theForum is run by the charity Unlock. We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions but we may intervene and take any action as we think necessary. Further details can be found in our terms of use. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report-a-post button or email us at forum@unlock.org.uk.


Open letter to a journalist


Open letter to a journalist

Author
Message
punter99
punter99
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 249, Visits: 1.3K
I've reprinted this letter, which I came across, on another forum. It's written by the partner of an offender and it's very good. It was described as an open letter and published on a website that is open, for any member of the public to read, so I don't feel like I am compromising anyone's privacy by reprinting it here.

"Dear Journalist,

It will just be another day for you. Sitting in the courtroom, listening to the details of yet another indecent images case. Yet another, because in recent years, you have noticed that there are a lot more of these cases coming through the courts. Perhaps you have thought about that. Perhaps not.

When you get back to your desk, as your fingers hover over the keyboard, you can decide which socially taboo label to use as a headline grabber. You have the power to decide the angle of the story and the impact it will have. And quite rightly, where children are involved in crimes, there is a visceral reaction from the public.

What you won't see on that day, after you submit your story to the editor, will be the lasting impact that it will have on my children. The impact that it has already had, as their worlds have been turned upside down this year. Firstly, by the arrival of the police: 'The Knock' as it is commonly known. Secondly, by the restrictions placed upon the family by social services, and their father not being allowed to be as present in their lives. Thirdly, by the misery and sadness suddenly permeating the household. And fourthly, the fear of the media reporting the case and stigmatising them, by default. What the people sharing the story online won't see, is that every time it is shared, my children are stigmatized further.

In fact, the oldest child has already spent two nights in hospital, suicidal, due to the changes in our lives caused by the interventions of various agencies, and is currently experiencing the all-consuming fear of what lies ahead with press reporting, and how to possibly be able to navigate the path ahead, the path of public shame and vitriol. It shouldn't be something that a child should have to worry about.

As I type, I am between packing up boxes of our possessions. My children and I are effectively going into hiding. Plagued by fear of reporting of the court appearances ahead. Not knowing whether we can return to our home town safely, whether we might need to change our (rare) surname. The children like their name. It's part of their identity and they are rather attached to it. They won't be joining their friends and starting back at school this term (one at primary, one at secondary- huge rites of passage, missed) in fear of the press reports and what lies ahead.

Now you might shake your head and say, well these offenders should know what all of this does. They should realise that they are putting their own children at risk from the fallout and it's the offender's problem not mine. I am here to report the news and if I don't do so then we don't have a free press. They should have known they would lose everything. Absolutely! A point on which we agree. Offenders should take responsibility for the vast impact of their actions upon their relatives. For the harm that is caused to children in viewing this hideous material. For breaking the law and looking at things that should never be looked at, or searched for. Surely they must have known that it would come to this?

What if, however, the 'hung, drawn and quartered' approach to reporting of people accused or convicted of viewing indecent images isn't actually helping the cause? What if it isn't actually acting as a deterrent? (and evidence strongly points toward the fact that it isn't, with cases growing and growing). What if the reporting is not deterring the crime, and instead, is actually harming the relatives and children of offenders by ostracizing them from society?

Public awareness of these crimes is low. The terminology doesn't help: 'making' an image is almost always interpreted by readers as someone having created an image. A quick look at the comments section on any news report will bear this out. Why does this matter? Because perhaps if people realise the truth it might prevent at least some of the crimes (I am not naive enough to think that it would deter all!). What if people realised that 'making' an image can occur when an image is viewed? (as the cache makes a copy), or even when an image is searched for? Or when a link is clicked on? Perhaps better education around the actual offences might make people think twice. And surely that would be a good thing. It would actually protect those children who have their lives ruined by having featured in this vile material.

I didn't have a clue until learning more from these forums and from Lucy Faithfull and indeed the police (who informed me of the large amount of legal adult material that they discovered) that watching legal adult material can become an addiction and can lead otherwise law-abiding people down a dark and deviant path of destruction. Why didn't I know about this? Why didn't I know the signs of internet addiction, in the person who is closest to me in the world?? I understand that legal adult material is completely unregulated online. It should not be possible that legal material provides links to horrific and deviant material. But it can and does.
Perhaps you could use your platform to call out the tech companies, the ones who are not held to account (as yet, no regulator exists). Perhaps someone can attempt to discover why it is that advertisers will withdraw from a platform who carries fake news, yet they don't back out when it's reported that the same platform allowed for over 50% of child grooming cases to occur on its watch.

