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.


Crazy Laws


Crazy Laws

Author
Message
punter99
punter99
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 729, Visits: 5.3K
The latest in a long line of hysterical over reactions about child safety, was this story from America, about parents protesting that their kids had been shown a picture of Michelangelo's David, which was "pornographic".

This is exactly what was predicted in an episode of the Simpsons, many years ago. But it comes after a lot of recent controversy about sex education in schools. A Tory MP claimed, that children were being taught how to strangle their partners safely. This is made up nonsense, but many parents will believe it.

The reality is that children and parents face a very real danger from their mobile phones every single day, thanks to our crazy laws around illegal images. On another forum I read this:

'We had the police at the house to speak to my 13yo son. His crime was that other kids were sending a picture...of a girl from another school. On receiving it himself he felt bad for the girl and contacted her to warn her, she asked what image it was, so he sent it to her and then deleted it. She went on to thank him for thinking of her and kindly letting her know.

In any other world you would of thought the police knocked on our door to commend my son for such a kind gesture and doing the right thing !!!

No. he had my 13yo son in absolute tears as he was informed he was guilty of distributing an Indecent Image of a Child and that he would have to attend an awareness course at the police station and that it would be on his record (although they would put a note on to say he did it with good intentions).'

So young people and their parents risk being criminalised, while the imaginary threats, from porn, that isn't porn at all, are sensationalised by the press. What a world!
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