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

221–230 of 332 posts

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

#221

Post by Cushman »

tokenizer wrote: post #198
Cushman wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's pretty easy to Google for specific cases of young adults, some less than 22 years old being prosecuted for having younger (16,17 years old) girl/boyfriends. What about teenagers sending naked pictures to their girl/boyfriends through their mobile phones? Not a problem you say? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJBIvBfk26o . So that video mentions the 15 year old girl who sent the photos, facing federal prosecution…

If you'll read my comment again, you may notice I'm talking about the specific claim that child pornography laws enable child rape. That is a claim I feel is without basis in fact.

The issue you're talking about is one I agree with, as I've noted elsewhere[0].

[0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4496072

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

#222

Post by veidr »

jeltz wrote: post #157
[deleted] wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Who is harmed by "virtual child porn"?

If we define harm as being to actual children (not religion/impure-thoughts kind of harm), then the only argument is that future children will be harmed, because the viewer of the porn will have his sexually deviant longings for children reinforced and then, one day, will rape/molest a real child.

Personally, I do not buy this argument at all. I think it is very likely that virtual child porn (comic, animation, CG) prevents molestation overall. Because honestly, what do men do when they watch porn? Mainly, jerk off. And then once that's done, the urge is substantially dissipated... and so the subject would be less likely to put themselves at risk committing a sex crime against an actual child (something I understand a lot of molesters also feel guilty about).

So my hunch is that virtual child porn is probably a net positive. But I doubt we will ever get good data about this, and anyway it is one of those issues where logic isn't so likely to prevail.

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

#223

Post by Johngibb »

koide wrote: post #143
cantankerous wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about your locale, but I know in my state you can petition the courts to have yourself removed from the sex offenders registry. It's a case-by-case thing, but it gives some hope to people like your family member, people who got busted for public urination, and other people who probably shouldn't be grouped in the same category as pedophiles.

I'm sorry, but in the US public urination puts you on the sex offenders registry? I don't know whether to laugh or cry at those urolagnic law writers.

Peeing in a park where there could has been children can put you on the list, with the rationale being that while urinating in public you're also potentially exposing yourself to children. It's definitely outrageous that it's on the same scale, but it's not like peeing on a dark alleyway at 3 am will do it.

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

#224

Post by ceol »

veidr wrote: post #222
jeltz wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is harmed by "virtual child porn"?

If we define harm as being to actual children (not religion/impure-thoughts kind of harm), then the only argument is that future children will be harmed, because the viewer of the porn will have his sexually deviant longings for children reinforced and then, one day, will rape/molest a real child. Personally, I do not buy this argument at all. I think it is very likely that virtual child porn (comic, animation, CG) p…

Except the concern isn't about satiating the pedophile's need; it's about the pedophile becoming desensitized and eventually normalized to the thought of having sex with a child. They experience "loli" or virtual children, and that would be the gateway to real ones.

If you're talking about a trained psychologist prescribing the material to a pedophile, that would be fine, but the vibe I'm getting from this discussion is a bunch of people think if you just open the loli flood-gates, all the pedophiles will stop raping children, and that just won't happen.

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

#225

Post by jtheory »

unconed wrote: post #201
jtheory wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shorter answer to this: That attempting to suppress it without any outlet is a recipe for a miserable life, possibly leading to dangerous and violent outbursts for perceived injustice and oppression. We want pedophiles to have miserable lives, if that's the cost of preventing children from being molested. It sucks, but that's the shitty hand they've drawn in life (particularly sad because they probably were molested…

"(particularly sad because they probably were molested themselves as children...)." And now I have to be the one to ask you for a citation. Either sexual preference is innate and that's the hand they've drawn in life, or it is the result of abuse and not their fault. But it can't be both.

Feel free to drop that bit entirely, and discuss my central points; it was a tangent.

