Credophiles versus paedophiles

[Araneus]

Well, it's that time of year again and Mullah Reid and his Ministry of Vice and Virtue have unveiled their latest moral thought crime -- "child abuse" cartoons.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/02/reid_wants_child_law/

I have read the consultation document (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-depiction-sex-abuse) and frankly, it is laughable. For those who can't be bothered to download and read it, the basic argument is:

1. Cartoons and drawings of "child abuse" are reported to be on the increase by children's charities.
2. Although no evidence exists to link such fantasy images with actual acts of abuse, the children's charities and some policemen think they are bad and probably might cause some people to act on their fantasies, possibly.
3. Therefore we have to ban them right now, because if we don't, umm..they won't be banned and something bad might happen in the future, who knows?

No expert opinions are offered, for example by criminal psychologists, indeed it appears as if they have not even been consulted. Quite aside from their ridiculous credulity regarding the urgency of the "problem", they seem to be blissfully oblivious to two rather significant flaws in their proposal:

1. If paedophiles are downloading more drawings and cartoons, they may well be downloading fewer real images (the ones where actual children get abused, rather than just some lines on a bit of paper). This means that their proposal to ban the cartoons could actually result in an increase in child abuse, not a decrease as they seem to believe. Furthermore, by not banning the cartoons they actually provide a legal outlet for the paedophiles, and an incentive not to pay for the real images instead.
2. Determining whether a drawing depicts a child is impossible, not just practically but philosophically. Whether a fictitious character "is" or "is not" a child depends entirely on the imagination and intent of the artist -- there is no objective standard that can be used. What if the character is a midget, or an alien being that happens to look childish, or a hallucination of another character, or a shapeshifter, or...

Any (rational) thoughts? I'm currently drafting my negative response to the consultation (which will no doubt be ignored), not because I particularly want to draw pictures of abused children but because I'm sick of seeing Yet Another Stupid Piece of Emotional Legislation from this government.

[tkingdoll]

This alarms me. There is no defence for outlawing something where no harm has been done. This is just censorship and one step away from banning written materials featuring sex with minors, for example Lolita.

I assume this would make Alan Moore's Lost Girls illegal.

The worrying implication is that these groups think that by removing access to materials, it makes pedophilia go away.

[Admin]

Yes, it looks like an emotional response to a problem that hasn't even been identified. ::)

This sort of legislation could prove to be popular with voters though as 'common sense' would say that taking away a source of the problem will cure it.

'Common sense' is often wrong though. What I'd like to see is some research done to see what the real effect of these non-photographic images really has and then decide what to do.

These images may encourage paedophiles to act out their fantasies in real life, they may actually prevent them from acting their fantasies out, or they may make no difference at all.

We need to find out in order to come to a right conclusion rather than to a popular one.

[Araneus]

This sort of legislation could prove to be popular with voters though as 'common sense' would say that taking away a source of the problem will cure it.

That's the problem -- for every rational response they get to their consultation, there will no doubt be 10 Concerned Parents who "just know" such images are "wrong".


These images may encourage paedophiles to act out their fantasies in real life, they may actually prevent them from acting their fantasies out, or they may make no difference at all.

Most likely they have all of these effects, depending on the particular individual concerned. That is why quantifying the effects are crucial -- if for every 1 paedophile who is encouraged to act, there are 2 who are prevented from acting, the effect of this proposed law is actually to endanger children rather than protect them.


We need to find out in order to come to a right conclusion rather than to a popular one.

This is probably the line I will emphasise in my response to the consultation. Tempting as it is to point out that they are proposing to lock people up for drawing a picture, something which would have been more appropriate during the Spanish Inquisition, given the government's contempt for freedom of expression and their obsession with imposing censorship as a solution to all ills I suspect such a line of argument would be ineffective.

[OT: For some reason I can see "Modify" buttons above everybody else's post in this thread, but not in other threads. I haven't tried making an actual change, but the button does seem to work]

[Araneus]

Well my response is submitted. The chances that the government will pay the slightest bit of attention to any opinion that doesn't correlate with their preconceived notions of what is Good, Wholesome and Proper is more or less nil, but at least I've "done my bit" for rationality.

[Woodchopper]

I would also be concerned about the definitional issues. If you include in your definition children being tied up and hurt by malevolant adults then Scooby Do would be in trouble. I bet we could all think of other cartoons that could fall under any proposed legislation.

[Civilised Worm]

This alarms me. There is no defence for outlawing something where no harm has been done.

So you wouldn't want to punish someone for attempted murder?

[Araneus]

So you wouldn't want to punish someone for attempted murder?

With attempted murder the intent was to kill somebody, therefore this is considered as serious as if the murder had actually been successful.

Looking at a cartoon does not, and cannot, harm anybody. Therefore there is no valid comparison between the two.

[Civilised Worm]

Yes, but technically it is a victimless crime.

[Araneus]

Yes, but technically it is a victimless crime.

So what? Urinating is sometimes referred to as "passing water" but that doesn't mean I want to drink it.

Other than "Woo, I found a minor semantic error in tkingdoll's post!!111" I'm not sure what your point is. She probably should have written "there is no defence for outlawing something which cannot harm anyone", but the meaning is clear in any case.

[tablemonkey]

The government wants to look like they are doing something about the problem and they know that the majority of voters aren't going to look too deeply into it. It's just a pacifier really.

[Araneus]

The government wants to look like they are doing something about the problem and they know that the majority of voters aren't going to look too deeply into it. It's just a pacifier really.

That is quite true. The tragic thing is that while the government wastes time on worthless smoke-and-mirrors and ineffective populist legislation, children will continue to be abused. This is a case where credulism results in actual human suffering, not merely academic discussions.

[tablemonkey]

We don't know for certain what is being done about these situations. Although it appears that this is a pacifier for the general public, I think most of the said general public wouldn't understand the need for criminal psychologists, prefering immediate action to be taken.