Where is the quote on child pornography? I can't find that on page 3 of the Child Protection Policy.
So sorry about that...I posted the wrong document. That is what happens when I have too many files open at once. I need to slow down...at least it wasn't the wrong text to the wrong person. I have done that before too!
As others have said (thank you for those who corrected me!) - the quote is in the "Child Protection Guidelines for Branch Office Service Desks"
Eden: Also...two "dislikes" to the OP? Wow!
hmmmm...I wonder who that could be. I wonder...it is so odd, isn't it?
pubsinger: Is viewing child porn illegal in Australia?
sparrowdown: ...where there is child porn there is a pedophile.
This. The WT's ignorance about child pornography is astounding. It truly is. After all that has been covered in the ARC up to this point, and they cannot grasp (or will not grasp) the fundamental wrongful nature of child pornography and that children are abused to produce those images.
I was floored when this statement was actually put in writing: "...viewing child pornography is not considered to be child sexual abuse".
This is unreal....I can't find the word for the level of...defiance that the WT displays. That's it - the WT defies anything and everyone outside of itself. Defiance.
It is one thing to defy the laws of the land if religious precepts are being violated. As in, contentious objector status, etc. But, seriously? To defy the laws of the land for the sake of the sexual gratification from the viewing of minor children being sexually abused is nothing short of astounding.
The WTS can cross all their "t's" and dot their frigging "i"'s in their safeguarding policies, but as long as they won't accept or understand the severity of viewing child pornography, there is little hope of them ever understanding the nature of their crimes.
The WTS is splitting hairs. In NY State, a person cannot be found guilty of breaking the law for simply viewing an image of child sex online. This is simply to protect those individuals who "accidentally" view an image of child porn. This is an escape clause for viewers of child porn who are accidentally caught with images in their computer cache. However, the second a person downloads, prints or saves child sex material, it is a crime. I don't know how well that escape clause would hold up if it could be proven that viewing all those images was not simply "accidental" - that the viewer purposely clicked on images of child porn.
This apparent NY loophole, which allows an offender to say "I was jus' looking...it accidentally popped up on my screen", is the one that the WT is using to say "...viewing child pornography is not child abuse".
Of course viewing child pornography is child abuse. Of course it is. To say otherwise is willful ignorance. And evil. Evil. Evil. Evil.