have had family dealings with alleged child abuse and it is one of the most sickening things to deal with mentally and you wouldn't want to associate with anyone who wants to view such images (IMHO)
I could recite the words e.g. "complicit in" etc., as well as anyone, but it took me ages to construct a mental position where I had the slightest chance of justifying them. To get there I began with the following and essentially extrapolated in the less serious direction: Imagine someone paid for someone else to enact and produce a video of their favourite child abuse fantasy.The things that has sometimes been difficult to get across, without the media scare-mongering that whips up witch-hunts, is that this is not a victimless crime.
I've got some numbers at my fingertips. I looked but couldn't find anything but a zillion rehashes of the news agency release so I'm not really sure what to make of it:The continuing requirement for this imagery and the viewing / transfer of it creates a market
Unicef also estimates there are more than four million websites featuring minors, including those of children aged under two years.
More than 200 new images are also circulated daily, according to Maala, who pointed out the production and distribution of child pornographic images rakes in between 3 and 20 billion dollars (2.04 and 13.62 billion euros) a year.
Truckloads of truckloads more business that I'd have imagined you could sneak past global law enforcement these days. But the new image rate (assuming it's not "images of new victims", there are multiple images of the same children etc.) is not as much as I would have imagined.
For perspective on the latter, last time I looked on average 25,000 children die every day from mostly preventable stuff in mostly shitty circumstances . [See also Bill Gate's mission - I would never have expected to like him, but if anyone's going to make a difference, plus that recent **10 billion** dollar commitment..]
Last edited by PiqueABoo; 31st January 2010 at 03:08 PM. Reason: typo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)