Hitler in the 21st century

Agreed. At this point in time the only 'indisputable evidence' admissible is the possession of violent images. That still means that the law assumes that possession of such images implies you're thinking about hurting someone. We're not in 1984-world yet, but we're not that far either. The first steps have already been taken. Unless they involve violent sex. Or they 'glorify terrorism'. Or diss particular religions. Or races. Or genders. Or.....[long list follows....]. No, not quite. I said

quote:

---

If possession or production of certain artefacts does not incur, or have serious potential to incur, unconsented harm to the owner, the originator or the general public...

---

Now, possession of a nuke has undisputed potential to harm the general public. As a matter of fact, this is about the only reason for an individual to possess a nuke.What non-conscentual harm does possession of simulated violent sex images incur? err....none!
What potential for non-conscentual harm does possession of said images entail? Let's see, there are tens of thousands of people downloading such images in the UK, how many were 'inspired' to go out and cause harm? One! And even this is based on the huge assumption that those images triggered his actions (ofcourse we all know that before pornography and the internet there was no sex crime whatsoever).So, if the actual harm caused by those images is none and the potential harm is, arguably, minimal then the question is "what does this law penalise?" The only plausible answer is that it penalises the 'incorrect' thoughts of the people who view those images. But isn't that exactly like the law-makers saying that viewers of those images are moral torturers & killers and that thinking violent thoughts is a prelude to murder ?!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

huh... ?! double huh... ?!Hey, if you have trouble reading my posts (as you obviously do), here's a link that may help.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Read Archer's post again:

quote:

---

Legend:
Don't look at what it's called, look at the motivation behind it.

​

Judge the thought, not the action. Gotcha.

​

It's the spirit of the law you should be looking at, as well as its letter. The motivation as well as the definition.

​

Of course. Anyone can see the outrage lies in the thought, not the act. That's where we need to start drawing lines.

​

Yes, that's what Thought-Crime is all about : implication and perceived intent.

​

Good thing we have Thought Police to sniff it out.

​

Like you, officer.

---

You responded to Mod with this: You're argument is this (from Message 118): Your first premise is false. The crime is the possession, not the thought. You label the crime as thought and then conclude that the crime is though. Circularly Reasoning.And since you insist that the crime be thought, you are making yourself out to be the Thought Police. All the while trying to argue against Thought Police.The irony is hilarious and I'm glad Archer pointed it out.

Can you support this statement? And yet we are still permitted to think about them all. So, erm, you're wrong. So the law assumes you are thinking about causing harm, thus it is a thoughtcrime.If it isn't a thoughtcrime neither is the law under debate. The only difference is that the images do not represent an undisputed threat, but a potential threat. I agree that we shouldn't make laws on such dubious terms, but doing so does not render it a thoughtcrime. Well the problem is lack of evidence or rather: contradictory reports on this phenomenon. On the one hand, we know that viewing violent media affects the brain in way that would seem to promote violent behaviour. Though another study (can't find it right now) indicates that US States which were slowest to connect to the internet tended towards higher increases in rape reports. Not really. On the one hand Jesus punishes you for your thoughts not your deeds - since Jesus can read your mind and he doesn't go on to disclaim those that didn't intend to do anything about it. On the other hand the UK law punishes you for possessing images that might statistically increase the number of sexually violent acts being committed in society.

Certainly: there's is this new law that criminalises the possession of such images. As neither the possession, nor production of those images incurs any actual or potential harm to anyone, the only possible wrongdoing these images can be presented as evidence of is the perceived intent of harm by the people who own them. Think again! (pun intended) Just because the government can't always prove what you're thinking doesn't mean you're allowed to think it.In George Orwell's world, the government had technology that allowed it to read people's thoughts. Therefore, thought-crimes could be easily and quickly ascertained. Our government (I'm sure much to their chagrin) haven't got this technology. So they need to produce proof that people are thinking 'incorrect' thoughts. Hence, all those laws that criminalise possession of innocuous objects such as images or poems as physical manifestations of people's thoughts.Let's try a little experiment, shall we? force yourself for a minute to think about Al Qaeda in a positive light, e.g. how the 7/7 attacks were a good thing really, then write these thoughts down, say in an email, and forward it to your local police station, or even better to the Prime Minister.If you're permitted to think whatever you like -as you suggest- then you have nothing to fear. After all, that email is but a physical manifestation of your thoughts so you'll be ok, right?By the way, feel free to contact me in five years or so when you get out of prison to admit you were wrong. Now we're getting somewhere. Jesus, like Oceania's government, can read thoughts therefore he can explicitly punish thoughts. Our government can't yet read thoughts so it implicitly punishes thoughts by outlawing possession of artefacts that (in the government's eyes) imply that the owner is having 'bad' thoughts.In the case of possessing a nuke, this implication is very short-travelled, there aren't that many things one can do with a nuke. So, though technically one could call it a thought-crime law, it's a law that punishes the one-and-only possible intent for possessing a nuke. In this case the perceived intent cannot be any other than the true intent of the owner, that's why you don't hear anyone objecting to this law.In the case of violent sex images, the obvious intent is sexual gratification. But no, according to the law-makers possessing such images is just a dry-run for practising deviant sexual acts on un-suspecting victims, hence it's outlawed. In this case it's assumed that thinking about it means you're going to do it, so the thought, as evidenced by possession of those images is verboten.If they could read our minds the law wouldn't need to mention 'possession of images' at all, the very thought would be explicitly banned. Thankfully we're not there just yet.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Please see Message 125 in response to that. No, I'm pointing out the motivation and the drive behind this legislation. I don't have to point too hard either as the Coutts case was the government's sorry excuse for instigating this law, by their own admission. ..?! But the Thought Police are the ones who control and punish bad thoughts. I just pointed out that what a particular law does, is to effectively punish thoughts! How's one related to the other?I would be the Thought Police if I said "you're not allowed to think X", like this law -in effect- does. err.....ok, whatever.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

So you can't support that thinking about something is a crime and that for some reason they decided to make something else a crime, which is represents the only admissible bit of evidence for a crime they haven't actually defined. And yet I can provide cast iron proof that I was thinking of anything you like and I cannot be arrested for said thoughts. You haven't read 1984 have you? They cannot read people's thoughts. They in fact use evidence to infer if someone is a thought criminal and on that basis they try and manipulate the thoughtcriminal into exposing themselves with indisputable proof.That's why O'Brien wasted a bunch of time subtly manipulating Winston into plucking up the courage to ask about O'Brien's resistance to The Party and why O'Brien managed to get Winston to say he would throw a glass of acid in a child's face if it would help the cause of defeating Big Brother...even if Winston would never know how or why it would help the cause.They needed evidence he was a thoughtcriminal because the thoughts themselves were criminal. They needed to garner enough evidence so that they could demonstrate to Winston that he was a thoughtcriminal as part of his reconditioning. Their original pieces of evidences, subtle body-language clues and usage of certain language wouldn't be good enough. That doesn't really make much sense. Sending an unsolicited letter to a governmental body praising terrorist activity in one fashion or another will likely be construed as a terrorist threat. Imagine if a gay man received a letter praising the murder of some local gay man, it would be construed as a threat then too.Here I am though, admitting that I am currently thinking of various reasons why the attacks might be construed as a 'good thing', and I'm leaving an extremely easy to follow trail as to my identity. Feel free to notify your local police station.And besides, 'glorifying terrorism' is also a criminal offence. How is goading an over-zealous anti-terrorist government going to demonstrate anything useful?I'd be happy to write to my MP about the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, specifically the parts pertaining to violent sexual imagery - if I thought it'd be any use. I won't be arrested for thinking about said imagery even if I confess to doing so in the letter. Can you support this statement? I have seen nothing of the sort according to law-makers. Don't just refer me to the law again. Refer me to the law-makers' justifications/assumptions for the law.

