Re: A Quaker Campaign
- From: "Dennis White" <dennybop@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:14:16 -0700
<Ian.usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1125487721.171523.113360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Dennis White wrote:
>> "Ian Johnston" <ian.groups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-8UrQNtTNTMtQ@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4195332.stm
>> >
>> > ============
>> >
>> > Ban on violent net porn planned
>
>> I'm not interested in defending pornography. I think obsessive
>> viewing
>> of pornography is a definate sign of some void needing to filled in a
>> life.
>> But I am unconvinced that viewing pornography-even obsessively-leads to
>> criminal behavior. That is unless viewing pornography is outlawed.
>
> I should perhaps have contextualised. It's not quite as extreme a
> measure as it sounds: what it's doing is basically closing a loophole
> in the law which meant that possession of some images was illegal,
> here, in printed form, but legal in electronic form.
Here there has been alot of legal wrangling about what constitutes
proscribed images. Should "virtual" images where no person has been
exploited be prohibited? In the case of child pornography should images of
those of legal age who *appear* to be much younger be banned. Should
artistic images be banned? Should illustrations be illegal? In the case of
violent imagery should photos of *staged* violence be banned? Shoulf
*virtual* images be banned? Should Posession of consensual images be
illegal? Should consensual images produced by the viewer, solely for
viewing by the viewer be banned? The whole area of these laws are so murky
as to be unequally and perhaps unjustly prosecuted. And all because (in my
view) already ill people look at the images. People who are bound to commit
violent and expoitative crimes whether seeing these images or not.
>
> I am uncomfortable in general about restrictions on liberty, but in
> this case I can't say I'm terribly troubled.
This, of course, is the worst part about the whole mess. What seems
like coming to the defense of reprehensible acts makes us shy away from
doing what is *right*. No one, it seems, has or should have too much
sympathy for the actions of sex offenders, and especially sex offenders who
murder. Murderers who have not acted on sexual impulses usually get a bit
more sympathy. But as Quakers, it is not our job to be judgmental, but to
look to the light within each of us. Certainly that does not mean defending
injustice. But I do believe it is important to treat each of us as gently
and honestly as we can, no matter how horrible a single action that thye
have undertaken.
A major story in my area this week is the murder of two sex offenders
by an unknown assailant. They were "Level 3" child molestors, which means
they were labelled as "likely to re-offend". their murderer may have been
acting as a vigilante. A large majority of those polled felt no symapthy
for the two murdered, and a very large minority felt their murder was
justified. This is quite chilling to me. That many of my fellow citizens
believe that a murderer in our midst, apparently dispensing justice as he
sees fit, is preferable to allowing two sick men to live.
I believe we all should be terribly troubled about these issues. To
not care too much about these actions leads us to whittle away more and more
rights and respect for more people unlike ourselves.
I am also very impressed
> with how effective Liz Longhurst's campaign has been.
>
> Ian
>
.
- References:
- A Quaker Campaign
- From: Ian Johnston
- Re: A Quaker Campaign
- From: Dennis White
- Re: A Quaker Campaign
- From: Ian . usenet
- A Quaker Campaign
- Prev by Date: In sympathy
- Previous by thread: Re: A Quaker Campaign
- Next by thread: In sympathy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
