'ning.I agree with you. 'Pictures of child abuse', what does it mean? Well in cases I've seen reported it mostly means violent torture and destruction of a child's, or even a baby's unformed sexual organs and sometimes includes murder, all supervised and filmed by someone who is supposed to be the guardian of the child. Being abused oneself ought to be the biggest incentive to keep away from this kind of stuff. I'm afraid I can't sanction 'innocently viewing some pictures' under any circumstances
(
edjogs Collared doves are shit.,
Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:11,
archived)
I agreealthough I accept that someone may possibly view pics without fully realising the consequences of their action.
Like buying some grass and not thinking about the crime the money goes towards
(Like buying some grass and not thinking about the crime the money goes towards
Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something.,
Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:19,
archived)
I go along with that principlebut in this case we are talking about pictures of children being MUTILATED by their guardians or with their guardian's consent. It is beyond my powers of imagination to believe that doing it or watching it being done can ever be innocent.
( edjogs Collared doves are shit.,
Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:24,
archived)
I wasn't aware of the nature of the picsfor some people - this only justice is prolonged public beating
( Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something.,
Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:29,
archived)
I'm not being sarky butthe clue is in "child abuse". It doesn't mean pictures of someone sending their kid to bed without watching CBeebies.
( edjogs Collared doves are shit.,
Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:37,
archived)