The Indecent Nature of Indecency Laws
29 June 2007I’ve been intending to write a post about this for months, but a recent case persuaded me to actually write it.
A Reverend from Northern Ireland has been convicted for offences involving indecent images of children, after his home was raided following UK customs’ interception of a video depicting non-sexual nudity involving boys. Such images would fall under the definition of “Level 1 indecent images of children.” While this offence does not result in a custodial sentence without aggravating factors, it is clear that this man has had his life ruined for purchasing images which the courts have effectively admitted were not pornographic.
Many people here will be aware that mere naturist photogrpahs of children are illegal in the UK, as I have previously expressed my negative opinion of such an oppressive law. Unfortunately, when the government and other public organisations unashamedly use terms such as “child abuse images” to describe images which are merely “indecent,” many minor-attracted people with a lesser understanding of such issues - those who do not spend a significant amount of time researching such laws - are quite understandably not going to be aware that naturist images of children are illegal.
The fact that such laws are unclear to many people is only the tip of the iceberg, however. Is it really acceptable to criminalise pictures which do not involve any sexual activity at all? I support the criminalisation of the purchase of indecent images of children if they involve abusive acts, but when one considers the fact that many parents produce Level 1 indecent images of children if they photograph their own young child playing on a beach etc, it is utterly absurd to arrest a person for purchasing such images merely because that person is attracted to children.
The UK should be ashamed to be the only country which criminalises naturist photgraphs of children, something which it has done since 1978; images of children are legal in the USA unless they involve “lewd and lavicious exhibition of the genitals.” It is wrong that a person can have his life destroyed by images which would not be illegal in other countries which also enforce strict child protection laws; indeed the UK’s exclusive criminalisation of images which are not pornographic causes one to wonder whether such legislation is really designed to protect children rather than to enforce peoples’ standards of decency.
Actually, whether or not an image qualifies as decent, defined as conforming to “the recognised standards of propriety,” is the deciding factor for a jury who are unsure of whether to label someone a child sex offender. The fact that the likelihood of harm to children is ignored when considering criminality exposes the dishonesty behind the claims of such laws being enacted to protect children. It is also unreasonable to allow the opinion of a jury - who will obviously have a biased opinion towards minor-attraction - to decide whether an image is indecent under the possession of an MAA.
It is impossible to deny that minor-attracted people are being arrested for pictures which are ignored when in the possession of a heterosexual. It is unacceptable to have one law for heterosexuals and another law for MAAs. There would be an outcry if anyone other than an MAA had their lives destroyed for merely offending “the recognised standards of propriety;” we must fight against such discrimination. Whether these laws are a violation of UN Human Rights protocols is open to debate, however I feel that MAAs must investigate the legality of the “Protection of Children Act” under such protocols, in order to challenge certain aspects of it.
2 Responses to “The Indecent Nature of Indecency Laws”
June 30th, 2007 at 3:29 am
…we have something called “democracy”, which in the UK especially, means that thoughts are considered fair gain for “moral” judgement. If someone is offended by pictures (or a sight such as a naked body), it is understood that the moral integrity of the ignorant should be protected instead of the pleasure of ten times as many appreciators or the freedom of the nudist.
People have very little principle when it comes to making ethical judgements concerning the pleasure that someone else may derive from interests that are incongruent with their own.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:50 am
[…] In this post, I will present three very real news stories and assess whether in my opinion they constitute thoughtcrime. For the purpose of this article, I will define thoughtcrimes as crimes convicted with laws and/or rationales entailing explicit and deliberate prejudice against the thought processes of a defendant. I do not deny that in reality many child porn convictions are based on faulty rationalisations, leaving no arguable rationale other than thoughtcrime. […]