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

211–220 of 332 posts

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

#211

Post by Symmetry »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #10
droob wrote: post #2

I find these edge cases extremely implausible, and counter to the way crimes are investigated and prosecuted. "Possessing cocaine is illegal but IMAGINE IF SOMEONE THREW A COCAINE BRICK AT YOU AND YOU CAUGHT IT!!!"

But if you look from another angle - why should cocaine possession be illegal at all? Cocaine seems (to me) to be somewhat less severe drug than, say, alcohol. Same applies to child porn. A lot of stuff qualifies as child porn recently, including stuff originally not meant to be any kind of porn neither produced with any harm to kids. Unless child porn prosecution proponents can limit themself with some strict defini…

Most of the studies I've seen say that cocaine is roughly as dangerous to the user as cocaine, but that someone using alcohol is much more likely to end up harming others.

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

#212

Post by Symmetry »

droob wrote: post #112
nohat wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's good to have a jaywalking law on the books if someone runs into traffic and causes and accident.

But it wouldn't be good to have the punishment for jaywalking be decades in jail.

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

#213

Post by Symmetry »

drcube wrote: post #63
birdcircle wrote: post #55

"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 innoc…

In this case both destroying the evidence and possessing the evidence are crimes. What are you supposed to do?

They're both crimes, but you're much less likely to get arrested if you don't go to the police.

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

#214

Post by kmm »

todayiamme wrote: post #68
kmm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand for child pornography there is always a victim. Some child, somewhere, had to go through an ordeal that will destroy and shape the rest of his/her life to produce that series of images or videos. Some child somewhere had to be damaged for the pleasure of people watching that video. Absolutely not. Did you even read the article? Not everything that would be called child pornography in court is mole…

>>> Did you even read the article? Not everything that would be called child pornography in court is molestation of prepubescent children. One of the main points of the article is that it might be consensual sex between, say, two sixteen year olds. Or it could be kids putting it online themselves (remember Jessi Slaughter?). Yes, I did and I was talking about the specific kind of pornography these laws were trying to…

> ... as well including the fact that it isn't a victimless crime

I feel like it still is. No child is directly harmed. There are indubitably indirect consequences, but those are unknown and irrelevant. If you search far enough, no crime is victimless.

For a less offensive metaphor, consider drug use. I have no doubt that if marijuana is legalized, people will die because of the actions of inebriated persons. However, because this is only indirect and no other aspects are taken into account, it would be unfair to not call the usage of marijuana a victimless crime.

So I don't deny some children might be molested that wouldn't have been molested without the legalisation of child pornography. However, some children might also be saved from harm (by paedophiles being able to "vent" perhaps). I don't think anybody can know whether the count of children saved minus children harmed would be netto positive (and I don't think it matters, because this is starting to sound like utilitarianism).

In short, some children might be saved, some might be harmed, we don't and can't know. However, because no child would be directly harmed, viewing and distributing is still a victimless crime and some people are of the principle that no victimless crime should be punishable by law.

> Arousal and sexuality is quite a complex thing. It's not as clear cut as we would like to believe. I've tried to find case papers and references for this and failed, but I recall reading a fascinating account by a neuro-psychiatrist on how sex offenders often get aroused while reciting their tales. In some cases documentation and distribution of the act was a part of their ritual and it aroused them as well, so it's not as far fetched as you think.

Granted. However, this also seems true (even more so) for murderers. Anders Breivik no doubt enjoyed the media attention and I didn't hear voices calling for his manifesto to become illegal to spread.

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

#215

Post by sunnysunday »

aes256 wrote: post #187
sunnysunday wrote: post #180

Some time ago, thanks to a tip on HN, I was listening to a interview with Stanley Kubrick recorded in the 1960's in New York. He's a genius in the opinion of many, myself included, so I was happy for the tip. This is what makes HN worth reading. In the interview, one of the films that was mentioned a few times was Lolita (1962). This is one Kubrick film I have never seen. So I did a little research on it. It's based…

> No one should have to watch this stuff. But even more important, no one should _want_ to watch this stuff. The question is: Why do people want to watch violence and murder? People are morbid. People are curious. People want to see things that push the boundaries, that are rare, that few others have seen. I think there's a really important analogy to be drawn between videos of this nature and child pornography. It s…

I think you are making an assumption that I am suggesting there's a link between what people watch and what they do. I would expect that such assumptions would be made. It is an issue that is debated ad nauseum. No surprise you brought it up.