I disagree with your claim, regardless. It is always both. Sexuality is influenced by lots of factors; the word "sexuality" itself refers to quite a lot of aspects of behavior and preferences, some of which are strongly influenced by things that happen before we are born, and many aspects of which are affected by things throughout our lives.

A woman who is strongly heterosexual, and at some point as an adult starts sexually abusing little boys, might find those relationships far more appealing than with adult men for reasons that include her own abuse as a child, the power balance, etc. etc.. Another woman with the same childhood abuse might have normal adult relationships. Nothing's JUST nature OR nurture; everything is affected by both.

But a clarifying link, if you're interested in correlations for child sex offenders who were abused themselves: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/42...

From that: "A study by Simons et al. (cited in Simons 2007) found that 30 percent of child sex offenders responded in the affirmative to the question ‘have you been sexually abused?’ Descriptions of the act of sexual abuse, however, produced prevalence rates of 58 percent (Simons 2007)."

(but read on if you're curious; it get muddier; I doubt I should just say most of them were abused as if that were a known fact)

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

#226

Post by anigbrowl »

dangoldin wrote: post #219
anonymous wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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&#...

Laws against drug possession are supposed to have a similar deterrent effect, but we know those don't work terribly well.

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

#227

Post by jiggy2011 »

vacri wrote: post #220
nostromo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think it's that simple. IANAL but AFAIK it works like this.

Prostitution is illegal, therefor paying someone to have sex with you while filming it would also be illegal.

In porn, two people have sex consensual sex with each other for free. A third party pays the couple for the rights to record the event and commercially exploit the recording (that in theory might have happened anyway).

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

#228

Post by pbhjpbhj »

icebraining wrote: post #185
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sexual relationships for minors is also illegal in most jurisdictions. Why do you need to allow minors to send erotic images of themselves when they're not allowed by law to engage in physical sexual activity?

Firstly, that's not exactly true. For example, the age of consent in 30 of the US states is 16 (as it is in many other countries), so many minors are in fact allowed to have sex (even with adults!) but still prohibited from sharing erotic pictures of themselves. Secondly, that argument poses a false dilemma; the other option would be to change both laws.

Ah, your age of majority isn't 16?

Re the false dilemma claim, I didn't present it as an only option; changing both laws is, like you say, consistent and was in mind when I made the argument I did.

Whilst it would be consistent to change both laws that doesn't make it any the less inconsistent to specifically alter your laws to allow for relay of erotic images for those considered to be under the age of sexual maturity. Or do you disagree?

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

#229

Post by pessimizer »

unconed wrote: post #207
iand wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it can for different people. Some people's preferences are innate, others arise through life experiences.

That wasn't what the previous commenter was saying at all, they said both 'probably' happen at the same time. It's a classic example of a contradiction used to hide cognitive dissonance, and being used to reinforce each other when they should cancel out. Women are empowered creatures who are just as capable as men, but also horribly oppressed and in need of special consideration. Socialist ideology is dangerous and a…

>Women are empowered creatures who are just as capable as men, but also horribly oppressed and in need of special consideration.

Great point, but I don't see the dissonance here - partially because I don't understand the phrase "empowered creatures." To say that women are just as capable as men, yet are horribly oppressed and in need for special consideration to offset that seems to lack any contradiction at all.

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

#230

Post by pbhjpbhj »

sellandb wrote: post #177
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sexual relationships for minors is also illegal in most jurisdictions. Why do you need to allow minors to send erotic images of themselves when they're not allowed by law to engage in physical sexual activity?

That's kind of one of the three legs of the article, that it shouldn't be rape for two 17 year olds to have sex and similarly it should not be a sexual crime for them to send each other pictures of themselves. Both of these "crimes" are clearly not the targets of their respective laws, so why are we creating "sex offenders" out of these people?

Neither is it rape nor is it necessarily a sexual crime for them to exchange sexual images of themselves in many jurisdictions, most I'd warrant.

You need to specify the jurisdiction you're referring to.

Post reply on HN