ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks 347 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Richard Oliver

  OC no one is disputing that child pornography does depict child abuse. All I am saying is that the law does not define child pornography exclusively to the visual depiction of pre-pubescent children either naked or nearly naked, when they are engaged in sex acts with an adult or not. You have narrowed the definition of the legal term of child pornography to make your argument so that no one in the world would dispute it. That is not the case. The law defines any visual representation of someone under 18, in most cases, either naked or engaging in sexual activities.

  As you stated you think that child pornography should be regulated by the law. And you posted as evidence a legal authority. So you have to look at the law, so again my question based on the law of the land, should a young teen couple in NC be arrested, prosecuted and put on a sexual registry, because they sent naked pictures of each other to each other?
• 

  konceptual99

  so again my question based on the law of the land, should a young teen couple in NC be arrested, prosecuted and put on a sexual registry, because they sent naked pictures of each other to each other?

  That's a question for the authorities. It's up to them to determine how the state is going to deal with that.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  OC, WT is required to report when a case of immoralty violates a statute. Should wt report all cases of immorality?
• 

  Richard Oliver

  And again I agree that child pornography can and most likely does depict a case of child abuse. So if there is a case of child abuse, and Watchtower has already made it clear that they will report a case of child abuse, then wouldn't Watchtower by their own policy be required to report the child pornography to the authorities?
• 

  OrphanCrow

  RO: OC no one is disputing that child pornography does depict child abuse

  Lol! Wow.

  Yes, there is "someone" that disputes that. The WT disputes that. That is the point that is being made.

  Viewing child abuse material is engaging in child abuse. The viewer's role is critical to the production of material that depicts child abuse. Critical. Without the viewer, there would be no images produced. There would be no need or demand for them.

  The "politics of representation". Look it up, Richard. I won't get into that on here because it is a huge subject and one that takes a lot of time to lay out in a way that would do it justice. Simply put, though, the voyeur is necessary for the subject being represented to exist.

  The WT doesn't get that. Or, more likely, they don't care.
• 

  konceptual99

  ...Watchtower has already made it clear that they will report a case of child abuse...

  Have they?

  Aside from where there are legal mandatory reporting laws in place the only reference I can recall to the WTS proactively reporting, regardless of internal judicial status, is in the statement to the ARC...

  In circumstances where the elders and/or Branch office determine that a child is in danger, the elders will report the matter to law enforcement authorities even if there is insufficient Scriptural evidence to establish serious sin.

  As yet, I don't believe this is the official, documented policy of the WTS even in Australia, let alone world wide.

  Also, the above comment refers to a child being in danger. We are talking about here about child pornography so there is unlikely to be a victim known directly to the alleged perpetrator or to the elders. The direction given as per the quotes in the OP and the above quote show little evidence of there being a proactive stance taken to reporting someone who has committed the criminal offence of viewing child pornography.
• 

  Richard Oliver

  So if the child is being victimized each time that someone watches a depiction of child pornography then the child is still in danger, isn't that correct? Then the mandatory reporting would come into play.
• 

  konceptual99

  So if the child is being victimized each time that someone watches a depiction of child pornography then the child is still in danger, isn't that correct? Then the mandatory reporting would come into play.

  Really? There is no unilateral reporting in the instructions. There might have been a statement to the ARC but there is nothing AFAIK in the instructions actually out there. There is no direct link to reporting requirements made in the instructions on handling a viewer of child porn.

  There is no reason for this to be so obtuse.
• 

  Richard Oliver

  And I do understand the theory that viewing of pornography degrades and victimizes the performer even when they are adults. The idea is that if these performers did not feel pressured, either by exterior or interior pressures they would not be performing in this type of entertainment. That is why there are nations that have either banned the production or viewing of pornography or have attempted to ban it. Such as South Korea, it is illegal to create pornographic images of any kind in the country.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  RO: So if the child is being victimized each time that someone watches a depiction of child pornography then the child is still in danger, isn't that correct? Then the mandatory reporting would come into play.

  Exactly.

  That is why the WT has to change the wording in their policy manual. They need to word it like this:

  "Child Abuse Material: Child abuse material is the term for child "pornography". Because viewing images that depict children being abused sexually is part of the production cycle of those images, viewing them is considered to be child abuse and as such, will be reported to the proper authorities to determine the extent, if any, of illegal activity.

  In addition, the offender will be subject to all judicial action that the WTS feels is necessary to abide by proper Biblical conduct."