Hitler in the 21st century

This is exactly what's happening here. It's being judged that because you fantasise about violent sex then you will inflict violent sex on unsuspecting victims. One is being preemptively punished. now that's what I call sado-masochism. I mean... Yanni?! come on... no-one is that cruel! that's exactly what this law enables: the submission of images of consenting adults as evidence of violent thoughts towards others without their conscent.

---

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

Yes, that's what the offence is called. Don't look at what it's called, look at the motivation behind it. No, but evidence is what the police are looking for in order to charge you with a specific offence and to ascertain motive. If you wander the streets with a bloody knife in your hands the police have the right to infer that you just stabbed someone and arrest you. The law allows that. Now this new law means that, if you're caught with a violent-sex image between consenting adults in the privacy of your own house, the police can infer that you're thinking about killing someone and arrest you. Oh, because the law doesn't mention 'think' then it isn't a thought-crime law?! This is a simplistic, even naive, view. By the same token you could argue that the Nazi Nuremeberg Laws didn't promote racial hatred, after all I fail to see any explicit mention about hating Jews, only something about the purity of German blood and prohibition of inter-racial marriages, so, hey, no hatred there, right?Not even Stalin (arguably the father of thought-crime laws) would call a thought-crime a thought-crime. At the peak of the Soviet Union there was no punishment for 'thinking' about religion, but there was punishment for wearing crucifixes, reading bibles/qurans, etc. Why? because if you did any of those things it meant you were thinking about religion and that was forbidden, though not explicitly stated so.Similarly, our new law forbids the posession of certain images because it implies that their owner is thinking 'bad' thoughts. Thought-crime at its best!It's quite simple really:1. 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, then the only thing left to criminalise is the perceived intent, i.e. a thought.
2. Laws that criminalise thoughts are called Thought-Crime laws, pretty much by definition.
3. Posession of violent sexual images between consenting adults does not, by and large, incur unconsented harm to the owner, the originator or the general public.
4. Therefore, this law is a Thought-Crime law. Actually, cannabis is linked to mental illness so it can incur unconsented harm to the user. Also, smoking causes even more harm but it's still legal, as is drinking. So there goes this argument. The only plausible reason to have a nuclear weapon is to incur unconsented harm to the general public. The perceived intent in this case is the only reasonable intent for possesing a nuke. As I mentioned above, thought-crimes punish the perceived intent behind possession of certain artefacts even if neither the artefacts themselves, nor their production, incur any unconsented harm to the owner, the originator or the general public. It's the spirit of the law you should be looking at, as well as its letter. The motivation as well as the definition. No, because production of such images incurs unconscented harm to a child. However, the new extension outlawing the making of animated or cartoon images is a thought-crime, as the images themselves don't incur any harm, so the law just criminalises perceived intent. Yes, that's what Thought-Crime is all about : implication and perceived intent. And as long as those sexual practices are performed by consenting adults in their private space it's no damned business of the law! No, this law just tries to control 'incorrect' thoughts. Hence, it's a Thought-Crime law.

---

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

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"

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"

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"

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"

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"

Generally speaking, you're right - it doesn't. However, in this particular case, I contest that it does: Laws are (or should be) put in place to prevent actual or potential harm to the public (inluding property), enforce the authority and continuity of the state and safeguard socially-ingrained customs and values.When a law is passed that doesn't contribute towards any of those objectives, the natural question to ask is "why does this law exist?". Regarding the law in question, the only plausible answer can be "because the law-makers want people to stop fantasising about deviant sex as they consider this the first step on the road to rape and murder". In other words , they try to stop people from thinking about it because -according to the lawmakers' reasoning- if they think about it they will go and do it.The only reason the law doesn't say "don't think about it" is because that would be an un-enforceable law, as the technology to monitor people's thoughts doesn't exist yet. So the next best thing is to find evidence of people's thoughts (i.e. viewed images) and hence indirectly punish people for these thoughts.

---

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