this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
610 points (98.4% liked)

News

31229 readers
2758 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kage520@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago (3 children)

These aggressive methods are not working. We need to provide better mental Healthcare for all people. These aggressive methods will lead to more child victims, not less. It's unacceptable that people are putting their own disgust over the wellbeing of children.

There's better places to begin fixing mental health infrastructure than nixing mandatory abuse reporting

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

How much mental health care would have fixed Epstein?

Also, mandating that religious orgs report it is not the same as punishing people for uncontrolled urges. Once the person is reported, they can get help. If it's not reported, they then will keep abusing children until the are caught by someone else.

Freedom of religion is not freedom to protect pedophiles.

[–] Kage520@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That's a good point. I would be in favor of this if it was a gateway to better therapy and not as a way to punish them. Self reporting should not be punished. Definitely agree that priests should not be the ones doing all the counseling. Just making the point that they currently don't have any options and this might be currently helping.

[–] forrgott@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Gateway to punish abuse that had already happened.

You keep completely ignoring the fact that this law was not about reporting urges, it was about reporting abuse. You are defending predators who have already abused a victim. Which is disgusting.

[–] Kage520@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah it's not a great thing. It's kind of like letting a local drug dealer off Scott free because he helped take down a drug ring. It's protecting a larger number of children at the expense of not punishing the guy who self reported and tried to get help. Doesn't feel great but should protect more children overall.

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 days ago

not punishing the guy who self reported and tried to get help.

It's not. What. The. Law. Is. About.

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I want to remind you once again, that you are defending actual child abusers. Not just people who have some fucked up desires and not act on them, but actual childfuckers. You are saying that people who already fucked kids should be shielded from law by religion because some other people also want to fuck kids but don't do that.

[–] Kage520@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You're missing the point. I'm not defending them. Their actions are abhorrent andtheir victims deserve justice. I'm suggesting if we act aggressively towards these self reporters, you will actually INCREASE the number of molested children by disuading future self reporting from others.

I'm trying to decrease the number of victims. I don't know how to give the victims justice, but decreasing future victims is paramount.

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

And you're missing the point of what we're talking about. Right now, the law allows active child molesters to execute well known religious loophole, where they "confess" their crimes to an unaccounted guy from religious organisation, and this act makes the crime nonexistent according to their proposed worldview. What it actually does, is that it clears the guilt from the perpetrator, allowing him to continue his acts. Knowing history of Catholic church, if it does anything is that it allows child molesters to exchange experiences and tips for future crimes.
Removing all oversight from this process increases the amount of crime going on, and that's what you're advocating for.
The point of letting people who didn't act on their urges to get psychological help they need to continue not act on it, is obviously correct opinion you have. It's just it doesn't apply here.

[–] Kage520@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

We might have to agree to disagree. Happily we agree that the kids are the most important thing here. I think if we had a solid counseling setup for people this would be an obvious thing, and you are correct that it should be a mandatory reporting. Until we do, I'm seeing this more as a free version of mental Healthcare which I don't think should be impeded.

Yes, we need better.

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 days ago

it should be a mandatory reporting

This is the only point of this conversation, you agree with it, and yet you continue arguing with the point that you agree on.

Priests don't do mental health counseling, even if they try, and when they try they bring harm where help should be, but even if they did help, this law, that we all arguing for, would've not impede with this, it only required mandatory reporting of instances of child abuse.