From Message 125That's not true. What if you lose one of such images on the bus and a child finds it? That'd be potentail harm.But even without my example, the lack of actual or potential harm for outlawing something does not mean that the reason it was outlawed is for perceived intent.Maybe they just don't want those images floating around, regardless of whether they harm or not. But you're adding all that in there on your own. It isn't necessarily in there. It isn't some logical extenstion of the law.I don't know the intentions of the lawmakers. Do you? Actually, you're making up the motivation and drive behind the legislation. Do you have a link to the lawmakers rationalization for the law? Its because you're insisting that the laws be interpreted in a way that makes them out to be thought crime a priori. When you're quote was taken out of contest, you had said the same thing that a Thought Cop would say. They'd say things like these too:

quote:

---

Don't look at what it's called, look at the motivation behind it.

​

It's the spirit of the law you should be looking at, as well as its letter. The motivation as well as the definition.

---

Oops, here I go again confusing '1984' with 'The Demolished Man'. That's what happens as you get older, all good books start to roll into one! Never mind, my point still stands: unless the authorities can read minds some physical evidence for people's thoughts will be needed. Where is this 'cast iron proof ' that you're providing about what you're thinking? You're only saying you're thinking about something, this doesn't mean that you are. What is needed is physical evidence. I could say I murdered JFK but I won't get charged until some evidence is found to support my 'confession'. You can claim you think about violent sex or terrorism all you like but the only way to confirm that would be to find some evidence supporting that you are, say, oh I don't know, some downloaded images perhaps.You've admitted so yourself, while talking about 1984:

quote:

---

They needed to garner enough evidence so that they could demonstrate to Winston that he was a thoughtcriminal as part of his reconditioning. Their original pieces of evidences, subtle body-language clues and usage of certain language wouldn't be good enough......... They in fact use evidence to infer if someone is a thought criminal and on that basis they try and manipulate the thoughtcriminal into exposing themselves with indisputable proof. .

---

(emphasis is mine)The difference between Oceania's government and ours is that it expicitly bans certain thoughts while ours implicitly bans certain thoughts. This trivial difference leads you to argue that we have no thought crimes here. By the same token you should also argue that there were no thought-crime laws in Stalin's Russia (can't find any laws banning thinking about religion) , nor any hate-propagating-laws in Nazi Germany (don't see any laws saying you must hate other races). It's this difference between definition and implication that's become your stumbling block. But you won't be making any threats, will you? You'll be only expressing your thoughts on the matter. Now, I know as well as you do that this will be construed as a threat but that only shows that you're punished for your thoughts rather than your actions. Sorry, but just saying you do isn't good enough in the eyes of the law. Attach some violent sex images or a poem about beheading Westerners and I'll be happy to take it from there. Yes, another thought crime. Like I said, you could confess to the Rwandan genocide if you wish, but without some evidence it means nothing in the eyes of the law. You've already stated the law-makers' justifications yourself in Message 112 and I demolished them in Message 114. This law came to be as a direct result of the Coutts case, which clearly attests to the law-maker's perception of people who view (hence think) about such images as psycopathic killers-in-waiting. According to this law, thinking about violent sex between conscenting adults is 'bad' and it's being punished.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Legend, I can believe that you might be able to talk and write about a subject without thinking about it for a moment, but for most people that isn't possible If you can find a crime wherein any reasonable evidence that you are thinking about a subject would enable you to be prosecuted you have a thought-crime.I've seen plenty of reactionary laws, knee-jerk laws, Draconian laws, disproportionate criminalisations, authoritarian laws and the like. I don't think I've seen any thoughtcrimes in this country. Now, it has nothing to do with thoughts, it has to do with the manner in which threats are made. If you don't understand that sending a gay man a letter about how you support the killing of a different local gay man would be construed as a death threat - with nobody accusing the sender of criminal thoughts, then I'm not sure a conversation with you is possible. Right, simply admitting that I am committing a 'thoughtcrime' isn't good enough to get me prosecuted for thoughtcrime. Just to be sure you want to me to commit two different offences? Is all incitement a thought-crime?No, it isn't a thought-crime when they ban glorifying terrorism- it is curtailing freedom of expression. And nowhere did any of those justifications state anything about 'dry-runs' or assumptions that possession leads directly to criminal acts. Whether or not you 'demolished' the arguments is irrelevant. No it doesn't. It clearly attests that the law-makers were spurred into a knee-jerk reaction, but it does not attest that the law-makers assume that possessing these images means you are going to rape anyone.

