The NSW police disagree with you over their reasons for acting. They took the pictures, in their own words, because they were of a sexual nature. If a 13 year consents to producing a child porn image that image is still illegal. And the police didn't even attempt to establish consent, or even mention it at all.Quixotess wrote:It's not the issue. It's the context in which the issue becomes relevant.
Quixotess wrote:Bad analogy. Cocaine is definitely cocaine. Child porn is less clear. The police are probably saying "We're checking this stuff to see if it's porn or if there is a consent issue." A bunch of other people, including the prime minister, are saying "I think this is porn." And cocaine is not harmful to someone if other people look at it.Final analogy: If this were a drugs offence, it would be like the police finding white powder in my flat, walking out the door and telling the world media that there was a kilo of cocaine there. Without even testing the stuff to see if they were right. When a bunch of chemists and drung dealers look at it and say, "that doesn't look like any cocaine I ever saw."
The point of the analogy is that the police must, absolutely, establish whether the powder is cocaine or not. They can't charge you with suspicion, nor can they charge you with "it really, really looks like cocaine". Even if it is obvious, the evidence must be examined and verified. But that is not what's happening here. The police say "we confiscated sexual images", and "we will be pressing for charges". They do not say, "Bill Henson has been arrested on suspicion of child pornography offences", but they've jumped straight to saying he's essentially guilty, just like if they told the media I had a kilo of coke, they'd be saying I'm essentially guilty of possession and intent to supply an illegal substance.
Jauss wrote:Actually, I think that would translate more to "if a random dude can have the police arrest an upstanding man of the community for allegedly raping someone (who hasn't filed charges) on their word alone, and have the police start talking about prosecution then that random dude has far too much power."
Thank you, that's is a much better way of putting it.
Vaniver wrote:Did they throw Henson into prison, or did they just impound evidence? Because one of those is standard procedure, and the other is guilty until proven innocent.
It's not impounding evidence, it is asserting the presence of hard, indisputable evidence, where no crime may have been committed at all. No facts of the case are in dispute beyond whether the images constitute child pornography. If they are found to be of a sexual nature, Henson is guilty. The police have stated that they impounded the images for being of a sexual nature. The meaning of that statement may not be "he is guilty", but it implies guilt so strongly that there is little difference.
I think in future that I'll refer to the NSW Police as the NSFW Police, as they seem to be experts in the area.