h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

god is a load of rubish.

I'm not attempting to justify myself, but merely to point out the inadequacy of the law. It doesn't distinguish between 'indecent' and 'naked'. Neither do the police, or juries for the most part. Clearly you perceive a difference, and so do I. I've already said that I don't consider the images I downloaded to have been indecent.



Well, the standards of censorship of written literature were changed by actively challenging the law and apparently contravening it. I'm thinking of the 'Lady Chatterley' trial. I only wish I had the clout to align myself actively with a similar effort, but I admit that I can't and neither do I mention other emancipators in order to 'align' myself with them. I simply wish to present examples of where the law was rightly reformed.

toxx

<> (toxxin)

Please post the relevant section of the law code that states this.

<> (toxxin)

Really? There would be no market for this sort of thing unless people looked for it and downloaded it and paid for it, as you well know.

<> (toxxin)

There is little difference in terms of what you are doing - you are partaking of a horrendous industry that abuses children. It is quite abusive to photograph small children naked for the titillation of others. It is equally abusive to keep this sordid business going by participating in it. Are we to think of you as some sort of angel because you don't (or don't admit to) enjoying photos of children being physically and sexually abused? That you *just* like seeing them naked?

<> (toxxin)

You'd like to think so, wouldn't you? Yet I cannot imagine anyone here agreeing that it is in any way *okay* to download photos of naked children. And please stop it with the David Hamilton 'defense' - you told me earlier that you had downloaded pics *similar* to his, not only his.

Why did you bring this topic up here, toxxin?

It mostly comes across as if you are flaunting this in our faces - that you 'beat the rap' and so are somehow innocent. I find it quite sickening. But I am pleased to notice that you don't seem to be fooling anyone here except yourself.


az

You can have the last word on this one if you wish but the facts speak for themselves.

You broke a law now not one someone as well informed and itelligent as you clearly are would have been ignorant of.

You are erroniously attempting to aligh yourself with someone who wrote about events that happen but were deemed by some as unpalatable. You on the other have made images that are illegal in and of themselves.

The "active" challenge you speak about was as far as I know a reactive challenge. the book was not meant to get held up in court. That the publishers won is a good thing, but production of material that is illegal is not the best way of challenging the law nor was it your sole intention when you were copying it.

I have worked as a strpper and now work with children and even though I still take my clothes of occassionally for the "entertainment" of others I do it in a way that does not get me prosecuted. If you cant conduct your photogrphic hobby in the same way dont go blaming other people.

< It is quite abusive to photograph small children naked for the titillation of others. It is equally abusive to keep this sordid business going by participating in it.>



I'm intrigued by the creativity of some of the responses to my messages. I suspect I already have more than enough material for a book on the psychology of people's reactions to this topic!

I didn't mention small children in connection with what I once dowloaded. Hamilton and similar photographers (Bourbouillon, Rusinov etc) photograph teenage girls. I also said repeatedly that I didn't pay or trade for images, or pass them on. Hence I can hardly be said to have participated in some kind of 'business'!

I find it difficult to think of many subjects as appropriate to the art of the photographer as the teenage girl. There is now a move afoot to make it illegal to photograph anyone under 16 without express permission. For obvious reasons of practicality, this would mean that we can't photograph beaches or parks unless they're practically deserted. Not much use for tourist publicity saying: 'Book early to visit our ever-popular facilities'!

I'll get back to you on the chapter and verse of the new law.

toxx

Toxx, take a look at your horoscope @

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/atplay/gemini3.jsp?cp=myhoro&s=ge

alji

Welcome to the God Thread, cool_zaphod.


alji

Quite humorous, and I must agree that the Hasidim have their own set of problems. Written like this, "broche" loses it's proper pronunciation. It's a tough language to 'transliterate' but I'll try. The first word in many prayers is 'ba-ruch' meaning 'blessed', and to get it right the -ch must sound like you're clearing your throat just before you spit. The second word in most prayers is 'ata' meaning 'art thou'. A 'baruch-a' or 'bru-cha' is a term used to describe a basic prayer.



