Sense: This Shit makes none.

If you assume that acts are criminalised because they harm people, then yes, this makes no sense. But the child pornography laws are not (only? at all?) about protection. They are a means of control and part of the system by which “the authorities” legitimise their interference in the “sexual health” of its citizens (both young and old; the young – well, we want them to grow up and be normal; and the old? well we want to lock them up if they aren’t normal).

Could such a thing happen in Germany? I don’t know; I do know that European Union countries are obliged to standardise their “sexual regulatory system” on the European Council Framework Decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. That defines children as being under 18. But I don’t know enough about German law to know whether a child could be prosecuted for creating, possessing, etc, photos of himherself.

In England, however, it would seem to be the case that that child should not be prosecuted. It is an established principle of English law that, where there is a law specifically intended to protect a certain class of people, members of that class should not be charged under that law. The extent of this principle is, however, difficult to predict. Child porn laws are said to exist in order to protect children. Thus, it would seem that no one under 18 should be convicted under child porn laws in England…. at alll, for anything – including possession. But if a 17 year old was found with photos of a 14 yr old, I’m sure the authorities would “intervene”, and if a 13 yr old child was found with photos of younger children, I’m sure heshe would be considered to be an adolescent sex offender and “treated”.

Nyan doubts that a similar case would have the same results in Germany. I would hope this is true. But it is also the case in England that the police have a wide discretion when it comes to applying the law. The discretion narrows as the matter proceeds through the system – once it gets to court, the strictly legal aspects of such a case are not at the discretion of the judge. However, a judge (theoretically) has a wide discretion when it comes to sentencing. A child, having taken photos of himherself, who has been investigated, charged and convicted, might be treated leniently – the judge might give a suspended sentence, or grant an absolute discharge, or whatever.

But, once we allow these processes to even begin, the system is liable to be manipulated by zealots. I know of at least one case in England where children were investigated over photos of themselves/their friends. As it happens, it didn’t go anywhere, but it might have done. At least one boy might have ended up branded as a “sex offender” and I suspect that that fact would have shown up on any extended criminal records check performed when he applied for jobs etc later on in life. It might be that good sense prevailed, or it might be that the police had insufficient evidence on which to base a case. But imagine the case of a child taking photos (or camming) and sending them to older “friends”. One justifcation of “child porn” laws in England is that they help prevent adults acquiring a sexual interest in children, and in this way protect unidentifiable (and possibly not-yet-existing) children from harm. So a “child protection crusader” might wage a campaign to have all children protected from future “harm” created by self-created child porn and propagandise against any judge who had the “good sense” to say that no real punishment was required in such a case.

It is not good enough to say that the police and the courts etc are people of good intent with good sense, the very existence of such laws means that such events WILL happen at some time.

Maybe Doug can understand why the girl is being punished, but I cannot. What will she need punishing for (and protecting from!) next, looking at herself in a mirror?
And those who received the images – what if they showed them to their friends or parents, or sent them on to other people? Those pictures might be (in the idiotic words of the cursaders) “available on the internet for ever”! Does anything change?

I do want the child porn laws to be logical – I want all laws to be logical. If “they” don’t have to justify and ground their laws in something rational, I don’t want to be put at jeopardy by their laws. The “liberals” used to like immigrants, and it was only the “crusty reactionaries” who opposed multiculturalism. Well, those crusty reactionaries didn’t die out, and their political influence remained as strong as ever, just simmering away in the background. Now, anti-immigrant sentiment is not only acceptable again – the political elites are pandering to the one-time reactionaries to the extent that immigration policy is basically anti-immigrant policy. Gay kids sent back to Iran where they will face the death penalty? Uhm, sure. And that links us back to policy on homosexuality. In 1967 England decriminalised sexual acts between adult men in private. In 2000 they lowered the age of consent for homos to be the same as that for hets. Then in 2004 we got civil partnerships. We can’t marry (that’s special and for the hets) but we get our own little state-issued certificate to say that we can live together and chose for ourselves what happens to our assets. For now, the “liberals” have their hand on sexuality policy. But simmering away in the background we have anti-homo sentiments everywhere. How many gay boys are able to come out at school? to their parents? to their friends? How many gay boys remain “closeted” because they see how the boy who did come out got treated and feel they couldn’t deal with it? What will happen to all those people who make that “closeting” possible? Will they change their views? Maybe some will; a lot of them are, after all, just kids, and hence almost by nature very conservative – as they get older they might well become more “tolerant”. But many won’t. What happens if/when the “reactionaries” get sick of homos? Will they recriminalise homosexual acts? But we have human rights laws to prevent that… but who hasn’t heard the complaints that the human rights system prevents real action being taken on serious matters? Those human rights laws can be repealed or can pass into disuse just like any other law.

We should not allow laws that do not make sense to pave the way for other laws that make even less sense.

I don’t think the girl exposed herself to any danger by taking photos of herself, other than giving the sex police grounds to f*ck her life over. I don’t think there is a problem. Once you accept “their” claim that there is a problem, you set them on their way to f*cking people’s lives over for no good reason.