But I am not suggesting that, nor am I contemplating that issue. I am merely suggesting there indeed appears to be strong "market" for watching violence and murder, whether it is Hollywood or whether it is for real. And I might hope that the reader would question why that market exists. Issues of whether or how it should be "regulated" are besides the point. The question I'm asking is: Why do people want to watch such things to begin with?

And maybe this leads to thinking about the idea of "Hollywood" versus real life. What is "reality TV"? Why would "reality TV" be marketable?

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

#216

Post by Johngibb »

jlgreco wrote: post #158
jeltz wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In my mind the reason for this is often increasing government transparency and encouraging citizens to be more critical of the government by exposing them to the gruesome realities that most of us don't see often. I think that the hypothesis here is that violent acts or murders committed for the camera is fairly rare, which seems fairly likely based on my observations. I'm not sure though and would be interested to hear from someone with more information.

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

#217

Post by vacri »

Falling3 wrote: post #108
sophacles wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I almost commented about this... but then I realize I had no evidence whatsoever for any of those claims. Do you? http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.asp

That is an extremely old Snopes page, written at the dawn of the internet, when pictures were captured on film or tape, not in bytes. I recall reading that very page back then. It does say 'last updated 2006', but the most recent reference in 1999, and only seems to talk about famed snuff films to that date.

To contrast, the main article gives a direct link to such a snuff film as snopes says doesn't exist. Shock sites also had things like the Taliban beheading videos. Snopes is clearly wrong on this one.

I'm not sure how much 'big business' shock sites would have though - I can't see them selling much in the way of subscriptions, only monetising through web ads.

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

#218

Post by pbhjpbhj »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #179
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So murder, for example, should be legal because making something illegal - simply because the current moral norm is against it - is wrong?

If legalising murder somehow leads to consistently lower murder rates, it should be done. Why the hell not? The main idea is keeping people alive and well. The main idea is NOT the persecution for crimes. That's a tool of limited usability.

Are you claiming that it's a fact that legalisation of child pornography reduces instances of children being exploited to produce pornography?

If not then I'm afraid I don't see how your comment is relevant to your universal claim in the previous comment in this thread? You never mentioned these conditions along with your previous requirement not to limit was is against the moral norm by use of legal statute.

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

#219

Post by dangoldin »

anonymous wrote: post #182
ScottBurson wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a proposal. Mere possession should be legal, as Falkvinge argues. What should be illegal is purchasing child porn. You might reply that it might be difficult to prove that money changed hands, particularly in this brave new Bitcoin world. Fine. Let's say that possession of images that are known to have been sold to anyone at any time constitutes prima facie circumstantial evidence that the person possessing th…

Why not criminalise only selling? If you criminalise buying, less people will buy it, therefore the sellers will be less visible. And you do want to catch the sellers, not the buyers. I'm pretty sure peer pressure alone can regulate against people looking at child porn, no need to involve the police in it.

I forget where I read it but it was something along the line that penalizing the buyers of prostitution has a larger impact than penalizing the prostitutes themselves. By killing demand you end up getting rid of the supply.

Here's a paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2057299&#...

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

#220

Post by vacri »

nostromo wrote: post #47
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…

Overzealous prosecutors have also charged teens that "sext" other teens with possession of child pornography. ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/ns/technology_and_scien... ) We've ended up in the odd place that a teen in possession of pictures of his or her own body is breaking an incredibly grim law.

Ironically in some jurisdictions prostitution is illegal but making porn is legal, so in a reverse of your comment, an illegal act can become legal by simply filming it.
Post reply on HN