Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 315 posts

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#101

Post by dcow »

ajmurmann wrote: post #83
dcow wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a quote about doing the same thing and expecting different results... It's the definition of insanity. The abortion topic is interesting because we're talking about how we socially define a human life in a realm where science can't help at all (or at least has failed to give a concrete answer thus far). If it was an accepted truth that human life begins at conception, then abortion is murder. Even our laws…

I think the abortion discussion is much easier than its made out. I like Peter Singers approach to ethics which sets the goal to be avoiding of suffering. Now the question is easy: at what stage of the pregnancy can the being suffer? The entire abortion conversation is completely ruined by most people wearing glasses colored with existence bias.

So a fetus can't suffer? I think science has proven quite the opposite.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#102

Post by lr4444lr »

jfaucett wrote: post #7

What is the rationale behind defining child porn age The first case is something that actually happened to a friend of mine. He was 23 and dating a 17 year old, got convicted, sent to prison, and is now labeled a sex offender for life. Are there any countries out there that take a sane approach to this moral conundrum?

The rationale is the age of majority. As a parent, I have a right to control the influences in my daughter's life - save for some exceptions around mandatory education and maintaining basic health. That means whom she associates with, and how images of her taken are used save for those taken of her while in public and not under duress of compulsion. Why is that so hard to understand?

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#103

Post by lr4444lr »

userbinator wrote: post #23
jfaucett wrote: post #7

What is the rationale behind defining child porn age The first case is something that actually happened to a friend of mine. He was 23 and dating a 17 year old, got convicted, sent to prison, and is now labeled a sex offender for life. Are there any countries out there that take a sane approach to this moral conundrum?

I think most would agree there is a profound difference between a 23 year old dating a 17 year old ...or even a 17.997-year-old. The problem is that the world is mostly continuous, not discrete, but laws try to be the latter.

Laws need to be objective to avoid bias and corruption. The vagueness of continuity you speak of manifests in the sentencing. Maybe the mandatory minimum for sex offender registration is too high, but the actual conviction needs to hold.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#104

Post by gh02t »

dcow wrote: post #101
ajmurmann wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the abortion discussion is much easier than its made out. I like Peter Singers approach to ethics which sets the goal to be avoiding of suffering. Now the question is easy: at what stage of the pregnancy can the being suffer? The entire abortion conversation is completely ruined by most people wearing glasses colored with existence bias.

So a fetus can't suffer? I think science has proven quite the opposite.

I think the point is that a fetus doesn't have the capacity to suffer before a certain point. A blastula of cells shortly after conception is not capable of feeling pain, but a fetus at 8 months likely is. OP is saying that it would be morally acceptable to terminate pregnancy before the point where we could establish that the fetus was capable of suffering.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#106

Post by trhway »

dcow wrote: post #98
trhway wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science didn't fail and actually helps a lot here. We know the brain development level of fetus at different stages. As a society we're generally ok with killing fish, reptiles and most of the society is ok with killing mammals. That places abortion cut-off anywhere between 3 and 6 months for the current state of the society moral development. And that is what most of the states have when they aren't dominated by ant…

Science has failed to define what a human life is (really what any life is). It has not enumerated the qualities that make us human nor has it established a plausible theory and effective model that allows us to assess the attributes of a developing fetus and declare, "this one is human, this one is still a pile of cells". (And that's not to say it hasn't been helpful in sussing out practical guidelines so far.) I re…

6 month old isn't a fish. You put words in my mouth. 3 month is about fish equivalent. 6 month is a pretty intelligent mammal and I'm against killing them.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#107

Post by Natsu »

dcow wrote: post #98
trhway wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science didn't fail and actually helps a lot here. We know the brain development level of fetus at different stages. As a society we're generally ok with killing fish, reptiles and most of the society is ok with killing mammals. That places abortion cut-off anywhere between 3 and 6 months for the current state of the society moral development. And that is what most of the states have when they aren't dominated by ant…

Science has failed to define what a human life is (really what any life is). It has not enumerated the qualities that make us human nor has it established a plausible theory and effective model that allows us to assess the attributes of a developing fetus and declare, "this one is human, this one is still a pile of cells". (And that's not to say it hasn't been helpful in sussing out practical guidelines so far.) I re…

I'm not sure I see it that way. We're effectively biological computers that run an unknown, self-modifying program.

We know when the body begins to develop (conception), but we're uncertain as to what sensory input is being processed, whether that program is aware of its own state, and such things may vary between individuals.

We have bright lines, but none that have sufficient agreement about their use in all cases for legal purposes.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#108

Post by daveFNbuck »

yeahsure wrote: post #61
daveFNbuck wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With parental consent, you can marry at much younger than 17 in most states.

Curious - do you need parental consent to enlist?

Only if you're 17, according to the person I was responding to.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#109

Post by dcow »

trhway wrote: post #106
dcow wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science has failed to define what a human life is (really what any life is). It has not enumerated the qualities that make us human nor has it established a plausible theory and effective model that allows us to assess the attributes of a developing fetus and declare, "this one is human, this one is still a pile of cells". (And that's not to say it hasn't been helpful in sussing out practical guidelines so far.) I re…

6 month old isn't a fish. You put words in my mouth. 3 month is about fish equivalent. 6 month is a pretty intelligent mammal and I'm against killing them.

I didn't realize that's what you meant. edited. Sorry for unduly implying anything about your character--that was not my intention. I thought you were just generally grouping fish/mammals with 3-6month old fetus brain development. Regardless it doesn't change my point.

Re: Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

#110

Post by odammit »

return0 wrote: post #62
odammit wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guilty or not could you imagine the rest of his life. At an interview "so I googled you... what's this about the Supreme Court having a ruling over your dick pic, brah" Better start his own business or get to flipping them burgz.

why is a dick pic such a big deal?

It's not to me. It's that he'll be famous for a dick pic that went to the Supreme Court. Hell maybe he'll be a porn candidate. Good on him.
Post reply on HN