Will the Online Harms Bill ever get done?

I read that there are 70 MILLION or so indecent images out there online, with the same number of searches for indecent material being blocked by the Internet Watch Foundation in April this year in the UK alone! I have also read an estimate that 100,000 people a year are viewing this vile deviant material. Why? How is this allowed?

I think perhaps that we have the same goals in mind. I, like you, would like for the truth to be told, and to create a shockwave in society, ultimately with the goal of protecting children from these awful crimes, and protecting the 'secondary victims' (a term used by Professor Belinda Winder) who are dragged into this, simply by being related to an offender.

I feel that the way to do this has to change. There has to be more public awareness around what constitutes a crime. There has to be more consideration as to when and how these crimes are reported in the press. And there has to be a call for the tech giants to do their part and also to help to educate the public around the gross perils of the internet. Where are the people who are creating this content? I very rarely read about these people being brought to justice. I barely ever read about the child victims being found.

So, if you sit in the courtroom on the day, please think of my children too.

As I sit in the hallway, staring at the boxes, I don't know what our future holds. Can we return to our home? Do we have to run away? Do we keep running forever? Change our identity?

Please think of a better way that we can achieve our goals without throwing these young people and families into the lion's den, by association. There must be a different way than this, surely.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my request,

Best wishes"

JASB
JASB
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)

Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 592, Visits: 880
punter99 - 1 Oct 20 10:47 AM
I've reprinted this letter, which I came across, on another forum. It's written by the partner of an offender and it's very good. It was described as an open letter and published on a website that is open, for any member of the public to read, so I don't feel like I am compromising anyone's privacy by reprinting it here.

"Dear Journalist,

It will just be another day for you. Sitting in the courtroom, listening to the details of yet another indecent images case. Yet another, because in recent years, you have noticed that there are a lot more of these cases coming through the courts. Perhaps you have thought about that. Perhaps not.

When you get back to your desk, as your fingers hover over the keyboard, you can decide which socially taboo label to use as a headline grabber. You have the power to decide the angle of the story and the impact it will have. And quite rightly, where children are involved in crimes, there is a visceral reaction from the public.

What you won't see on that day, after you submit your story to the editor, will be the lasting impact that it will have on my children. The impact that it has already had, as their worlds have been turned upside down this year. Firstly, by the arrival of the police: 'The Knock' as it is commonly known. Secondly, by the restrictions placed upon the family by social services, and their father not being allowed to be as present in their lives. Thirdly, by the misery and sadness suddenly permeating the household. And fourthly, the fear of the media reporting the case and stigmatising them, by default. What the people sharing the story online won't see, is that every time it is shared, my children are stigmatized further.

In fact, the oldest child has already spent two nights in hospital, suicidal, due to the changes in our lives caused by the interventions of various agencies, and is currently experiencing the all-consuming fear of what lies ahead with press reporting, and how to possibly be able to navigate the path ahead, the path of public shame and vitriol. It shouldn't be something that a child should have to worry about.

As I type, I am between packing up boxes of our possessions. My children and I are effectively going into hiding. Plagued by fear of reporting of the court appearances ahead. Not knowing whether we can return to our home town safely, whether we might need to change our (rare) surname. The children like their name. It's part of their identity and they are rather attached to it. They won't be joining their friends and starting back at school this term (one at primary, one at secondary- huge rites of passage, missed) in fear of the press reports and what lies ahead.

Now you might shake your head and say, well these offenders should know what all of this does. They should realise that they are putting their own children at risk from the fallout and it's the offender's problem not mine. I am here to report the news and if I don't do so then we don't have a free press. They should have known they would lose everything. Absolutely! A point on which we agree. Offenders should take responsibility for the vast impact of their actions upon their relatives. For the harm that is caused to children in viewing this hideous material. For breaking the law and looking at things that should never be looked at, or searched for. Surely they must have known that it would come to this?

