You cannot have "good censorship" without allowing "bad censorship"

And as for saying...

"there are some things that nobody thinks are right and killing innocent people and raping children are at the top of the list."

Well obviously some people think they are ok or there would not be so many people downloading images or visting websites or even creating the material in the first place, doh!

milt, Stockholm,

The conflation of child porn with so-called "extreme" porn here is most unhelpful and disingenuous; it's worrying to see issues such as consent swept under the carpet so easily. In fact, I totally disagree with the concluding paragraph. It's high time that the UK government got out of the nation's bedrooms.

The author says "the majority of online porn really hates women and there are entire, massively popular genres dedicated to their nonconsensual violation and humiliation". I'm sorry but does she have any evidence of the existence of this kind of abusive material? Granted, there is "violent" material avaliable featuring simulated and/or fictional acts, but it is hard to see why, either legally or morally, this should be treated differently to (say) violence in horror films. There are also some rather blithe assumptions being made as to whether poeple consume this material from the point of view of the perpetrator or the victim...we are talking about ADULTS here.

Edward Smith, Cambridge, UK

"porn really hates women and there are entire, massively popular genres dedicated to their nonconsensual violation and humiliation"

I agree - I like to read erotica, and recently reviewed a site with some stories that left me shocked and worried at the mentality of the writers - how much pain and horror they put the women through in their stories. Its worrying that people can write this, and even more worrying that people enjoy reading and possibly/probably are capable of going out and re-enacting the fantasies that they have read!

Jac, Colchester, United Kingdom

Well said - I totally agree. It is terrible that in a civilised society children can not only be so badly abused but that others can watch so easily. Surely if enough people agree it is wrong, something can be done about it?

Jackie Lake, Swaffham, Norfolk

Where do you draw the line is always the issue.
How do you differentiate between pleasure & curiosity,
To view is not to commit
To think is not to do
To say is not to act.
Imagine, given the power that religion has, that it became illegal to discuss aspects of atheism, speaking of child abuse ! hmm

Norman Lovie, Huntly,

Lets rationally look at this from a legal point of view. Langham has been correctly found guilty of crimes. The sources of these images are also criminal and their origins known to the police via IP addreses. Why is it that we never ever hear of the suppliers being convicted? Is it because our tick box target system can convict many more people who download that than they can convict suppliers?

Surely the suppliers are even more guilty for providing the images in the first place? Maybe the "media" can send somebody out to search for them if the police find it outside our justice system.

Tom W, Palma de Mallorca,

India Knight's article crystallises it's tone in her final sentence. "Mightn’t it be time to actually do something about it?" We all feel on hearing about horrors like child pornography that "something must be done". But all too often that means a panic stricken dash to find a scapegoat. Thinking you have addressed the problem of child pornography, by arresting one sad middle aged man, is like thinking you have done something about the tons of heroin smuggled into the country, by busting one lone pot smoker. When it comes to drugs the authorities are relatively lenient towards the end consumer but unrelenting in pursuit of the big time producers and smugglers. Why do they take the reverse approach with child pornography - I cannot recall of a single case of a large scale child pornographer being arrested. Ms Knight is of course right - something must be done. But let it be something effective that prevents this horrific material from being produced in the first place.

Alan Trent, London,

I can't agree more with this. Anything that can be done to make this ban actually happen?

Ja, London,

"But there are some things that nobody thinks are right"

Yes, but you couldn't make money from a web site that sold them. There may be things that no _healthy_ person thinks is right, but who are you going to delegate to choose for who what is and is not healthy? Is Chris Langham mentally ill? You say yes, some others say no. How about Larisa Arap? You probably say no, other more powerful people than you say yes.

Whenever I start to think about this I always get back to freedom or thought or expression being an all or nothing thing. And however bad the "all" option may be, the "nothing" option is infinitely worse.

One can choose to fight child abuse either by the hard option of working strenuously to integrate everyone fully into our society. Or one can choose the easy option of labelling deviant behaviour "thought crime" and turfing the whole problem over to the police, as you appear to suggest. The first option appears preferable.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Sorry India, not only could you buy Che Geuvarra's Geurilla Handbook with all sorts of handy hints, but it was virtually a right of passage for us boys to make an explosion using household materials. We also knew how to make a zip gun using illustrations of weapons issued to the French Resistance by S.O.E. Most of the information needed came from part-works about WWII available from any newsagent. The difference was that we didn't have the same levels of agression or hatred. I can still give you a list of hand publications and you can order them from Amazon or Play.com. For the more esoteric you'll have to go to Foyles.

