To feel completely gutted that one of my favourite authors said this (warning: child abuse) [titled edited by MNHQ]

[lougle]

Daily Mail

I've bought practically all his books. I love his writing. Yet I can't quite believe that I have read this. John Grisham has claimed that 'white guys his age' are being punished too harshly for downloading child pornography and it doesn't make them paedophiles.

The point is though, that we are duty bound to find excuses and justifications as to why men do this

Well, some of us are

What about the 18 year olds who look 12? Is the 60 year old person looking at pictures of these types less of a scum? He/she may not be doing anything illegal but it is still quite wrong.

I'm not looking for excuses. I just don't see the point in conflating two different crimes. Child abuse to me means the abuse of children ie those not yet at puberty. I agree that it may well be abusive to make sexual images of people aged say, 15 to 17, but to call that 'child abuse' is pointless and wrong.

How can something be abuse one day and fine the next? Attaining a certain birthday doesn't make all that much difference to individuals.

I don't know much about the law in the UK and the US regarding consent in making sexual images, but our UK law does allow for marriage and entering the armed forces at 16. Our Scottish referendum extended the vote to 16 year olds. It's a grey area, but calling it paedophilia is just wrong.

Again, he was not sent to prison for 'being a paedophile'. Nobody tested him and stamped his head with a 'paedophile' brand.

He was sent to prison because the things he did were against the law. From the details of the trial, it seems as though the images/videos shared showed abuse whether the victims were 12 or 30. I don't think much consent was involved. However, as has been pointed out over and over again, there are particular rules that relate to the trading of images of children to remove the market for the production of these images because children are vulnerable.

Arguing over what makes somebody a paedophile is beside the point. The laws are there for the benefit of the victims. It's a bit like arguing the toss over a parking ticket because you aren't one of those 'speeders'.

In England and Wales, you are assumed to be capable of making decisions to have a sexual relationship on your sixteenth birthday, but you aren't legally capable of making the decision to get married without parental consent until you're 18. That probably reflects a hodge-podge of evolution of property law, inheritance law, blah-de-blah through the centuries. Nevertheless, you can certainly argue for our status quo, in that marrying someone is far more serious and affects your life far more than just shagging them.

Similarly, shagging someone on camera is far more serious and can affect your life far more than just shagging them. So age of consent legislation often reflects that.

I have no idea whether Grisham's friend is a paedophile or not- I'm not his psychologist. But he's been searching for illegal images and distributing them. His precise motivation in that was a matter for the team trying to assess whether he could be rehabilitated.

I have a DD and I do understand your outrage, but no, a 16-year-old is not a child - not legally and definitely not physically.

So you'd be alright seeing her in adult movies 'having sex' then? because that is what you believe it is!

If the same man could have legally had sex with a 16-year-old girl, I can't really get outraged at the idea of him looking at pictures of one. Fucking hell!!! Except they are illegal as she isn't old enough to consent to be in them. Therefore she is being exploited & if she is engaging in sexual practices in them, she is being raped.

But it's OK, because she isn't a child....well fuck me.

Child abuse to me means the abuse of children ie those not yet at puberty

MorrisZapp My daughter is 11 & has hit puberty. If she was harmed, that isn't classed as child abuse in your eyes because she isn't under the age of puberty...??

I agree that it may well be abusive to make sexual images of people aged say, 15 to 17, but to call that 'child abuse' is pointless and wrong So what do we call it then?

Child abuse apologists rife, it seems.

The weird thing here is that John Grisham clearly got taken in by his friend, who told him some sob story about having accidentally clicked on just the one link and the next thing he knew the FBI were at the door … but Grisham didn't say "I got taken in by my friend" he just apologised for his remarks.

I know a photographer who shoots porn for some big sites where people pay for it. They require all the girls to sign consent forms and prove their age. He won't shoot any girls without proof of their age

I don't like what he does, but the law is that for those types of shoots the photographer /site must be able to prove the girls are 18 +

So the argument about them looking younger doesn't stack up