Your still not providing any facts to back up your point...
There's no denying it is illegal - that isn't in despute. I am asking the question WHY is it illegal.
It does NOT fuel those industries at all. Pedaophiles or people who watch snuff do NOT place orders for their films.
Do you honestly think Pedophiles are making this stuff for commercial reasons? They are making this privately usually for their own sick reasons. That
is a fact. It becomes distributed when these guys trade it - WAY after the fact of it being made.
There are cases where groups get together to make this stuff.. but that's obviously the commission of a crime, hey are all part of a conspiracy to
commit child abuse. That is totally different to some guy who decides for whatever reason he wants (which it is his RIGHT to do) to download an image
from the internet that perhaps isn't legal. If this is a child being raped by an adult - then it's clearly sick - but the crime lies with the guys
who made it and distributed it, not with the guy who sees it. He is no more guilty of facilitating or encouraging child abuse as I am guilty of
encouraging murder by reading violent accounts of serial killers on wikipedia - because it interests me.
We persecute these people because we don't agree with what they are doing. I don't agree with what they are doing but I think banning people from
LOOKING at anything is a dangerous precedent.
In the UK it is now illegal to download or view 'violent pornography' - this is an incredibly broad definition. Am I guilty if me and my girlfriend
want to watch a bondage film - its just kinky, fun, we'd probably laugh more than we were turned on. In doing this am I advocating the degradation of
women or indeed men. No.
Am I more likely to go out and rape someone than if I'd only been watching non violent porn? No (not even the stats say I would be...)
So where does this precident go next. What else am I no longer allowed to view.
I cite the case of the recent banning of an album cover image on wikipedia by UK officials. The image was of a naked boy (painted I believe) - totally
non sexual. But it was charged as being child porn.
I don't know about you, but I'm guessing being a user of this site you find the act of an elected group deciding you can no longer access a
wikipedia article because THEY deem it unsuitable for you incredibly inappropriate and practically terrifying.
You might not think so - but logic dictates - banning this site because it describes ideas that may encourage civi unrest (i.e. images and words
inciting a crime - EXACTLY what you suggest child pornography does) - is only one step away from the current censorship laws on all kinds of
pornography.