Yes, the States/United States/Colonies [all the same]. Now I am no lawyer but can you say that had these two been caught doing the nasty on the front lawn they would not have been charged with commiting an illegal act? Interesting, and not, simultaneously.



They only allow relatives to actually recite from the torah during the ceremony, and if it's a conservative, reform, ultra-reform or liberal schul [think 'less hebrew, more english' as you read through the list]
there should be no problem. The worst the rabbi could say is no.

This post has been removed.

<>

I'll check out the ones nearby.

<>

Yes, since Lawrence v Texas in 2003, decided in the Supreme Court. It analyses the precedents set forth in Bowers v Hardwick and discusses what it is appropriate for people - whatever their orientation - to do in their private homes. Only four states have laws that specifically target homosexual sex (a.k.a. sodomy laws). These were essentially overturned by Lawrence, which decided (in a majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy) that legislating on whether homosexual couples can have sex violated fourteenth-amendment rights to equal protection under law.

I sort of got bored and didn't really want to read the whole decision, so you can read it yourself:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102

<>

I'm confused on how that's relevant. Sex acts, regaurdless of their nature or the genders of the people involved, in public would qualify as "indecent exposure", wouldn't they?

"There is now a move afoot to make it illegal to photograph anyone under 16 without express permission. "

The following comment is not meant to have anything to do with Toxx's point or the general debate involved. Nor is it meant to imply that I think the quoted statement is true. I just think it brings up an interesting question if it is true.

Wouldn't it technically make satellite photos illegal unless you could be sure, before the photos were taken, that they would not contain anyone under 16. That is, assuming that it would be illegal if the photographed were in the jurisdiction where the law applied but not the camera--since I'm not sure how UK laws could be construed to apply in orbit. Although if the satellite is owned by an entity in the UK maybe the camera's location wouldn't matter.

The title of this part of the thread since toxxin's first reply...

>>Toxxin's conviction for downloading level 1 and 2 'indecent' photographs of under-16s and the connection with holding eccentric beliefs...

The original title of this part of the thread..

>>Toxxin's conviction for downloading level 1 and 2 child pornography and the connection with holding eccentric beliefs...

--

He really doesn't like people calling a spade a spade, does he?

Jez - heathen with eccentric beliefs about the unacceptability of the exploitation of minors for the sexual titillation and gratification of adults.

It's an interesting point, RDO; and one which has a bearing on your other question concerning behaviour 'in public'. Arguably, unless you're inside a private dwelling: house, tent or whatever - you're 'in public', even though you're in the middle of your extensive grounds. The satellite can still spot you!

More realistically, security cameras are dotted round our cities in profusion. Some remarkable sights have been recorded and even published. If they can't photograph under 16s, they'll be in big trouble. Much of the antisocial behaviour going on in some areas is due to this age group anyway. It just doesn't seem to be a practical suggestion without an impossibly large array of conditions to water it down to virtually nothing.

toxx

One is convicted for violating a law. The law in question doesn't mention the term 'pornography', and its application is to under 16s - although just what the terms 'child' and 'adolescent' denote can be debated.

Hence my version is clearer and stricter. Is that not what we mean by 'calling a spade a spade'?

toxx

Echo you never cease to amaze me...



I was hoping someone would tell me the laws have changed, and "someone" did because they have.

<"There is now a move afoot to make it illegal to photograph anyone under 16 without express permission. ">

This won't work over here, if they're "in public view", even if they're naked.

<>

Just a bit of Googling. I found the decision on Findlaw, which is the best place to go for Supreme Court opinions.

Just a bit of Googling. I found the decision on Findlaw, which is the best place to go for Supreme Court opinions.>> do you ever go out dear .

Come off it ! Weren't you surprised too? The impressive bit is spotting what the question is and knowing where to look up the answer.