Battleangel

Britain never fails to amuse, frighten. Not that this sort of thing couldn’t happen in Sweden as well. I don’t recall the exact wording the law, but it could allow for similar folly. After all it’s only a matter of trying it out in court and getting lucky (via BB).

A COMPUTER expert who altered indecent images of naked women to make them look like children has been warned that he faces a prison sentence.

Stafford Sven Tudor-Miles scanned photographs of adult porn stars into his computer and used sophisticated digital equipment to reduce the size of their breasts.

The images, which Tudor-Miles also manipulated with graphics software so that the women were partially dressed in school uniforms, appeared to be of girls aged under 18.

The 38-year-old fine art student was charged with possessing indecent pseudo-images of children. His barrister argued that the pictures were of adults and, therefore, no offence had been committed.

At an earlier court hearing, a judge had cast doubt on whether Tudor-Miles was guilty of any offence and used the analogy of a “tarts and vicars” party, suggesting that a photograph of women dressed as schoolgirls at such an event could not be considered child pornography.

Judge Peter Fox released him on conditional bail but said that he should “be prepared, at least, for a prison sentence”.

The court was told that under the Protection of Children Act 1978, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, a pseudophotograph of a child is defined as an image, whether made by computer graphics or otherwise, which appears to be that of a child.

And since when did the use of a scanner and Photoshop make one a computer expert? Scary stuff alright. What is next? Round up and stone do death women who don’t dress their age, effectively looking underage?

I always thought that child pornography was about protecting actual children from abuse and being, even if they are willing participants, introduced to the porn industry. This sort of thinking, which is not just a British quirk either, makes rather lengthy extrapolations from the effects of pseudo-images. It’s effectively saying that looking at pseudo-porn, pseudo-images of children will induce abuse of children. What else could it be for? Now, as should be apparent to anyone, if one makes that deduction, not just as a psychological theory but as a legal fact, and decides to act on this, it should also follow that we have now concluded that pornography induces rape, abuse and that violent movies, games, music induce violent behavior. All of the aforementioned cultural triggers are of course debated, but it seems it is only these pseudo-images that are acted upon. That doesn’t seem very logical. But then again, it doesn’t need to be.
Society needs to constantly make up new forms of “crime” or its authority will simply cease to be. For what is the state, in its most simple form, but a basic function to protect its citizens. And these pseudo-images and much of the child porn / paedophilia frenzy allows for just that. A safe cause for everyone to crusade against. Just remember that these are times when liberty is an especially rare commodity.