What if, however, the 'hung, drawn and quartered' approach to reporting of people accused or convicted of viewing indecent images isn't actually helping the cause? What if it isn't actually acting as a deterrent? (and evidence strongly points toward the fact that it isn't, with cases growing and growing). What if the reporting is not deterring the crime, and instead, is actually harming the relatives and children of offenders by ostracizing them from society?

Public awareness of these crimes is low. The terminology doesn't help: 'making' an image is almost always interpreted by readers as someone having created an image. A quick look at the comments section on any news report will bear this out. Why does this matter? Because perhaps if people realise the truth it might prevent at least some of the crimes (I am not naive enough to think that it would deter all!). What if people realised that 'making' an image can occur when an image is viewed? (as the cache makes a copy), or even when an image is searched for? Or when a link is clicked on? Perhaps better education around the actual offences might make people think twice. And surely that would be a good thing. It would actually protect those children who have their lives ruined by having featured in this vile material.

I didn't have a clue until learning more from these forums and from Lucy Faithfull and indeed the police (who informed me of the large amount of legal adult material that they discovered) that watching legal adult material can become an addiction and can lead otherwise law-abiding people down a dark and deviant path of destruction. Why didn't I know about this? Why didn't I know the signs of internet addiction, in the person who is closest to me in the world?? I understand that legal adult material is completely unregulated online. It should not be possible that legal material provides links to horrific and deviant material. But it can and does.
Perhaps you could use your platform to call out the tech companies, the ones who are not held to account (as yet, no regulator exists). Perhaps someone can attempt to discover why it is that advertisers will withdraw from a platform who carries fake news, yet they don't back out when it's reported that the same platform allowed for over 50% of child grooming cases to occur on its watch.

Will the Online Harms Bill ever get done?

I read that there are 70 MILLION or so indecent images out there online, with the same number of searches for indecent material being blocked by the Internet Watch Foundation in April this year in the UK alone! I have also read an estimate that 100,000 people a year are viewing this vile deviant material. Why? How is this allowed?

I think perhaps that we have the same goals in mind. I, like you, would like for the truth to be told, and to create a shockwave in society, ultimately with the goal of protecting children from these awful crimes, and protecting the 'secondary victims' (a term used by Professor Belinda Winder) who are dragged into this, simply by being related to an offender.

I feel that the way to do this has to change. There has to be more public awareness around what constitutes a crime. There has to be more consideration as to when and how these crimes are reported in the press. And there has to be a call for the tech giants to do their part and also to help to educate the public around the gross perils of the internet. Where are the people who are creating this content? I very rarely read about these people being brought to justice. I barely ever read about the child victims being found.

So, if you sit in the courtroom on the day, please think of my children too.

As I sit in the hallway, staring at the boxes, I don't know what our future holds. Can we return to our home? Do we have to run away? Do we keep running forever? Change our identity?

Please think of a better way that we can achieve our goals without throwing these young people and families into the lion's den, by association. There must be a different way than this, surely.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my request,

Best wishes"

Hi punter99,

You have discovered a powerfully worded document and I am pleased you shared it.

In honesty the "offence" does not matter as you could replace the word "images" with any of the words of our offences and the emotional impact of the document would not change.

We know the reason why the "media" and so called Justice System allow and assist in creating this type of reporting, so I will not repeat those facts or my dislike that it is allowed.
We know the style of reporting will never change however if a restriction / ban on publishing the address of the offender would be created then that in one small way, may help protect the unintended victims we created when we offended.

It is not a perfect solution for obvious reasons but it could assist in limiting the damage to the unintended victims.

Again thanks for sharing it.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
Mr W
Mr W
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (8.5K reputation)Supreme Being (8.5K reputation)Supreme Being (8.5K reputation)Supreme Being (8.5K reputation)Supreme Being (8.5K reputation)Supreme Being (8.5K reputation)Supreme Being (8.5K reputation)Supreme Being (8.5K reputation)Supreme Being (8.5K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 209, Visits: 3.6K
You can certainly hear the anger, frustration and emotion in this letter. I can relate to a lot of this having appeared in the press for my conviction and the effect it had on sooo many people around me and, more frustratingly, still does. I don't have children of my own, but I understand there is another level of hurt here too.

