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

151–160 of 332 posts

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

#151

Post by ricardobeat »

Falling3 wrote: post #106
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…

Isn't the easy answer virtual child porn? I really see no reason why this is also illegal except it makes people feel icky. This allows potential rapists to satisfy their desires without harming any actual children.

Why should everyone be "satisfied"? What if a similar percentage of the population has a knack for fresh brains?

Maybe that is what all those zombie movies are about: crime prevention.

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

#152

Post by jeltz »

geon wrote: post #149
jeltz wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And despite there being a huge market for depictions of murder thee has as far as I know never been anyone producing a snuff video for the money. People like Luka Magnotta either keep the videos for themselves or upload them for free.

A "market" doesn't necessarily involve monetary compensation. It can be a trivial as "likes", pageviews or peer recognition. THere is a very real market, possibly bigger than the child porn market. That there are websites dedicated to gore videos is proof of this.

Indeed, I should have been more clear. What I meant that despite there being a huge market very few are encouraged to commit these crimes to satisfy the needs of the market.

The market is mostly based around crmies that would have been happened anyway. There are some exceptions like possibly Luka Magnotta who while he did not do it for the money might have done it for the attention. But people like him a rare.

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

#153

Post by Falling3 »

ricardobeat wrote: post #151
Falling3 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the easy answer virtual child porn? I really see no reason why this is also illegal except it makes people feel icky. This allows potential rapists to satisfy their desires without harming any actual children.

Why should everyone be "satisfied"? What if a similar percentage of the population has a knack for fresh brains? Maybe that is what all those zombie movies are about: crime prevention.

They should be satisfied if it comes at no harm to others and the alternative is harming others. Isn't that kind of a no-brainer?

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

#154

Post by jlgreco »

sophacles wrote: post #88
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 th…

Not just shock videos, but propaganda videos of things like IED or sniper attacks in certain warzones as well. The ability to distribute those videos plays a non-trivial role in why those attacks are carried out. Blowing up a car or two for the sake of the act itself isn't worth much, but the propaganda value of those videos shouldn't be underestimated.

If I were inclined to think that banning those videos would actually do anything to prevent people who wanted to see them from seeing them (I do not), I would assert that banning those videos would disincentivize the acts.

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

#155

Post by [deleted] »

Falling3 wrote: post #153
ricardobeat wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should everyone be "satisfied"? What if a similar percentage of the population has a knack for fresh brains? Maybe that is what all those zombie movies are about: crime prevention.

They should be satisfied if it comes at no harm to others and the alternative is harming others. Isn't that kind of a no-brainer?

[deleted]

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

#156

Post by erikpukinskis »

This essay is a great example of sapping an argument of its power through dilution. At various points he argues all of the following:

1) the law is too broad (innocent teenagers)

2) the law is not broad enough (should cover murder too)

3) the wrong judicial standard is applied (strict liability)

4) abridging free speech is fundamentally destructive

These are four totally distinct elements of our legal structure, each with vastly different potential solutions. They are bound only by the fact that they are critiques of the current legal system.

To try and take in all four at once leads to a combinatorial explosion of possible solutions.

If he believes no. 4 then nos. 1-3 are immaterial. And even if he sells you on 1-3, none of those are good arguments for abolishing the law. In the end, the essay loses its power because he is not presenting a coherent critique.

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

#157

Post by jeltz »

[deleted] wrote: post #155
Falling3 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should be satisfied if it comes at no harm to others and the alternative is harming others. Isn't that kind of a no-brainer?

[deleted]

Who is harmed by "virtual child porn"?

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

#158

Post by jlgreco »

jeltz wrote: post #152
geon wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "market" doesn't necessarily involve monetary compensation. It can be a trivial as "likes", pageviews or peer recognition. THere is a very real market, possibly bigger than the child porn market. That there are websites dedicated to gore videos is proof of this.

Indeed, I should have been more clear. What I meant that despite there being a huge market very few are encouraged to commit these crimes to satisfy the needs of the market. The market is mostly based around crmies that would have been happened anyway. There are some exceptions like possibly Luka Magnotta who while he did not do it for the money might have done it for the attention. But people like him a rare.

Distributing videos of criminal acts for popularity does seem to be rare.

However distributing videos of acts of war (or terrorism, or freedom fighting, or whatever you want to call it) for popularity (propaganda) seems to be immensely popular. Youtube and especially LiveLeaks are full of these videos. Everything from IR videos from helicopter gunships blowing up people at night to telephoto video footage of snipers shooting people driving along roads.

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

#159

Post by alaaibrahim »

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'm sorry, I don't live in the US so maybe I don't really understand, but why do these websites even exist.

If someone is a dangerous sex offender, he shouldn't even be in the streets. If not, then he committed the crime, did the time, why does he need to be punished for life?

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

#160

Post by [deleted] »

Falling3 wrote: post #134
rprasad wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between an actual murder and a depiction of a murder. In the former, someone actually dies . In the latter, an actor falls over. The actual crime is very much an element to the illegality of a snuff film. Snuff films are illegal precisely because someone actually dies. Child porn is illegal because a kid actually gets raped. There are a few rare situations involving "fake" child porn. Should the…

Really? There's a correlation between viewing child porn and molesting a child? Could that be any more obvious? There's probably an excellent correlation between viewing porn involve heterosexual adults and people who engage in heterosexual sex.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN