R v (1) GRAHAM WESTGARTH SMITH (2) MIKE JAYSON (2002)

[Adrian Midgley]

> >Perfectly comparable processes.
Apples and oranges are perfectly _comparable_, and indeed the BMJ publish=
ed a=20
paper doing so last year IIRC.  These processes are somewhat similar. =20

> but in the legal context, this results in people who make images by
> photographing child abuse being placed in the same legal category as pe=
ople
> who view the result.  It seems surprising for the legislature to have
> intended this result, and not very sensible (viewers seem to me much le=
ss
> reprehensible than direct abusers; and unless they pay for the images, =
it
> is difficult to see that they provide any incentive to the abusers).

Concur, nasty though it all is, there is the essential nature of digital=20
images - as well as the on-cost of another copy being indetectably small,=
 it=20
seems that creating another copy adds nothing detectable to the sum of hu=
man=20
misery, whereas generating a new image _from reality_ or doing anything e=
lse=20
instead of viewing images certainly is likely to.

I suppose part of it depends upon the business model of the producers of=20
paedophile pornography...

Assuming that one day augmentation of human memory with implanted chips=20
occurred, would a roving thought that was stored momentarily on one of th=
ose=20
chips, which included such an image, be a crime in itself? =20

And assuming that the silicon chips were later replaced with wetware, eit=
her=20
as regrown own-tissue neurones, or replacements of a biological nature, w=
ould=20
the passage of thoughts or images through them then cease to constitue a=20
crime?

Too much SF perhaps, but there doesn't seem to be a firm basis in logic o=
r=20
ethics behind these laws and actions, which inevitably leads to trouble a=
nd=20
unforeseen consequences.
=20