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

[Peter Mitchell]

Andrew Brown wrote:
>
> On Thursday, April 25, 2002, at 4:49:19 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> RP> In article <0204251330231A.20490@osborne>, Adrian Midgley
> RP> <akm@92tr.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >>creating another copy adds nothing detectable to the sum of human
> >>misery, whereas generating a new image _from reality_ or doing anything else
> >>instead of viewing images certainly is likely to.
>
> RP> It's a widely held belief (for example by rehabilitation clinics) that
> RP> the availability of images has both encouraged new offenders, and been
> RP> used as bait to convince new victims that the offender's actions aren't
> RP> as outlandish as might be their first impression.


>
> Why should anyone doubt this? The effectiveness of images to alter
> behaviour is the principle on which the entire adveritising industry
> is based.
>

To assert that some images sometimes alter some behaviour in some way in
some people is no doubt true. But it is the specifics that matter here.

Roland's "widely held belief" alleges that this particular type of image
alters particular types of behaviour in certain well-defined ways, in
(at least) a significant number of people a significant amount of the
time.

You actually have to collect evidence to decide that kind of claim,
rather than relying on the prevalence of belief in a proposition.

Popular belief is a weak guide to truth. There are many very widely held
beliefs - some of them much more widely held than those alleged in
offender rehab clinics  - that are quite definitely false.

--
Pete Mitchell