I'm sure I've mentioned that before but I'll say it again. I'm talking about potential harm within realistic boundaries, otherwise anything can be construed as potentially harmful. For instance, a case then could be made against people wearing neck-ties, as a child might find one on the bus and hang himself with it. In a similar vein, hamsters could also be outlawed...but I'm digressing. well, what else is left then? The criminal case that caused this law should be a good indication to the motivation and the causality behind it. But there must be some reason as to why they don't want them. The obvious one is that they perceive that people who view those images will go and emulate them on un-conscenting members of the public, like Coutts did. Their intentions are very easy to discern by reading the law and particularly by looking at the case that triggered it.. The killer had 'murderous thoughts' and that's exactly what the law-makers decided to outlaw. The banned images are but the proof for those thoughts. A classic case of thought-crime, if there ever was one. It's the most logical explanation as to why such images are being outlawed. Modulous already brought those up in Message 112 and I demolished them in Message 114. well, if my quotes are taken out of context there's not much I can do about it I'm afraid.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Hey, bring those goalposts back over here But anyways, the production of those images does constitute potential harm within realistic boundaries.But again, it doesn't really matter with or without the harm. I don't agree with your opinion on what the reason is.Maybe they don't want the images floating around because they don't like them.It doesn't reall matter what the reasoning behind the law is. The law says that the viewing and production of the images is illegal. It doesn't say anything about thinking being illegal.You fail. QED. Nuh-uh!You've just decided that this is a thought crime, a priori, and are insisitng that it be viewed as a thought crime, but really, the law doesn't say anything about thinking.I guess you just really got to want it for it to be so.

Ha-ha, point taken. No but seriously now, I'm now writing about having sex with the neighbour's cat, however the thought never entered my mind (trust me), beyond the second it took me to string this sentence together. We're talking about someone's train of thought not just momentary flashes of it. No, not explicitly. So what? The formal justifications given don't stand-up to any scrutiny, not that it really matters anyway, a justification is just that: an excuse for the real motive behind an action.Suffice to say that the justification for the Iraq invasion was the WMDs that Saddam could launch within 40 minutes. 'Nuff said. Yes they were, a knee-jerk reaction to assume that anyone and everyone who fantasises about rough sex is a likely killer.I think the old cliche 'we agree to disagree' might be applicable here.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

The goalposts never moved. I'm just making sure you still know where the football ground is. I've covered this a few times already in response to Modulous. By your reasoning then I can only infer that you don't accept that Hitler's Nuremberg Laws were really propagating racial hatred, because these laws don't explicitly mention that the Jews are an inferior race. So no racial hatred there according to you, right? If you can show me what harm is inflicted, or is likely to be inflicted, by possessing such images then your statement above will may some validity. Until then... I haven't decided anything. I have concluded that this is a thought-crime law after looking at:1) the circumstances in which this law came to be, i.e. the Coutts murder case.2) the justifications given by the law-makers, which don't stand up to any scrutiny and are clearly just pretexts3) ruling out any other possibilities in which the outlawed items could cause actual or potential harm (e.g. your 'child on a bus' example)What it comes down to is that something which causes, or can cause, no real harm to anyone other than the consenting adults who practice it, is being outlawed. The question then is, what is really being punished? The only answer can be : the thoughts & fantasies of those people. Hence, it's a thought-crime. The last thing I want is to have to point-out more tought-controlling, freedom-depriving legislation.Infact, this law doesn't affect me at all as I'm not into that stuff, so I could very easily just ignore it. It's just that I feel I have to support the fundamental freedom of consenting adults to fantasise about whatever they want and to view whatever they want in the privacy of their own home, as long as this doesn't cause any harm to others. Or is this now also verboten?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

And that's what I disagree with. Its a non-sequitor.The lack of harm does not mean that the thought is being punished.Drugs, polygamy, and incest are 3 things that come to mind that are not harmful but are outlawed. The criminalization of these things is not a thought crime.