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

81–90 of 332 posts

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

#81

Post by stickfigure »

Cushman wrote: post #45
tokenizer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Like the author points out. In the case of child pornography, simply having it is illegal regardless of reason, which makes people who come across such content, destroying their evidence. This would only put more people in jail, the killer (maybe), and the people watching it (maybe). I'd rather it just be the killer. And the molester in the case of the article.

The author's case in claiming that is hilariously weak. He presents a ludicrously tromped-up stranger-rape scenario where the rapist gets off scott-free because of child porn laws. But wait, he says this isn't some "far-fetched science fiction scenario". He's about to tell us about a case where something very like this happened or almost happened! This is exactly what will happen as our mobile phones take the next st…

While this clearly seems far fetched, it is the actual state of law today.

If fifteen years ago you had told me that these laws would be used to prosecute teenagers who take pictures of themselves, or of teenagers who have consensual sex with each other, I would have thought it absurd. No prosecutor could be that insane, right? And yet here we are.

When I was 16 (23 years ago), I dated an 18 year old. It's shocking to think that she could have been thrown in jail. This state of things is unnaceptable.

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

#82

Post by stickfigure »

barik wrote: post #71
Falling3 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm saying that the risk-reward ratio is way too skewed for me to give it a second thought.

Oh, absolutely. It is not something that a regular person would ever need to worry about, since statistically the odds of this ever happening to any one person are extremely low (and even if it did, the person may not even know it because of procedures such as the above). But it's important enough at a national level that security officials are interested in tackling the problem. So yes, it's possible that drugs have…

So I won't automatically be charged and put in jail, but I might be arrested.

This is supposed to be reassuring?

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

#83

Post by sophacles »

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.

The gp poster is one of a very enlightened few. There was a person in a similar situation in my area for a while. Someone found him on the registry, and he was subsequently banned from several organizations he was previously considered a valuable member of. By this time he was in his late 20s and talking to some of the shriller voices against them, I realized they didn't understand the difference between something he did at 19 and something he wouldn't do at 28. They just assumed he was after their 13 year old daughters and nothing else. Ruined a lot of his ability to participate in society.

Similarly, there are many, many employers who will dismiss any chance for job based on mere presence on the list. No questions, no mitigating circumstance. This is a punishment that is life-long, goes far beyond the crime, and honestly, leaves little recourse for the offender to become a drain on society, or turn to further crimes just to get by. (blast me for being a stupid hippy liberal if you want, but explain how we expect someone to get a job if we deny them the ability to get a job without saying "just get a job").

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

#84

Post by krakensden »

sanxiyn wrote: post #11
krakensden wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He seems to be writing primarily about Sweden.

I think the argument stands. I think even in Sweden, teenagers engaging in sexual activity is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries.

I guess I misinterpreted you- I thought you were saying the free-speech-favorable outcome of the case meant his concerns were moot.

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

#85

Post by guard-of-terra »

The real problem is not the child porn.

The real problem is "morals", "christianity" and "religion". Only by slaying these you can fix the problem in the long run. So:

- If you happen to be religious, quit it right now please.

- Press everybody to do that.

- If you find yourself pressing your "moral values" on somebody over, quit.

- Press everybody to do that.

It's pointless anyway since gods aren't real. And your moral values likely aren't very moral in the end.

(The main problem - most of people who is affected by this issue aren't on HN; most of people on HN aren't affected)

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

#86

Post by evoxed »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #67
crazygringo wrote: post #56

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, a…

>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. In Japan, "lolicon" and "shotacon" (referring to (sometimes animated) pornography of underage (often pre-pubescent) females and males respectively) seem to be widely available, so that would be interesting to look into.…

Actually possession of child pornography isn't illegal here either, and for that specific reason IIRC. Buying/selling or attempting to distribute are crimes though– basically it's like weed in Massachusetts. That being said I don't know the statistics on underage molestation but I don't think it would provide a very helpful model for the US.

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

#87

Post by sudonim »

parfe wrote: post #46
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…

> 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. The age of consent in Texas is 17 with a 3 year Romeo and Juliet exception.

Maybe I misremembered the ages? They were very close because my shock at the time is etched in my brain. Could have been 18 - 16.

And I'm guessing this guy was convicted before Romeo & Juliet laws. Looks like Rick Perry also vetoed that law in 2011? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform

Wikipedia is a little unclear on the issue.

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

#88

Post by sophacles »

crazygringo wrote: post #56

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, a…

Shock video sites that feature murders, dismemberment and other forms of crime on video for voyeuristic pleasure are a pretty big business. Perhaps not as big as child pornography woud be/is, but big enough that your distinction is a bit questionable.

Further, videos of people getting murdered raise enough of an outcry that they get investigated/prosecuted much harder. Instances of child molestation are hidden, so there can only be public outcry in the abstract, leading to crazy laws that resemble witch hunts more than legal proceedings.

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

#89

Post by nohat »

droob wrote: post #43
olalonde wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't thing it's such an edge case. I'd be willing to bet that at least 90% of people on HN have witnessed child pornography at least once on the Internet. That's a lot of criminals. Spend a few minutes on 4chan's /b/ and you will probably see some.

But "witnessed" is not the same as "arrested for" or "prosecuted for".

But you could be. Universal crimes that are only prosecuted when the police want to get you are a large part of the problem. Everyone is guilty of something - see Three Felonies a Day.

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

#90

Post by ShirtlessRod »

droob wrote: post #43
olalonde wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't thing it's such an edge case. I'd be willing to bet that at least 90% of people on HN have witnessed child pornography at least once on the Internet. That's a lot of criminals. Spend a few minutes on 4chan's /b/ and you will probably see some.

But "witnessed" is not the same as "arrested for" or "prosecuted for".

If you "witnessed" it while browsing, you also downloaded it onto your computer.
Post reply on HN