However, targetting journalists is wrong. Even after being on the receiving end, a free press is far more important than this for many, many reasons. The decision to publish a story is as important if not more important than being aware of a story and NOT publishing it.

What I believe does need independently evaluating is The Google Effect and news being online. Local rags have always been aware of court stories but a story which was once disregarded as fish and chip paper the next day now lives forever online in clear view in one click. In addition, the tinderbox that is social media - cue the argument about Fake News and at the moment that social media platforms such as Facebook act as publishers because it is published a linkable piece of media with the story (which terrifyingly could include wrong details). Importantly, a point about having all these labels thrown at the offender and NOT going to prison while still living in society. Finally, the huge rate of suicides to do with this crime, especially triggered by fear of press coverage. Although, as we know, making a noise in public about all of this would attract very little sympathy. It's all unfortunate and, in my view, hopelessly inhumane.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
Edited
2 Months Ago by Mr W
Alan Watts
Alan Watts
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (2.1K reputation)Supreme Being (2.1K reputation)Supreme Being (2.1K reputation)Supreme Being (2.1K reputation)Supreme Being (2.1K reputation)Supreme Being (2.1K reputation)Supreme Being (2.1K reputation)Supreme Being (2.1K reputation)Supreme Being (2.1K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 42, Visits: 249
Unfortunately not many people will stand up for this type of offence publicly due to the obvious backlash and misconceptions made by the crowd.

Personally I sympathise with most "offenders", especially those convicted of offences like this. I think the knock-on effect is massively disproportionate to making the mistake of "viewing content". I don't believe it benefits society as a whole or anyone other than those employed in the public sector looking to maintain statistics and funding. I think that for "image viewing" offences there should be a warning before prosecution for many reasons. He makes a great point about there should be more done by the tech companies to prevent this material becoming available in the first place.

The terminology just shows how twisted the justice system and reporting come across and unfortunately the majority of people can't see past that and will put someone guilty of an images offences in the same boat as someone who has physically harmed children themselves.

I can relate to being labelled by an ambigious term. I would describe my own offence as retaliating to someone with online harassment who antagonised me first, however the law in Scotland seems to have redefined the word stalking as "sending text messages" instead of the traditional following people around/sitting outside their house in the bushes etc.

Edited
2 Months Ago by alexh07
JASB
JASB
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)

Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 592, Visits: 880
Mr W - 2 Oct 20 4:35 PM
You can certainly hear the anger, frustration and emotion in this letter. I can relate to a lot of this having appeared in the press for my conviction and the effect it had on sooo many people around me and, more frustratingly, still does. I don't have children of my own, but I understand there is another level of hurt here too.

However, targetting journalists is wrong. Even after being on the receiving end, a free press is far more important than this for many, many reasons. The decision to publish a story is as important if not more important than being aware of a story and NOT publishing it.

What I believe does need independently evaluating is The Google Effect and news being online. Local rags have always been aware of court stories but a story which was once disregarded as fish and chip paper the next day now lives forever online in clear view in one click. In addition, the tinderbox that is social media - cue the argument about Fake News and at the moment that social media platforms such as Facebook act as publishers because it is published a linkable piece of media with the story (which terrifyingly could include wrong details). Importantly, a point about having all these labels thrown at the offender and NOT going to prison while still living in society. Finally, the huge rate of suicides to do with this crime, especially triggered by fear of press coverage. Although, as we know, making a noise in public about all of this would attract very little sympathy. It's all unfortunate and, in my view, hopelessly inhumane.

