An update on phase 1 of our "CP" campaign, in which we target ads at those who appear to be trying to find sex abuse images. We have now served over 2000 ads, and over 200 people clicked through to our support page to access links to support information.https://buff.ly/2C5cmBL
The fairly obvious distinction here is that 'napalm girl' was not hurt for the purposes of creating that photo. The photo was created to record the horror of what was done to her and others. I assume the same is true of the non-medical circumcision described in the other link.
-
-
The distribution of the photo of 'napalm girl' is (a) not done for profit, (b) not recording acts of abuse perpetrated by those who make/distribute the photo and (c) therefore does not create demand for new product of the same kind which is fulfilled by victimising others.
-
So you have never offended? An offence is created for the victimless act of "exploring one's sexuality". The laws were designed in a way so that every paedophile is a sex offender, and that's just how gvmt, police and media portray them. https://get-help.stopitnow.org.uk/get-the-facts/no-grey-area …
-
I have never offended against actual laws, such as possession or distribution of child pornography (I don't mean by that that I've just never been caught; I mean I've never done or attempted to do either). There is no such offence as "exploring one's sexuality."
-
So you have never accessed an image of someone under 18 for sexual reasons?..OK...if you say so. I believe you....
-
I have never accessed an image of someone under 18 that was pornographic. And I certainly have never accessed an image of someone under 18 that was both pornographic and *created for the purpose* of recording the abuse of the child for other people's sexual satisfaction. >
-
Do you dispute stopitnow's interpretation of the law? Do you even know the UK law? Porn is anything created for sexual reasons, so when you make an image appear on your screen, you are "creating porn". A paedophile cannot explore their sexuality without being a sex offender
-
You are mistaken on two counts. First of all, being created for sexual reasons is not part of the definition of 'indecent'. Category C images need not be created for the purpose of being arousing, but they would be sexually suggestive. Second, a paedophile *can* explore their >
-
> sexuality without the use of any such images. I did.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I am not sure what you're talking about. "Worst of the worst" ok...whatever. This is "worst of the worst" but it's still comedy to a lot of people.pic.twitter.com/KxtkHmLZ9f
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.