Add Your Idea

Repeal the Dangerous Images Act

2 Comments 1st July 2010

This appears to be a scary law where you can be forced to have your computer inspected and if they find something they don't like sitting in your temporary internet files, you can end up in jail.

Doesn't even matter if it was sent to you or a hacker put it there – a single image of tony the tiger  in an uncompromising position sent by a unknown person can land you in court.

The requirement of the law is often that it's sexually arousing – which as this varies from person to person is a thought crime.

It too often seems that the people who like this law are raging perverts who think everything is sexual and want the law to protect themselves from themselves.

We don't need nannying like that.

Why does this matter?

Thought crime is wrong.

Bad/vague laws are wrong.

Images cannot be dangerous.

It's akin to free speech

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

Highlighted posts


2 Responses to Repeal the Dangerous Images Act

  1. Brian B says:

    Thanks for the article.
    Some level headed-ness in dealing with “indecent images” and the like, shows that the harm caused to prosecuted individuals for simple and unrelated possession far exceeds any bounds of decency itself. Let me confirm first that, one single indecent image is one too many. However, for many convicted individuals, their own children or relatives may well end up deeply affected see highly traumatised. This is besides other huge losses to the individual. Does the state care about the damages caused by Police, prosecution, expenditures, etc. when there is little gain other than creating new paranoia not too dissimilar to that of a Police State?
    A sobering note here, a recent figure (2013) published through the right of information act in the UK has shown that from some 12000 convictions for possession of indecent images as a first offence and with no child contact involved, and recorded over ten years, only 1.9% of these went on to reoffend!!!! It is not difficult to analyse such data more thoroughly and come up with some conclusions. The numbers are though clear. The underlying factor may well be that measure is also trapping very honest and hardworking individuals who may well have been…innocent!
    With 9.5 million UK people having one record or another with the police, isn’t it about time this state stops “castrating” its own population? If President Bush took the helm, you can imagine, “either you are with us or you are with the abusers!” This is the sad state of affairs that seem to prevail these days. The consequences are hardly an issue till late!
    The sad other fact is that it is fine to watch children massacred in wars, cut to bits, or horribly disfigured, yet these are images spewed out by many daily TV networks. Mind you, I hear that you can also watch a human decapitation in YouTube for example, and this is OK!
    Further, the issue of images is not going to disappear by simply penalising the population. With new technologies becoming more and more pervasive and invasive, obtaining billions of images of any kind may become spurious. Will there be a “Big-brother” making sure that image five hundred million is decent? Who will know? It may well be unlikely to be the person that has “downloaded” the batch itself! Yet if it is in his/her possession, the guilt is thrust forward, and it is the defendant to have to prove matters otherwise. Guilty till proven innocent. A cowering population will simply take up the filtering software and there comes censorship by fear.
    Children abuse is a scourge that must be curtailed but in destroying entire families, individuals, careers, lives etc. new scourges are created. Where is the balance and responsibilities from the people deemed to be protective of this society?

  2. Brian B says:

    Before I go any further, child pornography or any related abuse are scurges that have to be stamped out.
    In the meantime, if politicians listen wisely, take a deep breadth, and look at the scientific evidence, less harm would be caused overall.
    Here is a document from 2009 in the journal BMC Psychiatry. This is a serious scientific study from Switzerland.
    Reference: BMC Psychiatry, 2009; 9:43. Published Online Jul 14 2009. doi.PMCID: PMC2716325
    Title: “The consumption of Internet child pornography and violent and sex offending”

    Conclusion of the study
    (as written by the authors):

    “Consuming child pornography alone is not a risk factor for committing hands-on sex offenses – at least not for those subjects who had never committed a hands-on sex offense. The majority of the investigated consumers had no previous convictions for hands-on sex offenses. For those offenders, the prognosis for hands-on sex offenses, as well as for recidivism with child pornography, is favorable.”
    Authors:
    Jérôme Endrass, Frank Urbaniok, Lea C Hammermeister, Christian Benz, Thomas Elbert, Arja Laubacher and Astrid Rossegger

    The above study is without doubt, clearly verified closely by the results obtained in the UK (see link: where, as reported above, only 1.9% (out of a 12,000 sample) of people who only held indecent images (i.e no contact) went on to re-offend!

Comment on this idea

Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know your thoughts.


Back to top
Add Your Idea