Hi Mr W
Though I understand the point you appear to be emphasising, I would have to say in my opinion I disagree with elements.
You are correct we need free press, but that also carries a responsibility for their use of the "power to influence" for it to be welded appropriately and correctly. Example, the "victim" in my offence - purchasing sexual services - sold her story to a "gossip" magazine, who portrayed her in a certain manner. They did not mention the acts of blackmail she undertook as that could of influenced the view of its readers towards her. 
As I have mentioned before the Police use words in their charges that have a higher percentage of chance to gain a conviction, therefore possibly exaggerating the facts on a bais position. Within the nature of a creative person is a wish to "promote themselves" so they will also follow the same tact to "stand out / gain success".  Both these self promoting scenarios show how "their responsibility" to protect the "unintended victims" of an offence is degraded as they insinuate that the offender is responsible for their anguish. In part this is true but, I would ask are they using that social view to their advantage?
We all view and comment on the "google effect" but that is only a term promoting the effect of gossip; or rather an expansion of a fact about humans that has always been in existence, to protect oneself by talking about others. Remember Google just searches for data to present, it does not create it. Again their "survival model" is the same as the example I gave of the Police if you think about it.
Social media can be wonderful humanitarian tool but also as many humans are, it can be the "devil of society".
[The following is NOT to offend or highlight an offence by others but made as a comparison. I apologize if offence is taken.]
Therefore, to use a point made by those convicted of an image offence who emphasis they viewed not created, so do not have a link to the victim in the content of an image. Or those like me, who used the services of a prostitute without consideration to the individuals circumstances. Are both these offences not taking responsibility to the "victim" in the same manner as those who "report" on the offence.

Finally my point is that we "should not shoot the messenger", as those targets are so many and powerful to gain an affect. We have to go to the source / conceiver of the initial information to influence them that the words they formulate have consequences! 

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
JASB
JASB
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)

Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 592, Visits: 880
alexh07 - 3 Oct 20 1:43 AM
Unfortunately not many people will stand up for this type of offence publicly due to the obvious backlash and misconceptions made by the crowd.

Personally I sympathise with most "offenders", especially those convicted of offences like this. I think the knock-on effect is massively disproportionate to making the mistake of "viewing content". I don't believe it benefits society as a whole or anyone other than those employed in the public sector looking to maintain statistics and funding. I think that for "image viewing" offences there should be a warning before prosecution for many reasons. He makes a great point about there should be more done by the tech companies to prevent this material becoming available in the first place.

The terminology just shows how twisted the justice system and reporting come across and unfortunately the majority of people can't see past that and will put someone guilty of an images offences in the same boat as someone who has physically harmed children themselves.

I can relate to being labelled by an ambigious term. I would describe my own offence as retaliating to someone with online harassment who antagonised me first, however the law in Scotland seems to have redefined the word stalking as "sending text messages" instead of the traditional following people around/sitting outside their house in the bushes etc.

Hi,
Many who read my posts will know I truly believe in accepting responsibility for one's actions, however consideration should also be given to what made an individual take that action.

I mean no offence but your words give the impression of moving the responsibility.
should be more done by the tech companies to prevent this material becoming available in the first place.


Though I agree in the basic logic of your words; as I appreciate viewing and creating are terms that are manipulated to gain a successful outcome by the justice system. I would guess that in 99.9999% of the occurrences, it is the individual viewer who took the action to find them and therefore has a responsibility to the content of the image. They only used the "tech" as a "search tool".

Question: Is it the gunmaker or the person who pulled the trigger that fired the bullet, who should take responsibility for the murder of the person the bullet hit or, the persons for being in the path of the bullet?

By that and in the context of this discussion, I mean the content image is generally a human being and in ??? occurrences is not what is termed as a willing participant. The individual taking / drawing the reflection of the human being to create an image to be published is quite rightly the initial creator of the "content / victim" and in the context of this discussion, should be punished accordingly. However anything that is created and "published / shared " for a wider audience / customer base, is done to satisfy a demand that exists. Does that not mean the responsibility / punishment should also be "shared"?  

Be it the person in the path of the bullet or the content of an image, we should agree it is not their responsibility or fault. There is various arguments that the creator of an "image" or the "gun maker" involvements are not to be considered as they are creating to satisfy a demand. Possibly extreme but how many pieces of art depict images that were once classed as obscene but there creators are now applauded, or humans killed with weapons supplied and on the authority of a Government in war time?  

