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

Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on child porn

falkvinge.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 332 posts

Re: Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on child porn

#51

Post by Cushman »

im3w1l wrote: post #39
Cushman wrote: post #12

Presented as a reductio at the end of the article: It’s not illegal to film a murder. It’s not illegal to possess a film of a murder. But one has to wonder: What if it were? What if YouTube had a button for "Report Illegal" that forwarded the video to law enforcement, hid it, and cleared it from your cache? What if people who watched video evidence of a crime and didn't report it to the authorities were treated as ju…

That would make a large part of our current culture illegal (assuming fictional murders are counted)

Presumably the standard would be, as with pornography, that the media in question must have some literary or cultural value apart from its illegal content.

Re: Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on child porn

#52

Post by jemfinch »

ThePherocity wrote: post #15

I hope he gets hit by a truck today. I really do. There isn't, nor will there ever be an argument where the enablement of child molestation and rape is acceptable. And if there is collateral damage, then so be it. I'd rather 100 go to jail wrongfully accused than to enable 1 child to be rape. This guy make me sick. Seriously Rick, please kill yourself.

When I and others say, "The quality of discussion at HN has diminished of late", and others respond, "I don't see it," I will refer them to your comment history and the fact that you have positive karma for it.

Re: Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on child porn

#53

Post by Falkvinge »

macchina wrote: post #40
dsr_ wrote: post #4

He has his own counterargument in a note near the beginning: But possession of child pornography is a strict liability offense, like possession of cocaine, at least in the entire United States, as well as several other countries. Intent, mens rea, is irrelevant: if you have it, no matter why, you're guilty. OK, so make mens rea a required element. It's a reasonable reform.

It's actually not a true strict liability offense, at least in the United States. For example, 18 USC § 2252A(a)(2)(A) criminalizes " knowingly receiv[ing] or distribut[ing] any child pornography." § 2252A(a)(5) requires " knowingly possess[ing], or knowingly access[ing] with intent to view, any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disk, or any other material that contains an image of child pornograp…

Thank you for this additional information about specifics of the United States. The described case with accidentally recording and realizing you accidentally recorded still makes you culpable under the "knowingly", though.

Cheers, Rick

Re: Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on child porn

#54

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

dsr_ wrote: post #4

He has his own counterargument in a note near the beginning: But possession of child pornography is a strict liability offense, like possession of cocaine, at least in the entire United States, as well as several other countries. Intent, mens rea, is irrelevant: if you have it, no matter why, you're guilty. OK, so make mens rea a required element. It's a reasonable reform.

That would solve half the problems overnight.

Re: Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on child porn

#55

Post by birdcircle »

"So imagine a scenario ten years down the road, as you’re taking a stroll in the park." .... "WHAM. You are now a criminal, guilty of recording, distributing, and possessing child pornography."

I find this highly implausible. Hypotheticals like this damage the argument. Crimes are caught on camera everyday. Seems to me the crime here (aside form the rape) is to knowingly destroy evidence of the crime, which the innocent strollers in this scenario are supposedly encouraged to do out fear for themselves. I have not thought about this enough to have a strong opinion other than simple gut reaction, but it seems more evidence to support this idea in particular is needed.

Re: Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on child porn

#56

Post by crazygringo »

There's a lot of food for thought here, and important points. But in one area, the author completely glosses over a crucial distinction:

> why is it only documentation of sex crimes against minors that are being banned in this way? The lawmen are perfectly fine with a video documenting how a teenager is being stabbed with a screwdriver in both eyes, then murdered. ... why is the ban just related to anything sexual, and not to the bodily harm itself...?

There's a very important reason only documentation of sex crimes against minors is banned -- there isn't a big market for watching videos of murders. Virtually no one is going to go out and film themselves murdering people in order to satisfy a market for those videos.

But the reasoning goes that if child porn is legal, then this will actively encourage more child rape, etc., so that it can be filmed and distributed. Plus, even if we're really good against preventing the actual acts in the US, we're still creating markets for it in other countries, especially third-world ones. So children suffer.

But then there's another argument, that having child porn around is actually better than the alternative -- because potential molesters/rapists are able to satisfy their desire with existing videos. If they don't have the videos, then they go out and commit horrible acts. So, better to stick to the videos.

There are no easy answers.

Re: Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on child porn

#57

Post by lisper »

todayiamme wrote: post #20
lisper wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Flagged. Downvoted. Whatever else this article may be, it is well within the bounds of what is appropriate on HN.

I'm not saying that it's inappropriate for HN. I flagged it because I felt the author was courting controversy and neither did he present an interesting solution. It's hard to take an unpopular side and that takes moral courage, but the extensive use of reductio ad absurdum combined with the heavy handed way he delivered his arguments made me feel that the author isn't being entirely genuine. edit: I deleted my comme…

> I'm not saying that it's inappropriate for HN. I flagged it...

But that's what flagging IS. Flagging an article means: this article is inappropriate and should be removed. See http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link."

Re: Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on child porn

#58

Post by jeltz »

prunebeads wrote: post #35
Cushman wrote: post #12

Presented as a reductio at the end of the article: It’s not illegal to film a murder. It’s not illegal to possess a film of a murder. But one has to wonder: What if it were? What if YouTube had a button for "Report Illegal" that forwarded the video to law enforcement, hid it, and cleared it from your cache? What if people who watched video evidence of a crime and didn't report it to the authorities were treated as ju…

> But one has to wonder: What if it were? What if YouTube had a button for "Report Illegal" that forwarded the video to law enforcement, hid it, and cleared it from your cache? Then you'd probably get police forces overwhelmed with bogus complaints.

An example of this is the Finish child pornography filter. If you look at the list of blocked sites you will note that most of the sites are regular porn sites (mostly gay porn), and some are not porn at all. Some people seem to be abusing the filter to block what they personally find to be disgusting with little or no investigation from the Finish police. If these porn sites really hosted child pronography should the Finish police not just inform the authorities of the country where the site is hosted?

Wikipedia article about the website of the guy who started research into the child pron filter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapsiporno.info

His website was later blocked by the filter despite the filter only being intended to be used against foreign websites.

Re: Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on child porn

#59

Post by Falling3 »

watty wrote: post #42
sudonim wrote: post #24

When I lived in Houston and was buying a house I used a website to look up sex offenders in the neighborhood. I remember seeing one guy who was in the sex offender database because when he was 19, he had sex with a 17 year old. It made me feel a little uncomfortable. It struck me because I was in my mid 20s and I think we were around the same age at the time. Something is amiss in a system that punishes him for life…

It's not like his crime was hidden, you read it yourself. The only thing the 19 year old and a 40 year old who touches toddlers is that they both committed a sexual crime. Even though they are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum it's still true.

No... one is abhorrent and takes a significant toll on someone too young to know what is even happening.

The other is sex between to consenting, able-minded people.

Conflating the two is dangerous, offensive, and just plain stupid.

Re: Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on child porn

#60

Post by todayiamme »

lisper wrote: post #57
todayiamme wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying that it's inappropriate for HN. I flagged it because I felt the author was courting controversy and neither did he present an interesting solution. It's hard to take an unpopular side and that takes moral courage, but the extensive use of reductio ad absurdum combined with the heavy handed way he delivered his arguments made me feel that the author isn't being entirely genuine. edit: I deleted my comme…

> I'm not saying that it's inappropriate for HN. I flagged it... But that's what flagging IS. Flagging an article means: this article is inappropriate and should be removed. See http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link."

Hrm. I usually use flagging these days to mark spam or a very heavy form of disapproval. However you're right, I was wrong, so I unflagged it.
Post reply on HN