Quote: Godot Taxis @ April 18 2008, 6:51 PM BSTI still don't think you should go to prison for downloading pictures of anything.
What punishment do you believe is appropriate? If someone has illegal images on their computer (I'm not talking about Langham, by the way), isn't that a sign that they're a possible danger to children?
Quote: Retinend @ April 23 2008, 6:00 PM BSTWhat punishment do you believe is appropriate? If someone has illegal images on their computer (I'm not talking about Langham, by the way), isn't that a sign that they're a possible danger to children?
I'm not sure that point follows. Does that mean everyone who has watched Saw, Hostel etc is a risk of kidnapping people and torturing them to death? Or anyone who plays Grand Theft Auto is a risk of going on a murderous rampage? Maybe that doesn't work and it would have to be an actual snuff film they were watching to be comparable.
Maybe it's putting too fine a point on it, but even IF he was looking at the pics for arosual, does that automatically mean he is likely to abuse a child? I would wager (and god knows who would know the answer to this!) that there are a lot of damaged people like him in the world who find themselves aroused by underage porn, probably because of their own experiences, but who would never dream of doing it themselves. Whether that makes them any better or not is a pretty deep philosophical question, because arguably if there was nobody to look at the pictures, then nobody would take them and post them online in the first place. But if his own abuse as a child has left him with sexual feelings about underage images, is he inherently evil or just a victim as well?
I'm not really proferring an opinion either way, because I don't know yet how I feel about Langham. I loved his work and was gutted to hear about his arrest. I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time I'm aware that that's because I like his work so much, and that I would probably not feel so inclined to someone I had no knowledge of.
So in conclusion, I have no idea what point I'm making and that was a bit of a ramble...
I thought that was a very good post, Ironhide!
Quote: Ironhide @ April 23 2008, 6:27 PM BSTI'm not sure that point follows. Does that mean everyone who has watched Saw, Hostel etc is a risk of kidnapping people and torturing them to death? Or anyone who plays Grand Theft Auto is a risk of going on a murderous rampage? Maybe that doesn't work and it would have to be an actual snuff film they were watching to be comparable.
Violent films can be enjoyed on an aesthetic or stylistic level, you don't have to be fantasizing about murdering someone to enjoy them, the same with games, I think. With child pornography (or just pornography), there's a more specific purpose.
Quote: Ironhide @ April 23 2008, 6:27 PM BSTMaybe it's putting too fine a point on it, but even IF he was looking at the pics for arosual, does that automatically mean he is likely to abuse a child?
Well... to use an analogy with regular pornography; if you look at porn, does that get rid of your sexual urges? Most people don't watch pornography instead of having sex, watching porn makes them WANT to have sex.
I by no means think that we should be publicly lynching paedophiles but having such images on their hard drive is a sign that they should be at least monitored. You can't rehabilitate someone to change their sexuality. Do you think that attempts to 'rehabilitate' homosexuals REALLY changed the way their brains work? I'm not saying that paedophiles are ticking time bombs, or that they can't control their urges... I'm sure many people are simply born with (or are disturbed by abuse) a sexual attraction to children and cope with it, without ever molesting a child... but at the same time I believe downloading indecent images should be a serious crime.
To return to my earlier question, do you think there should be any punishment for downloading illegal images, if prison is too severe a sentence?
Quote: Ironhide @ April 23 2008, 6:27 PM BSTMaybe it's putting too fine a point on it, but even IF he was looking at the pics for arosual, does that automatically mean he is likely to abuse a child? I would wager (and god knows who would know the answer to this!) that there are a lot of damaged people like him in the world who find themselves aroused by underage porn, probably because of their own experiences, but who would never dream of doing it themselves. Whether that makes them any better or not is a pretty deep philosophical question, because arguably if there was nobody to look at the pictures, then nobody would take them and post them online in the first place. But if his own abuse as a child has left him with sexual feelings about underage images, is he inherently evil or just a victim as well?
As a child he was a victim, as an adult he is responsible for his own actions. His own abuse may have been a contributing factor, but it does not excuse him.
They've cancelled the talk now. 
Boo to them. Can't handle a bit of controversy.
Noooooo! Feckless student wankers! 
Quote: Retinend @ April 23 2008, 6:00 PM BSTWhat punishment do you believe is appropriate? If someone has illegal images on their computer (I'm not talking about Langham, by the way), isn't that a sign that they're a possible danger to children?
No punishment. Owning images of anything is not an indicator of anything. The dangers to children in the sense you mean, almost never come from strangers. Most abuse occurs within the framework of the extended family. You might argue that owning a jelly mould and a packet of balloon makes you more of a risk to children.
Huh?
You think the link between CHILD PORN and paedophilia is as close (or distant) as jelly moulds?
Quote: Godot Taxis @ April 26 2008, 12:37 AM BSTNo punishment. Owning images of anything is not an indicator of anything.
I'd say that it's fair to say that a person having child porn on their computer indicates a desire to look at child porn, and there's only one reason you'd want to look at child porn.
And forget the risk to children, as a civilised society we say that sexual attraction to children is not acceptable, just as we say that incest and murder is not acceptable. I wouldn't advocate incest just because no one is harmed.
Quote: Retinend @ April 26 2008, 9:52 PM BSTI'd say that it's fair to say that a person having child porn on their computer indicates a desire to look at child porn
Correct.
Quote: Retinend @ April 26 2008, 9:52 PM BST...and there's only one reason you'd want to look at child porn.
Very wrong.
Quote: Retinend @ April 26 2008, 9:52 PM BST...as a civilised society we say that sexual attraction to children is not acceptable...
More than arguable. As the previous n-pages have proved.
I notice a vast difference between opinions of parents & non parents.
And if anyone would like to give me 1 valid reasonable reason for looking at child porn, other than in a sexual nature, I am all ears!
His reason was quite reasonable. He was exploring how he felt about his own abuse.
(I love your new sig, Charley!)
Quote: Charley @ April 26 2008, 10:52 PM BSTAnd if anyone would like to give me 1 valid reasonable reason for looking at child porn, other than in a sexual nature, I am all ears!
Curiosity.
Aww Fankoo!
To retort, his alleged sexual abuse.
Sorry your honour I needed to watch other kiddies being abused in order to deal with my own childhood abuse. (No proof of that there, but proof he looked at child porn.
Me doth thinx the man was using a get out of jail free card. Thats like a thief saying, "Sorry your Honour, I needed to nick a pack of fags in order to deal with my mothers need for sticking nappies in my pram blanket.
Or
Sorry your Honour I needed to look at that snuff movie inorder to deal with the time I caught my uncle putting a tie around auntys neck till her eye balls bulged.
Quote: Aaron @ April 26 2008, 10:34 PM BSTVery wrong.
I can't believe you give any credence to such defenses, you seriously believe that people download child porn for 'research'? How much would you learn from seeing pictures of a child raped? Would you only then realise how horrific child abuse was?
Quote: Aaron @ April 26 2008, 10:34 PM BSTMore than arguable. As the previous n-pages have proved.
You see nothing wrong with sexual attraction to children, just as a concept? Hey why not, the Greeks did it. After all, it's it's in many people's nature. The only problem is how people view it. Are you with NAMBLA?