It is the eye / psychology of the viewer that allows "something" to be actioned upon in a way it was not intended, so so they must take full responsibility for their actions.



Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
punter99
punter99
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 249, Visits: 1.3K
JASB - 3 Oct 20 11:05 AM
alexh07 - 3 Oct 20 1:43 AM
Unfortunately not many people will stand up for this type of offence publicly due to the obvious backlash and misconceptions made by the crowd.

Personally I sympathise with most "offenders", especially those convicted of offences like this. I think the knock-on effect is massively disproportionate to making the mistake of "viewing content". I don't believe it benefits society as a whole or anyone other than those employed in the public sector looking to maintain statistics and funding. I think that for "image viewing" offences there should be a warning before prosecution for many reasons. He makes a great point about there should be more done by the tech companies to prevent this material becoming available in the first place.

The terminology just shows how twisted the justice system and reporting come across and unfortunately the majority of people can't see past that and will put someone guilty of an images offences in the same boat as someone who has physically harmed children themselves.

I can relate to being labelled by an ambigious term. I would describe my own offence as retaliating to someone with online harassment who antagonised me first, however the law in Scotland seems to have redefined the word stalking as "sending text messages" instead of the traditional following people around/sitting outside their house in the bushes etc.

Hi,
Many who read my posts will know I truly believe in accepting responsibility for one's actions, however consideration should also be given to what made an individual take that action.

I mean no offence but your words give the impression of moving the responsibility.
should be more done by the tech companies to prevent this material becoming available in the first place.


Though I agree in the basic logic of your words; as I appreciate viewing and creating are terms that are manipulated to gain a successful outcome by the justice system. I would guess that in 99.9999% of the occurrences, it is the individual viewer who took the action to find them and therefore has a responsibility to the content of the image. They only used the "tech" as a "search tool".

Question: Is it the gunmaker or the person who pulled the trigger that fired the bullet, who should take responsibility for the murder of the person the bullet hit or, the persons for being in the path of the bullet?

By that and in the context of this discussion, I mean the content image is generally a human being and in ??? occurrences is not what is termed as a willing participant. The individual taking / drawing the reflection of the human being to create an image to be published is quite rightly the initial creator of the "content / victim" and in the context of this discussion, should be punished accordingly. However anything that is created and "published / shared " for a wider audience / customer base, is done to satisfy a demand that exists. Does that not mean the responsibility / punishment should also be "shared"?  

Be it the person in the path of the bullet or the content of an image, we should agree it is not their responsibility or fault. There is various arguments that the creator of an "image" or the "gun maker" involvements are not to be considered as they are creating to satisfy a demand. Possibly extreme but how many pieces of art depict images that were once classed as obscene but there creators are now applauded, or humans killed with weapons supplied and on the authority of a Government in war time?  

It is the eye / psychology of the viewer that allows "something" to be actioned upon in a way it was not intended, so so they must take full responsibility for their actions.


The problem with online harms at the moment is that the ISPs, or the social media giants, have no incentive to remove illegal content, because they are not considered to be responsible for it being on their services. Supporters of making them legally responsible for the content they host, will argue that this will then prompt them to remove it more quickly. I have my doubts about this because the interet is not so easy to police and they already do a huge amount to stop illegal content being accessed or uploaded. ISPs currently grass their customers up to the police, for accessing dodgy websites, for example..

The other issue is that of money. Making the content hoster legally liable means they could be sued in the courts. Finding and suing the individual people responsible for uploading the content is much harder than suing the ISP. Plus the ISP and the social media giants have big pockets and can afford to pay big compensation to the victims, whilst the person who uploaded the image may have no money.

JASB
JASB
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)

Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 592, Visits: 880
punter99 - 3 Oct 20 11:23 AM
JASB - 3 Oct 20 11:05 AM
alexh07 - 3 Oct 20 1:43 AM
Unfortunately not many people will stand up for this type of offence publicly due to the obvious backlash and misconceptions made by the crowd.