Bill, Belfast, N.I.

It appears elitist nonces get different sentences than lower class nonces , all these people should have severe punishment for the young lives they destroy with their depravity

r, croydon,

I think this article is rather exaggerating... I've never stumbled across child porn on the Web; maybe you have to actively seek it out and then I guess that'll be somehow more involved than typing in a few catchphrases into Google. Maybe the author knows more?
For bomb-building instructions and stuff like that, I remember these kind of "anarchist"'s handbooks were already circulating when I was a child (in hardcopy format or copied on diskettes, mostly because it was cool and boys like such things anyway), although I cannot assess genuineness, I certainly have never tried to build a pipe bomb. Nobody considered those as "terrorist instruction manuals" back then or a threat to society.
For nasty online porn -- get over it, sexual uptightness doesn't make a society, and porn doesn't break one.
That being said, I don't think the British society, or the Western civilization in general, is "broken", as is increasingly (and nonsensically) claimed. It just isn't true.

Matt, Wuerzburg, Germany

How come, then, that Ray Wyre, the well-known child protection expert, who initially assessed Langham's pre-trial psychological condition, has suggested that his high public profile has enlarged his jail term? Langham has been made an example of by the Establishment for other reasons, the main one being that of lampooning this vindictive, authoritarian government and seemingly getting away with it.

Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England

Why not prosecute the credit card processors and the credit card companies for making there 2% from this stuff. The police must have all these details as part of the trail that leads to the downloaders. Its immoral earnings of the worst sort at least, if not conspiracy to supply.

peter, limassol,

The problem with the internet is that it is all to easy for people who have a bit of time on their hands to click on to something they shouldn't. If they do it enough times then the sensitivity and shock effect wears off whilst the addictive effect increases. it's like the lads mags with celebrities in various states of undress - it's all about voyeurism and by nature we are voyeuristic to differing degrees.
The answer lies not with the end user but having a www.police presence that closes down and confiscates the assets of those who have sites up relating especially to child harm as well as the morales within society.
make the crime tough enough for the service providers - for example make it impossible to google child pornography or use other search engine - as much must be done to protect the minds of end users as possible as well as making it financially destructive for those who exploit www.

Kajen, London, UK

It is all well and good saying "something must be done", but what exactly?

Trying to censor the internet is as foolish as trying to hold back the tide. Anyone who tries to say any different is either kidding themselves or trying to kid you. Chinas 'great firewall' is not as effective as they might like us to think and they have far more control over access than we do.

Blaming ISPs is futile, how on Earth are they supposed to censor billions of pages and private chat rooms? It can take months to zero in on one site and minutes to set up a new one. It can't be done.

Finding the 'downloaders' is mostly a matter of accident.

Operation ore was a scandal the media refuses to talk about, more innocent people were convicted on the back of that 'moral crusade' than at any other time.

The only effective way to protect children from exposure to such material is PARENTAL CONTROL. It must be made clear to parents that the internet is not an electronic nanny.

Steven M. Dorif, Salford, U.K.

"Distrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong".

Nietzche.

David Armstrong, Leeds, UK

Well, no, this is completely confused.

He was not convicted of thinking anything. He was convicted of possessing something which it is illegal to possess. It is like possession of drugs, which is also not a thought crime, or possession of stolen property.

UK law is to be respected on this matter. It distinguishes carefully between making, owning, and publishing, and it distinguishes between different classes of material.

Its not the least Orwellian. Orwellian would be if our speech or writings were taken as evidence to show illegal belief. This is not what happened. Not even close.

George Johnson, London,

well said india but who draws the boundaries and how do you police it ?

wui, andover,

As disgusting as these crimes are, he himself did not sexually assault any children. Michael Porter admitted 24 counts of indecent assault and gross indecency on children, including an 18-month old baby (see the Times, August 24, 2007), yet he walked away from the court a free man. Porter was given a "community rehabilitation order", because he had undergone "therapy" and because he was a Jehovah's Witness and thus a "man of faith".

The message is clear: if you are a paedophile, it is less likely you will be punished if you commit sexual assaults yourself rather than looking at images of others committing the crimes, particularly if you have "faith".

Stewart Ware, London, UK

Couldnt agree more, some profound analysis of the human mind-and a worrying percentage are very warped!
It is all very well highlighting the problem but, what is the solution (I might add that I cannot offer a practicable one!)

Toby, Hurstpierpoint, sussex