Hi Sandpiper,
I agree with some of your points, but not all of them.
That's a huge leap. As unfashionable as it is to let facts get in the way of a good discussion, I would like to summarise the events that have taken place.
1) It was Chris who posted the content in question.
2) It was Chris who signalled that his intent in posting the content in question was to cause as much emotional distress and disturbance as possble, i.e. for the lulz.
3) It was Chris who, when challenged by Tony about his reappearance under another nick and the validity of his approach replied "face bothered, bothered face".
3) It was Chris who admitted (somewhat honourably) the exact nature and content of his posts. (This alone should have saved us from this discussion).
I don't know the full history, but I'm happy to accept your account of it.
For the record (and for any who remain unclear). It is now technically an offense not only to publish child pornagraphy, but also to publish anything that seeks to endorse or make light of child pornography. This includes cartoon like imagery and censored inages. This attitide now even extends to the use of the phrase "kiddy porn" which is actively discouraged since it is quite rightly recognised as an insidious method of propogating increasing levels of acceptance within society.
Your world appears to be very black and white whereas, in reality, it is anything but, IMO. I didn't see the images that wasp posted, but I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that they weren't the extreme Gary Glitter sort that, if found on your hard drive, would land you in jug. In my experience, the exact opposite of what you describe is filtering through our increasingly politically correct society, especially amongst young people.
I'll give you a specific example of what I mean. A few years ago I worked for a repro' house in the print trade. A local photographer came in with a CD and wanted some large prints made of his pictures for a forthcoming public exhibition. They were all landscapes, but one picture included a naked boy of about 5 years old positiioned to appear like a garden statue within a large formal garden. It was a very well composed, well shot picture and cleverly executed. I liked it. However, my (young) boss completely 'lost it' when he saw the picture. To him it was indeed 'kiddy porn'. When the photographer came in to pick up the pictures, my boss was very rude to him and threw him out, threatening to report him to the police. The photographer was very upset and extremely offended and I was very embarrassed. Recently, I went on a city break to Florence and went to the Uffizi which is chock full of images of naked childen. By my bosses definition (and perhaps yours too), much of the content of the gallery would fall into the category of 'child pornography' and, presumably, ough to be destroyed.
The fact is, regardless of Chris's original intention, the insidious nature of this material (censored or not) has been amply demonstrated in that certain forumites, seemingly desensited to such material, would argue that the exceptional nature of Chris's other contributions justifies a degree of forgiveness and should probably result in re-admission.
I would imagine that to become desensitised to something, one must experience it - and probabbly lots of it. Depending upon your definition of child pornography I have either seen lots of it or none of it at all. As stated above, I have seen many imasges of naked children, but I wouldn't think of them as pornographic and, certainly, I don't find them sexually arousing. Yes, I was one of those who felt that wasp should be allowed to return. Am I desesitised as you suggest? The answer is an emphatic no.
Unfortunately, regardless of whether Chris returns or stays banned, I think the damage has been done and, based on peoples responses, will never be undone. I would suggest that more than simply just "hanging himself by his own petard" (to quote Gamma), Chris has found out that rather than simply shocking certain people into submission, he has contributed to a very disturbing seed change in the level of tolerance to that which should never be tolerated.
I would hope (given his apology), that he is as disturbed by some of the responses to this situation as I am.
As I suggest above, the 'seed change' is, if anything, going the other way. In many ways society is less tolerant than it used to be. I would stress that in no way shape or form do I condone the Gary Glitter type of child pornography which is totally unacceptable. Furthermore, I would be very surprised if anyone here felt differently. So, unless you consider the image below to be pornographic, I really don't think there's anything for you - or anyone else - to be disturbed about.
Tim.