Personally I sympathise with most "offenders", especially those convicted of offences like this. I think the knock-on effect is massively disproportionate to making the mistake of "viewing content". I don't believe it benefits society as a whole or anyone other than those employed in the public sector looking to maintain statistics and funding. I think that for "image viewing" offences there should be a warning before prosecution for many reasons. He makes a great point about there should be more done by the tech companies to prevent this material becoming available in the first place.

The terminology just shows how twisted the justice system and reporting come across and unfortunately the majority of people can't see past that and will put someone guilty of an images offences in the same boat as someone who has physically harmed children themselves.

I can relate to being labelled by an ambigious term. I would describe my own offence as retaliating to someone with online harassment who antagonised me first, however the law in Scotland seems to have redefined the word stalking as "sending text messages" instead of the traditional following people around/sitting outside their house in the bushes etc.

Hi,
Many who read my posts will know I truly believe in accepting responsibility for one's actions, however consideration should also be given to what made an individual take that action.

I mean no offence but your words give the impression of moving the responsibility.
should be more done by the tech companies to prevent this material becoming available in the first place.


Though I agree in the basic logic of your words; as I appreciate viewing and creating are terms that are manipulated to gain a successful outcome by the justice system. I would guess that in 99.9999% of the occurrences, it is the individual viewer who took the action to find them and therefore has a responsibility to the content of the image. They only used the "tech" as a "search tool".

Question: Is it the gunmaker or the person who pulled the trigger that fired the bullet, who should take responsibility for the murder of the person the bullet hit or, the persons for being in the path of the bullet?

By that and in the context of this discussion, I mean the content image is generally a human being and in ??? occurrences is not what is termed as a willing participant. The individual taking / drawing the reflection of the human being to create an image to be published is quite rightly the initial creator of the "content / victim" and in the context of this discussion, should be punished accordingly. However anything that is created and "published / shared " for a wider audience / customer base, is done to satisfy a demand that exists. Does that not mean the responsibility / punishment should also be "shared"?  

Be it the person in the path of the bullet or the content of an image, we should agree it is not their responsibility or fault. There is various arguments that the creator of an "image" or the "gun maker" involvements are not to be considered as they are creating to satisfy a demand. Possibly extreme but how many pieces of art depict images that were once classed as obscene but there creators are now applauded, or humans killed with weapons supplied and on the authority of a Government in war time?  

It is the eye / psychology of the viewer that allows "something" to be actioned upon in a way it was not intended, so so they must take full responsibility for their actions.


The problem with online harms at the moment is that the ISPs, or the social media giants, have no incentive to remove illegal content, because they are not considered to be responsible for it being on their services. Supporters of making them legally responsible for the content they host, will argue that this will then prompt them to remove it more quickly. I have my doubts about this because the interet is not so easy to police and they already do a huge amount to stop illegal content being accessed or uploaded. ISPs currently grass their customers up to the police, for accessing dodgy websites, for example..

The other issue is that of money. Making the content hoster legally liable means they could be sued in the courts. Finding and suing the individual people responsible for uploading the content is much harder than suing the ISP. Plus the ISP and the social media giants have big pockets and can afford to pay big compensation to the victims, whilst the person who uploaded the image may have no money.

Hi

I agree with all your words and the message I believe you wish to present, however as is my beliefs and I think yours, the acknowledging of the existence of these "defences" should not allow "systems" to take the easy route. 
I would respect a "system" that challenges what is deemed as impregnable over a "system" that does not.

Is that not what the term "hero/heroine" are meant to stand for.

  

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
Mr W
Mr W
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (8.5K reputation)Supreme Being (8.5K reputation)Supreme Being (8.5K reputation)Supreme Being (8.5K reputation)Supreme Being (8.5K reputation)Supreme Being (8.5K reputation)Supreme Being (8.5K reputation)Supreme Being (8.5K reputation)Supreme Being (8.5K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 209, Visits: 3.6K
Sold her story to a "gossip" magazine, who portrayed her in a certain manner. They did not mention the acts of blackmail she undertook as that could of influenced the view of its readers towards her. 

