![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriquehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7422595.stm
It's an announcment of proposed legislation, that would essentially make 'computer generated' child sex imagery illegal.
Is it just me who finds this a little disturbing?
I always thought the various laws on pedophilia and the like, had a purpose in protecting children. I see no problem with this - sexual activity between consenting adults being fine, it makes sense that sexual activity with people who cannot (legally at least) consent as an adult should be illegal.
Secondary practices that also involve child abuse, such as pornographic photography, would also make a lot of sense - in both cases there is a victim, and the victim is the child.
But to make illegal what is essentially fiction, strikes me as ... well, actually more an attempt to persecute people, than actually protect anyone at all.
I mean, it wasn't so very long ago that homosexuality was considered a 'major evil'. Recognising that people don't get to choose their sexual orientation, and what harms none (or is between consenting adults) is no crime, I feel is a positive growth in society.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that having sex with minors should ever be made legal, but ... to find someone who's 15 sexually attractive is hardly a crime, any more than thinking 'wow I'd do her' when someone good looking walks past is rape.
We distinguish actions, not thoughts.
I don't like furry porn, and I think some of the 'slash' out there is ... well remarkably distasteful. But I'm capable of exercising my right as an adult to choose what I read, and what I don't. Most websites with 'dubious' content, also make some kind of effort to ensure they're avoidable too.
But is not liking someone's taste in perversion reason enough to make it illegal? I think not. Porn doesn't make people commit crimes, any more than GTA 4 is responsible a crime spree, or playing grannies garden on the BBC micro makes me more likely to prod apple trees to see if they open a magic portal. (OK, I did do that, but I was seven, ok)
It is, and should be illegal to harm a child, regardless of whether it's sexual or not. I don't think it should be illegal to view material that harms no one, and is objectionable to someone else.
And lets face it, how old are people in cartoons anyway? Can you tell Dilbert is actually 14, and so finding him arousing makes you a filthy pervert?
Once upon a time, we burned witches, for being witches, and anyone speaking out was burned too.
Once upon a time, homosexuals were considered a massive evil, and were persecuted just because they happened to find men attractive.
Do we really need more persecution of someone who does nothing wrong?
It's an announcment of proposed legislation, that would essentially make 'computer generated' child sex imagery illegal.
Is it just me who finds this a little disturbing?
I always thought the various laws on pedophilia and the like, had a purpose in protecting children. I see no problem with this - sexual activity between consenting adults being fine, it makes sense that sexual activity with people who cannot (legally at least) consent as an adult should be illegal.
Secondary practices that also involve child abuse, such as pornographic photography, would also make a lot of sense - in both cases there is a victim, and the victim is the child.
But to make illegal what is essentially fiction, strikes me as ... well, actually more an attempt to persecute people, than actually protect anyone at all.
I mean, it wasn't so very long ago that homosexuality was considered a 'major evil'. Recognising that people don't get to choose their sexual orientation, and what harms none (or is between consenting adults) is no crime, I feel is a positive growth in society.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that having sex with minors should ever be made legal, but ... to find someone who's 15 sexually attractive is hardly a crime, any more than thinking 'wow I'd do her' when someone good looking walks past is rape.
We distinguish actions, not thoughts.
I don't like furry porn, and I think some of the 'slash' out there is ... well remarkably distasteful. But I'm capable of exercising my right as an adult to choose what I read, and what I don't. Most websites with 'dubious' content, also make some kind of effort to ensure they're avoidable too.
But is not liking someone's taste in perversion reason enough to make it illegal? I think not. Porn doesn't make people commit crimes, any more than GTA 4 is responsible a crime spree, or playing grannies garden on the BBC micro makes me more likely to prod apple trees to see if they open a magic portal. (OK, I did do that, but I was seven, ok)
It is, and should be illegal to harm a child, regardless of whether it's sexual or not. I don't think it should be illegal to view material that harms no one, and is objectionable to someone else.
And lets face it, how old are people in cartoons anyway? Can you tell Dilbert is actually 14, and so finding him arousing makes you a filthy pervert?
Once upon a time, we burned witches, for being witches, and anyone speaking out was burned too.
Once upon a time, homosexuals were considered a massive evil, and were persecuted just because they happened to find men attractive.
Do we really need more persecution of someone who does nothing wrong?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-29 10:54 pm (UTC)