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.


Thought crimes, privacy and pre-emptive strikes


Thought crimes, privacy and pre-emptive strikes

Author
Message
punter99
punter99
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (114K reputation)Supreme Being (114K reputation)Supreme Being (114K reputation)Supreme Being (114K reputation)Supreme Being (114K reputation)Supreme Being (114K reputation)Supreme Being (114K reputation)Supreme Being (114K reputation)Supreme Being (114K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 792, Visits: 6K
I have been reading about a really interesting case from America, where a man was arrested and charged with possessing illegal porn, because he had been writing down his fantasies about kids, in a private paper diary. In this instance, the jury found him not guilty, because they agreed that a private diary is, in effect, an extension of somebody's private thoughts.

The idea of a person's private space extending beyond their own head, is of course a fascinating one for the internet age. It's very unlikely that this individual would have escaped punishment, if he had recorded his thoughts electronically. The internet has broken down the distinction between private and public spaces. When you go online, you are inviting the world into your private life and you will be judged accordingly.

This has given governments, the police and the security services the ability, as they see it, to spy on and to investigate our private thoughts. In other words, to read our private diaries and punish us, if they find any thoughts in there which they find unacceptable.

We see it in areas like far right politics or radical islam, where merely looking at a website or downloading a document is now an offence. We see it with illegal images where looking is also a crime. The logic in punishing people for looking, is to stop them before they act, but why do we assume that looking will automatically lead to acting?

Arguably, this shift towards punishing people for looking and thinking, rather than acting, came out of the events in 9/11. This was the moment where governments realised that if they waited for people to act, it was too late. They decided that they had to adopt a policy of pre-emptive strikes, targetting the people who were having illegal thoughts and locking them up, often without trial, for many years. The Tom Cruise film, Minority Report, which came out at a similar time, expressed the idea of having a thought police, who could read someone's mind and then arrest them, before they could commit a crime.

At the same time, coincidentally, the internet allowed ordinary people to share their private thoughts with others, in a way we have never seen before. It was the act of sharing our thoughts online, or letting others read our private diaries, which brought those 'diaries' to the attention of the authorities. Suddenly, they had a way to read our minds, to get inside our private spaces and police our thoughts.

There are currently laws being discussed, which would make hate speech inside your own home a crime. This is the logical extension of the thought crime legislation, that exists for the internet. At the moment, police can force their way into your private home, if your are expressing illegal thoughts on your computer. In future, they may be able to break in and arrest you for expressing your private thoughts verbally as well. The argument that unhealthy thoughts inevitably lead to unhealthy actions is basically the same one which all authoritarian regimes use to suppress dissent. It's the reason why books are burned or banned. It's the reason why social media companies are starting to censor opinions and content they regard as unacceptable. A lot of the current debate about links between 5G and covid19 is being suppressed, on the basis that these are 'dangerous' thoughts, which people should not be allowed to express.

Private diaries are a rarity nowadays, but the belief that you can see inside someones mind, by looking at their computer instead, has been extended to other devices like mobile phones. It's not just offenders who are judged on the content of their devices though. Rape victims have their mobiles seized and their words analysed by police too. Assumptions are then made about their thoughts, based on the content of their devices. She said this, so she wanted to do that, is not a million miles from the wild accusations that police make about viewers of illegal images, based purely on what they have seen on a device; he was looking at this, so it means he wants to do that, and so on.

Curiously though, we don't see the same conclusions drawn about people's TV viewing habits. He was watching a TV program about serial killers, so he wants to kill people, is not an argument you hear very often, in court. This may have something to do with the fact that people's TV viewing habits are not logged, in the way that their internet browsing habits are. This is how the recording of a private thought, in a diary for example, becomes the 'proof' of intent or the 'evidence' of a crime.

At the heart of the debate is the idea that a thought cannot be just a private invention of the imagination. It is believed that all thoughts must be translated into actions, at some point. Was the man who wrote down his fantasies in a diary not punished, because it was accepted that these thoughts were not going to lead to actions, or because it was believed that the police don't have the right to punish us just for thinking something?

I think it was something else entirely. The jury understood the idea that thoughts can sometimes lead to actions, which is why they punish terrorists for downloading bomb making manuals and they understand the idea that some thoughts are beyond the pale, which is why they punish people for looking at pictures of kids, but it is the ability to share your thoughts with others that makes the internet a public space, not a private one. The act of communicating with another and potentially influencing that other is what scares people. The jury did not see any risk of a private paper diary being shared, which is why they accepted it as a legitimate means of expression.

Carissa Byrne Hessick, in her article on reforming illegal image laws, talks about the existing defamation laws. Defamation is only a crime if you say something disparaging about someone, outside your home and you are overheard by another. Inside the privacy of your house, when you are alone, you can harm no one with angry and abusive words, because you are not communicating your thoughts to anybody else.

Simliarly, harm is only caused by viewing an image, if knowledge of that viewing comes to the victims, or the producers, attention. If they remain ignorant of the viewing, no harm is done, as it is like shouting insults in an empty room, or writing in a private diary.

The current law on possession of images is a smokescreen to obscure the fact that of the 62k on the register in the UK and the 1 million on the register in USA, only a tiny few will commit contact offences. The law creators thought/believed that the crossover rate was nearer 100%, but when they first brought in the thought crime laws, in a pre internet age, it probably was higher due to arrestees being more immersed and commited to acquiring images, while in reality today, it is far lower because accessing these images is so much easier.

The law enforcement net has swept up thousands of casual viewers, alongside the more committed ones. They are all assumed to pose an equal risk and to be harbouring equally dangerous thoughts, but nobody really knows which ones are a threat to kids and which ones aren't, so they all get punished to the same extent. That's why the holy grail in sex offender research is finding a reliable tool to identify the crossovers from the tens of thousands who are not going to crossover. In other words knowing who will confine their thoughts to a private diary and who will take those thoughts into the real world and act on them.
 
GO

Threaded View

Threaded View
punter99 - 5 Years Ago
AB2014 - 5 Years Ago
punter99 - 5 Years Ago
JASB - 5 Years Ago
punter99 - 5 Years Ago
                         + x [quote] [b] punter99 - 24 Nov 20 2:39 PM [/b]...
khafka - 5 Years Ago
                         + x [quote] [b] punter99 - 24 Nov 20 2:39 PM [/b]...
Mr W - 5 Years Ago
                             + x [quote] [b] Mr W - 24 Nov 20 5:57 PM [/b] Forget...
khafka - 5 Years Ago
                                 + x [quote] [b] khafka - 24 Nov 20 6:10 PM [/b]...
Was - 5 Years Ago
                                     + x [quote] [b] Was - 25 Nov 20 10:11 AM [/b] +...
khafka - 5 Years Ago
                             I don't know if Britney was over 18 when that particular video was...
punter99 - 5 Years Ago
khafka - 5 Years Ago
JASB - 5 Years Ago
JASB - 5 Years Ago
Was - 5 Years Ago
Was - 5 Years Ago
punter99 - 5 Years Ago
Zack - 5 Years Ago
punter99 - 5 Years Ago


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:


Login
Select a Forum....
























































































































































































theForum


Search