Meps Putting Child Pornographers' Rights Ahead Of Abuse Victims, Claim Campaigners

[Scott Sando]

* Jamie Doward

* The Observer, Sunday 13 February 2011

* Article history

European MPs have been accused of putting the rights of child pornographers ahead of abused children after it emerged that they are to water down new laws, backed by the UK government, for curbing the dissemination of child abuse images.

The European parliament's civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee (LIBE) will meet in Strasbourg tomorrow, when it is expected to approve a controversial measure that would compel EU member states to inform publishers of child pornography that their images are to be deleted from the internet or blocked. Child pornographers will also have to be informed of their right to appeal against any removal or blocking. The measure would make the UK's system for blocking and removing child pornography without informing the publisher illegal.

"MEPs seem more concerned with the rights of child pornographers than they do with the rights of children who have been sexually abused to make their foul, illegal images," said John Carr, an adviser to the UK government on child internet safety and the secretary of the Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety.

For the directive to become an EU-wide law it must be agreed both by the Council of Ministers and the European parliament.

The Council of Ministers agreed tough new measures approving the blocking and deletion of child pornography images shortly before Christmas. But LIBE intends to reject them after civil rights campaigners mounted a lobbying campaign, warning that they were a form of internet censorship.

The European Union needs to stay the hell away from our Common Law.

[izzy]

The European Union needs to stay the hell away from our Common Law.

Other European states disregard European law. Why does Britain always agree meekly? Anyone in the government with a pair of balls please stand up.

[6538]

The European Union needs to stay the hell away from our Common Law.

Why is this anything to do with our Common Law?

[porca misèria]

The European Union needs to stay the hell away from our Common Law.

Seems the EU is doing the (more) sensible thing here. UK censorship in the name of protecting the children is already very sinister.

Remember when they[1] blocked Wikipedia over an image of a 14-year-old girl (now a fortysomething woman) reproduced from the cover of a 1970s pop record available perfectly legally in the shops?

[1] The so-called Internet Watch Foundation, the latter-day Mary Whitehouse tasked with 'net censorship in the UK.

[MrPin]

Seems the EU is doing the (more) sensible thing here. UK censorship in the name of protecting the children is already very sinister.

I'm quite disturbed when I hear non-news about "children", "CO2", or "terrorists"!

All distractions!

[6538]

Seems the EU is doing the (more) sensible thing here. UK censorship in the name of protecting the children is already very sinister.

Remember when they[1] blocked Wikipedia over an image of a 14-year-old girl (now a fortysomething woman) reproduced from the cover of a 1970s pop record available perfectly legally in the shops?

[1] The so-called Internet Watch Foundation, the latter-day Mary Whitehouse tasked with 'net censorship in the UK.

I'm not so sure that that would be available "perfectly legally" in shops. It would depend on the particular photograph but if she was 14 at the time it was taken and was of a sexual nature then it's quite possibly illegal. That's not to say that it wasna't at the time it was taken though. The Sun used to have 16 year-old page 3 girls (I think the very first one was) but those pictures are now illegal, I believe.

[porca misèria]

I'm not so sure that that would be available "perfectly legally" in shops. It would depend on the particular photograph but if she was 14 at the time it was taken and was of a sexual nature then it's quite possibly illegal. That's not to say that it wasna't at the time it was taken though. The Sun used to have 16 year-old page 3 girls (I think the very first one was) but those pictures are now illegal, I believe.

Of course it is, and has been for over 30 years!

http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2008/12/08/today-show-transcript/

(tells us among other things the FBI investigated the same record after a complaint from christian nutjobs, and told them to go away).

If you look at the picture, you'll see she's pretty thoroughly unsexed in it. Nothing remotely erotic.

[Wahoo]

Human Rights are not negotiable. You don't lose them because you've done something unpleasant.

[You end up with the shameful situation of torturing people because they may be terrorists - as we and America did recently]

[Jimmer]

Human Rights are not negotiable. You don't lose them because you've done something unpleasant.

[You end up with the shameful situation of torturing people because they may be terrorists - as we and America did recently]

+1

How long before anyone owning a copy of Nirvana's 'Never Mind' has to sign a register?

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

Did you notice how on the BBC's coverage of this story this evening, they did not mention once that the origin of this decision is Europe?

[porca misèria]

Did you notice how on the BBC's coverage of this story this evening, they did not mention once that the origin of this decision is Europe?

Could that be because today's story is a different one and has no influences whatsoever from outside the UK?

[jonb]

The European Union needs to stay the hell away from our Common Law.

This article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer on Wikipedia was wrongfully blocked by the Internet Watch Foundation as being child porn. A right of appeal is much better than trial by media which only works for the most prominent sites.

[6538]

Of course it is, and has been for over 30 years!

http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2008/12/08/today-show-transcript/

(tells us among other things the FBI investigated the same record after a complaint from christian nutjobs, and told them to go away).

If you look at the picture, you'll see she's pretty thoroughly unsexed in it. Nothing remotely erotic.

Right, have had a read through.

The Act creates the offence of taking or possessing an "indecent" image of a child. I can see where the controversy come from as it's quite obvious that that particular image may quite reasonably be seen by some people to fit the desciption of indecent.

You are being somewhat disingenuos in your claims that it's been freely available for over 30 years. Yes, in some places it has but in many places it was changed for a diferent cover and in others it could only be sold under a plain cover. Saying something is "legal" is one thing but I certainly wouldn't want to be standing in the dock defending that particular image, to be quite honest.

Claim all you want that it's an "unsexed" picture but I think we know that lots of people will see that particular picture in a very different light. If it was your 10 year-old daughter would you be perfectly happy for that shot to be taken and used on millions of album covers - I wouldn't.

[6538]

Human Rights are not negotiable. You don't lose them because you've done something unpleasant.

[You end up with the shameful situation of torturing people because they may be terrorists - as we and America did recently]

Yes you do. A central part of the human rights issue is that they can be taken away for various lawful purposes - like locking up criminals.

[6538]

+1

How long before anyone owning a copy of Nirvana's 'Never Mind' has to sign a register?

Not the same thing though. Apply the relevant Act. The offence is one of possessing an indecent image of a child. Mere nudity is not the point, it's indecency which is the test applied.