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

271–280 of 315 posts

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

#271

Post by gkya »

dcow wrote: post #68
mjevans wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be so much easier if as a society we agreed that everyone should have healthcare, and that reproduction should be a choice positively made, instead of the default consequence of sex.

Exactly. There's nothing additional that abortion solves that isn't covered by responsible use of contraception except maybe someone changing their mind or I guess more fairly having their economic situation change such that rearing a child is no longer the socially responsible choice. But I think that's something we're equip to handle via other means (adoption).

I doubt rapists put on condoms.

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

#272

Post by snakeanus »

gkya wrote: post #270
aidenn0 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the definition "unlawful" for murder to be at odds with the common use. People refer to dictators as murderers all the time, even if the dictator unilaterally declared the killings legal. I find "unjustified" to be much more in line with common usage of the word murder.

Dictators usually kill illegally, and protect themselves from the consequences with the sheer power they hold. Fascists kill and protect themselves through the idiotic/selfish mass' silent presence on their side.

> Dictators usually kill illegally

Do they? They are the ones who define the law after all.

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

#273

Post by snakeanus »

dcow wrote: post #54
thanksgiving wrote: post #44

I'll be the bad guy here and say that these laws should all just go away. It is just too convenient to plant "evidence" be it alcohol, drugs, or this. The idea that minors cannot consent is correct. Children are not a scaled small version of adults. They need to develop not just grow physically and children are vulnerable. We need to protect vulnerable members of our society. However, like with so many things in life…

> 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 that the abortion answer is quite simple: let it be legal as long as the mother agrees to remove her womb afterwards.

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

#274

Post by pessimizer »

jquery wrote: post #220
adrianN wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this have to do with the so-called patriarchy?

"The patriarchy" has evolved to mean "something I don't like" so it's a pretty accurate use of the term.

It means what it always meant, the tree of men who control things. It's just become more widely used because the fact that everything is controlled by men in authority doesn't need feminism to be true, it just needed feminism to be pointed out. It's just as true no matter what your concerns about authority are. Not using the word is just being unnecessarily vague.

It's akin to something that bothers me personally; when people refer to "America" when they mean "White America." Yes, the recent rise of the alt-right has put on display an undercurrent of discontent in America, but when you say that, you're not being specific in a way that is distorting.

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

#276

Post by DanBC »

etplayer wrote: post #78
astura wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But TFA says otherwise >In Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court struck down a law that banned sexually explicit depictions of minors, as well as depictions that appeared to be minors. These included computer generated images and depictions of legal adults pretending to be minors. The Court recognized that the First Amendment “does not embrace certain categories of speech, including … pornography produced with rea…

It was stricken down at the federal level. I believe that laws still exist against it at the state level. Their validity, to my knowledge, has not been questioned as of yet. However there are such laws which remain, and in fact have been recently introduced, in Canada, England & Wales, Northern Ireland, Rep. of Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, and various European countries. What's perhaps even more concerning is tha…

It would be more persuasive if you linked to the laws. Some of what you're saying about England doesn't sound right.

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

#277

Post by snakeanus »

eighthnate wrote: post #33
quuquuquu wrote: post #2

Everything is a crime in our neo-puritan state. Congrats, two 17 year olds sending pictures of themselves consentually = child porn. What I also couldn't understand from the article: A picture of someone who is an adult, but is /pretending/ to be a minor is also child pornography? What?! Pornhub.com will need to take a hard look at some of its content providers then. Or does it not apply to Montreal based companies?…

> Everything is a crime in our neo-puritan state. What is strange is how today's puritanism is coming from the left rather than the right. Growing up as kid, I remember christians and conservatives attacking "Married with Children", "Simpsons", "Beavis and Butthead", "Southpark", etc. Even as an elementary kid, I remember associating christians/conservatives with censorship and for most of my life identified myself a…

> What is strange is how today's puritanism is coming from the left rather than the right.

From both actually, take the UK for example, the anime=CP law was made under a right-wing government.

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

#278

Post by wpietri »

adrianN wrote: post #196
astral303 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case is such atrocious abuse of power. The fallout from this case did not affect nearly enough people. Think of all the enablers of this behavior at the various stages. The patriarchy has much of America in their clutch at various levels of so-called "public" service. Why was this man never reported? Everyone covered up for him. Standard operating procedure for America.

What does this have to do with the so-called patriarchy?

The US, historically, comes out of a patriarchal tradition, where men have substantially more power. It's declining over time, but it's still significant. E.g., look at all the religious people who talk explicitly about how God wants men to be the head of the household.

The connection here is that abusers make use of power structures to protect themselves from the consequences of abuse. This will happen with any sort of power structure; abusers are wily. But it's especially problematic with a power structure built on gender, because our sexual roles are also strongly gendered. That leads to behavior patterns like "old boys' club" and "boys will be boys", where men are more likely to trust other men, and to act in ways that support the people most like them.

So if we were coming out of a non-patriarchal past, we would still have abusers exploiting whatever the power structure was, but the patterns would be different.

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

#279

Post by eternalban »

timthelion wrote: post #269
eternalban wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have been 'well educated' indeed to equate patriarchy with top down control structures. This will make the bitter pill of swapping the dreaded patriarchy with a technocracy, that will most certainly have a 'controlling' interest in intimate matters, much easier to swallow.

I remember a sermon about god and fatherhood in which the pastor explained that god's commands must be followed because god loves us and god wants to protect us. The pastor explained god's wrath towards those who fail to follow him as the wrath of love. As an example, he told how one day his young daughter had run into the street and almost been hit by a truck. Afterwards he hit her repeatedly. He said he hit her, an…

I would think that any organizational structure for a 'society' entails control mechanisms. And patriarchy predates monothesim. Patriarchy is a contract between the sexes, as a matter of fact. You can flip the sex bit, but there remains a control structure.

Just think how oppressive the matriarchy of the beehive must be to those poor little princesses killed in their crib by the ascendant queen mother, not to mention armies of 'drones' working their ass off for the glory of their queen. Naturaly, and it is in fact true, those little princesses had to go bye bye for the greater good of the hive.

(& do we really want to discuss the "pedophile" matriarchs of the Bonobos .. :)

p.s. I simply can not relate to your notion of the police as father figures.

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

#280

Post by etplayer »

DanBC wrote: post #276
etplayer wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was stricken down at the federal level. I believe that laws still exist against it at the state level. Their validity, to my knowledge, has not been questioned as of yet. However there are such laws which remain, and in fact have been recently introduced, in Canada, England & Wales, Northern Ireland, Rep. of Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, and various European countries. What's perhaps even more concerning is tha…

It would be more persuasive if you linked to the laws. Some of what you're saying about England doesn't sound right.

As for drawings, the CAJA 2009 section 62 onwards deals with it.[0] As for publishing text online, there was a case of a man who wrote stories and was convicted I believe under the Obscene Publications Act, though the BBC article just says "six counts of indecent publications"[1]

I'm sure I've replied to you about this before, actually, not long ago. (Edit: found it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14904716)

I'm not sure why my comment here is downvoted, though.

[0] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/62

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-38146988

Post reply on HN