Free press label takes many forms but as George Orwell said: “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want published; everything else is PR (public relations).”
Stories like the one you mention come under the latter or, at most, part of a bigger story. As we all know there's much more to the story than what appears in any articles we read, every nook and cranny cannot be included in every article, but she's still a victim of many things - challenging childhood perhaps for example - and that forms part of the many bigger stories and not just the incident you were involved with. Is it right to do what she did?... That'll be a never-ending argument.

"google effect" but that is only a term promoting the effect of gossip;
I have quite an unusual name so I can check when I've been Googled using Google Trends. I had an interview last year. I wasn't Googled for months but a small spike appears just after my interview. I was unsuccessful. I can't prove anything, but there's rarely such thing as a coincidence. So, the Google effect goes much further than just gossip, especially while being unspent. It provides much easier access to info, more than ever before, for those making decisions that affect my life today, eg employers.

I feel bad for sometimes taking threads off topic, as you probably know I can bang on a bit, so I'll leave some of the other topics you mentioned for other threads.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
Edited
2 Months Ago by Mr W
JASB
JASB
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)Supreme Being (20K reputation)

Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 592, Visits: 880
Mr W - 3 Oct 20 5:13 PM
Sold her story to a "gossip" magazine, who portrayed her in a certain manner. They did not mention the acts of blackmail she undertook as that could of influenced the view of its readers towards her. 

Free press label takes many forms but as George Orwell said: “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want published; everything else is PR (public relations).”
Stories like the one you mention come under the latter or, at most, part of a bigger story. As we all know there's much more to the story than what appears in any articles we read, every nook and cranny cannot be included in every article, but she's still a victim of many things - challenging childhood perhaps for example - and that forms part of the many bigger stories and not just the incident you were involved with. Is it right to do what she did?... That'll be a never-ending argument.
Weirdly, this story is not unique, there are a number of girls who appeared in 'well-known' images, let's say, who cashed in when becoming adults. Victims' charities must despair but adults can make silly choices.

"google effect" but that is only a term promoting the effect of gossip;
I have quite an unusual name so I can check when I've been Googled using Google Trends. I had an interview last year. I wasn't Googled for months but a small spike appears just after my interview. I was unsuccessful. I can't prove anything, but there's rarely such thing as a coincidence. So, the Google effect goes much further than just gossip, especially while being unspent. It provides much easier access to info, more than ever before, for those making decisions that affect my life today, eg employers.

I feel bad for sometimes taking threads off topic, as you probably know I can bang on a bit, so I'll leave some of the other topics you mentioned for other threads.

Hi
I enjoy chats so never worry about banging on.
I agree there are many elements to the story of her life but I was only raising a single element of her life that in ways highlights her ability in taking advantage of the occasion; remember I provided the proof that she blackmailed me. Does this not show a thread of decision making; something offenders are challenged about. For clarity from my arrest i took responsibility as I said "yes" to the offer without considering her circumstances. I have never considered any ill will to her or ever will. 

Google effect. In ways your example; for which I also experienced a similar example of, agrees with my use of the term "gossip".
In the pre-tech days it is quite possible for a recruiter/hirer to contact by phone your ex-employers etc and could of gained the same information that way. That is why I also said the likes of google etc only show what others have created. Yes, google can create a demand for offering the information, as that is what the algorithms developed and re-developed are for as that is the core of their business financial model. However that is different to actually creating the "words" that instigate the damage. I will agree their "model" does support the damage being maintained or enhanced but again that is different.
For example. I challenged the owners of a website that stated "you can ask us to delete your data at anytime". That sounds great but look at the list of "businesses" they pass/sell the data to that is not included in their statement. You have to go to each of those businesses to request its deletion. Google searches these.
So yes, I fully agree that Google takes no responsibility for their reporting, and have the support and power that allows them to only comply with those that society seems to have sympathy with.
But I agree with you fully we should never stop challenging them or the system as we have a right to a quality of life and not be hounded.

Now that is banging on!! lol

take care

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
GO


Similar Topics


As a small but national charity, we rely on charitable grants and individual donations to continue running theForum. We do not deliver government services. By being independent, we are able to respond to the needs of the people with convictions. Help us keep theForum going.

Donate Online

Login
Existing Account
Email Address:


Password:


Select a Forum....
























































































































































































theForum


Search