Feb 18
An interesting ponderance…
Sir – The Lord Chief Justice has overturned the convictions of five Asian men jailed for downloading and sharing terrorist literature (report, February 14) because there was nothing to show they had “terrorist intent” and it was not illegal to read or study such material.Does this mean that the hundreds of people recently convicted of possessing child pornography should be acquitted?
I have no sympathy with either, but fair is fair.
Michael O’Hara, Barnsley, South Yorkshire
Like this guy I have no sympathy for either grouping but there does seem to be a politically correct double standard here that is both dangerous and foolish.
1 Comment so far
Leave a comment
Well, I’m not too well-versed on Brit Law, but I’ll take a swing at this distinction anyway, using some common sense.
In the U.S., kiddie porn is banned not because we worry that it will hurt the viewer, but because the industry relies, axiomatically, on the participation in sexual acts by those who have not given consent. Thus, the material is contraband. Obviously seizing it does not destroy the industry which produces it, much as seizing a bail of marihuana does not destroy the demand for it. Instead, with kiddie porn, we impose draconian penalties on the possession, let alone the actual production of the vile stuff. This strategy has succeeded in keeping that industry largely offshore.
These arguments do not apply to so-called “terrorist” literature. Wm. Powell’s 1971 “Anarchist Cookbook” is a classic and longstanding (if weak) example of how we tolerate revolutionary publications in the U.S. The writings of Thomas Paine might be another … ahem. Anyway, back in my misspent teen years, my personal library included “Psychological Operations in Guerilla Warfare” prepared by an American intelligence agency, and the Special Forces Handbook; both of these were contraband subversive literature, even “terrorist literature” behind the iron curtain. However, unlike kiddie porn, the mere writing of them did not harm innocent persons (though using the contents as directed might!). On the other hand, U.S. civil liability is an occasional risk. Paladin Press put out a cute little volume years ago entitled “Hit Man! A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors.” They were successfully sued by the estate of a victim of a man demonstrated to have used the methods contained in the book. I’m not saying I agree with that result; in any case, that was a private, civil matter.
Of course, the U.K. does not have an equivalent to the U.S. First Amendment or the jurisprudence thereunder, and civil liiability is much different over there. I’m therefore not saying the distinction holds up under Brit Law, only that in the U.S., the distinction would appear quite valid.