On this kiddy porn and murder thing

But nor can we forget – much as companies like Google would like us to – that his twisted fantasies of violence and abuse were fuelled by online child pornography. For Bridger, as for Stuart Hazell, recently convicted of the sexual assault and murder of 12-year-old Tia Sharp in south London, repeated viewing of sexually explicit images of teenagers and children was the norm.

Hazell trawled the web for child porn on his mobile phone, using the Google search engine. When police raided Bridger’s home they found revolting, exploitative images of children on his computer.

Could any right-minded person deny a link? Could any right-minded person not want access to hardcore and abusive pornography to be made virtually if not actually impossible?

You can see the propaganda here.

No \”right minded\” person could ever deny the link. Therefore we can jump straight over the rproof part and move entirely to the censorship one.

Yet it is still true, as best we know from the actual, y\’know, evidence, that porn reduces sexual violence.

No, not necessarily from any one particular person: but on average across the population.

14 thoughts on “On this kiddy porn and murder thing”

  1. So he searched for child porn using Google. He wouldn’t have got anywhere. Google don’t allow you to search for it. But that spoils the narrative, so we’ll just skip that issue. And we’ll go straight onto the Google was used, so we must restrict it. To protect the vulnerable. Vulnerable people like Bridger who couldn’t control his violent fantasies because of the ease of funding child porn. That he was well know for violence, including assaulting his pregnant girlfriends, doesn’t go with the narrative, so we’ll ignore that too.

  2. I’m afraid this time you’ll probably need to add in a rider here, because Arnald or William Connolley or their like will come screaming in claiming you’re arguing in favour or kiddy porn. So; no we don’t like kiddy-porn. It involves abuse of children, who by definition can’t give consent etc.
    To the main point: the real danger to liberty is not in attempts to restrict kiddy-porn, but in the extension of the argument to all adult porn and then anything at all on-line they don’t happen to like today. This links perfectly with your post on Harriet Harpie. Any right-thinking person can see the link between lads mags and rape can’t they. And if the evidence says otherwise, well then the right -thinking person ignores the evidence. There is nothing more important than being right-thinking; evidence is for oddballs, unclubbable types.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    Even assuming that people who murder also google for child porn, it does not follow that looking at child porn makes them murder. We would have to make sure that it is not the case that murderers tend to ignore quite a few rules and so like to look at child porn.

    Remember most serial killers are pulled over for traffic infringements. Well a lot of them anyway. After all, if you are willing to break the big laws, you tend to be willing to break the small ones too.

  4. There seems to be a significant link between Islam and terrorist attacks, which I’m sure no right thinking person would deny. So we had better get Google to remove all references to Islam…

  5. Ironman-

    It involves abuse of children, who by definition can’t give consent etc.

    Well, not necessarily. THe problem is, the term is used to cover a huge gamut of material, the milder end of which wouldn’t be “porn” at all if an adult did it. The same term is used to describe, say, picture of a five year old being gang raped on the one hand and, say, a fourteen year old posing in a studio at the other end. Even clothed, if the pictures, in the opinion of the authorities, might make a paedo feel aroused.

    The first of those is a crime both in law and in any reasoanable view of natural justice and individual rights. It is much less clear what the crime is in the second case, in a natrual justice sense.

    And, a further problem is that nobody else is allowed to see this stuff, even in a heavily censored form. We simply have to rely on descriptions couched in emotive terms by the authorities as a guide. That’s not a good way to form a balanced judgement.

    And this is the thing; if our hypothetical 14 year old is paid to spend a couple hours in a studio posing, what actual harm is being done? And if we can’t identify a specific harm, is it rational to describe it as “abuse”?

  6. Ian B,

    The interesting one will be the decision about the Cannes Palme d’Or winner which features some hardcore lesbian scenes. Both actresses are adults, but one of them is portraying a 15 year old.

    Normally, if a porn studio did that, the BBFC wouldn’t pass it. They’d have to change it so the character wasn’t a child but an adult. But I suspect that as it’s a Palme d’Or winner, and therefore only liable to be watched by right thinking people, it’ll pass without edit.

  7. Which raises the interesting question of the moral status of Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit, also.

  8. Ian B,

    Again, only right thinking people read that. If Dan Brown stuck an underage lesbian scene in one of his books, there would be an outcry.

  9. Stig,

    What if someone cracks one off while watching the BBC adaption? Is it still high art for the liberal elite then, or underage lesbian porn?

    Also, wasn’t the whole message of the thing that a society that interferes with underage lesbians’ carnal desires is evil, or something like that?

    /confused

  10. It’s a beneficial crisis that authorities and charities can exploit:

    Google donates just 90 seconds’ profit to charity policing child abuse

    *Google donated little more than £20,000 last year to the charity responsible for policing child abuse images online – the equivalent of 90 seconds’ profit for the internet firm.

    Keith Vaz, the chairman of the home affairs select committee, said internet companies needed to ensure the IWF was properly resourced to tackle urgently the proliferation of child abuse images online following the murder of five-year-old April Jones.

    But the IWF’s five-strong team of analysts has become overwhelmed as reports of child abuse sites soared by 40% compared with last year, to 40,000, or 150 a day. The body is pushing companies to introduce new measures in the next 12 months including a “splash page”, which would warn visitors to websites showing unlawful abuse images.*

    Employ two more analysts then.

    If the IWF already work with companies to block these sites then why would there be a need for a splash page – just block it. The images are either unlawful or not. Or are they wanting to have a warning come up that effectively says ‘we think these images are unlawful and you could be prosecuted for viewing them’ without having to go to the trouble of proving the images are unlawful?

  11. From the reports, it appears they basically want this magic splash page to apply to anything and everything that might be pornographic by the definitions of the Anti-Porn Movement.

  12. Pingback: On this porn and the murder of 12-year-old Tia Sharp | Kevin Burctoolla's gaming world

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *