Changes in the CP laws

["L. Bird" <pkeets@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

For anyone who's participating the in the child porn watch on Pete's behalf, 
here are some links.  Fortunately, it looks like child porn and child 
molestation has attracted the interest of legislators.  Unfortunately, it 
also looks as if they may be going a little overboard in the effort.  If 
you're writing letters, please ask for focus on what's important.  Thanks to 
all for caring.  These are important issues.


Here's a link to info on proposed changes to the US laws.  Notice that some 
clauses of this might make the award winning movie "America Beauty" illegal.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030225/ap_on_go_co/child_pornography_5

Here are some concerns about the proposed UK law, from 
PeteTownshendWitchHunt@yahoogroups.com:


> Please read!  This could not be more on-topic: an attack on the freedom of 
> expression of one artist or musician, is an attack on all of them.
Please support the online petition at

http://www.petitiononline.com/backtatu/petition.html


Subj: Urgent fight against human rights violation in UK
Date: 22/02/2003
To: Info@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

Dear Sirs

I fully appreciate that your organisation is run largely by volunteers who 
are already hugely overworked, but this matter has become as urgent as the 
time we have left to lobby MPs to make relevant changes to the Sexual 
Offences Bill.

By way of explanation, I add below this message the draft form of an open 
letter, on which I would seek your advice before sending it and posting it 
on the Internet for UK citizens to read and sign.  I don't understand 
legalspeak, and need to know whether the terms, incite and intend, in the 
context of the Bill, are as dangerously vague as I think they are.

Sorry to be ignorant, but was the infamous 'Section 28' eventually scrapped? 
 If it wasn't, could local authorities which assist in the (parking, public 
order etc) arrangements for the forthcoming tour of the UK by the Russian 
pop duo, tATu, be held liable for 'promoting homosexuality'?

Thanks for any help and advice you can offer.

Yours faithfully
Jason Richmond



Open Letter to Rt Hon Tony Blair MP, Rt Hon Ian Duncan-Smith MP and Rt Hon 
Charles Kennedy MP


Dear Sirs

RE: SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL 2003: SECTIONS 11 AND 17

We fully endorse and respect your intention to legislate in order to protect 
children from significant harm and danger, but we urge you and, through you, 
all other Members of Parliament, to reconsider Sections 11 and 17 of the 
Bill as they currently stand.

It appears to be distinctly possible that the term, incite, in Section 11 
(Inciting a Child to Engage in Sexual Activity), could be interpreted to 
include the recorded works and live performances of a wide range of 
performing artists and musicians.

One Richard Madeley, television presenter, has already pledged himself to 
use the Sexual Offences Bill, should it become law in its current form, to 
obtain a court order which will ban one or more of the works of the Russian 
pop duo, tATu.

We are therefore extremely concerned that, under such a law, half the music 
industry could potentially find itself in the dock for recorded works or 
live performances which the courts define as 'inciting' one or more persons 
under the age of 16 to engage in 'sexual activity'.

We therefore believe that Section 11 violates the fundamental human right of 
freedom of speech in the form of artistic and musical expression, and we 
demand that it be deleted from the Bill.

Our second concern is with the meaning of the term, intend, in Section 17, 
(Meeting a Child Following Sexual Grooming, etc.).  We are law-abiding 
citizens who emphatically intend no harm against any child, but it appears 
to us to be distinctly possible that those of us who are aged over 18 could 
be arrested and charged with an offence under Section 17 if they meet with 
those of us who are aged under 16, having 'previously communicated on at 
least two occasions'.

We are concerned about this because those of us who are aged over 18 cannot 
prove a negative; that is, that it was not their intention to engage in 
sexual activity with a person aged under 16.  Though certain of their 
innocence, and confident that it would be established by due process, they 
have valid reasons to fear that the mere allegation, though false, that they 
'groomed a child for a sexual purpose', would result in them losing their 
jobs and / or being targeted by unlawful vigilante action.

We therefore believe that Section 17 violates the fundamental human right of 
freedom of speech and association among people aged under 16 and over 18 
respectively, and we demand that Section 17 be deleted from the Bill.

Yours faithfully
The Undersigned













_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail