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

231–240 of 332 posts

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

#231

Post by jtheory »

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…

I absolutely was saying both could be factors (see more above), though obviously some child abusers were not abused as children, and many, many children are abused (especially girls -- the figure is something horrific like 1 in 4 girls experience some form of sexual abuse) who do not grow up to be abusers.

That was a parenthetical tangent that was intended to humanize abusers, not stir up a new debate (i.e., "what are the causes of pedophilia"), which is far less important than "what's the best way to prevent child abuse".

As far as I care, the causes can remain obscure without affecting research into how people can manage pedophilic urges effectively so that children aren't hurt, ideally while still treating the people with the urges as human beings.

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

#232

Post by jlgreco »

Johngibb wrote: post #216
jlgreco wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

I think it works both ways. On one hand some videos definitely seem to be published with the intent of exposing the horror of war (Collateral Murder comes to mind), while on the other hand some just seem to be straight up snuff that glorifies the violence.

It is a tricky subject, there probably is not a single correct answer.

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

#233

Post by bediger4000 »

erichocean wrote: post #188
bediger4000 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the law adjusts Not according to at least two of the US Supreme Court Justices. The US Constitution is not a "living document" to them, not interpretable according to the norms of the time.

I'm may be going out on a limb here, but the last time I read the US Constitution, I don't recall it saying anything for or against child pornography, so I don't think it'll be necessary to re-interpret the Constitution to update child porn laws.

I'm just mentioning that notable Legal Minds don't believe in adjusting laws. To some folks, a law is an immutable law, and you must follow it, whether you know that law exists or not.

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

#234

Post by darkarmani »

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.

How is that overzealous? That's exactly why the CP laws are crazy.

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

#235

Post by koide »

Johngibb wrote: post #223
koide wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I did some light research about the subject after I stopped laughing and crying.

It seems like it depends on the state, there are 13 states that have the "public urination leads to sex offense" regulation. Of those only 2 states have the "near a minor" clause. So 11 states can put you there for peeing in public, no strings attached. On those, you would be at the mercy of the police officers that catch you.

Also, I found out that the reason for the "public urination is a sex offense" is not urolagnia (at least it's not overt urolagnia), but a means to deter the flashers' defense "I was peeing, officer." Not sure it makes a lot of sense.

Disclaimer: As I said, this was light research on the topic, so there might be errors. Sources were mostly Straightdope forums and the Wikipedia, IIRC.

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

#236

Post by macchina »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #135
evoxed wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, I didn't know that. That's very interesting. That might explain why Japan has, apparently, something like 30% of the world's child porn website (vaguely remembered probably wrong statistic)

Same with Russia

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-02/world/russia.child.porn_1...

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

#237

Post by darkarmani »

birdcircle wrote: post #74
drcube wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I challenge anyone to find actual foundation for the claim that unwittingly recording a child rape in the park is a crime even if the witness reports it and provides the video evidence. Seems to me that this is the "slippery slope" argument taken to unreasonable extremes.

There is no need to slip before the argument is valid, so there is no slippery slope argument.

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

#238

Post by 385668 »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #227
vacri wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Actually, the argument is that prostitution is illegal because it's immoral, and porn though effectively the same thing is also immoral but protected under the first amendment. Hiring a prostitute and recording it is legal so long as you intend to distribute it.

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

#239

Post by 385668 »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #76
logn wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Regarding the US) I had a friend who went streaking on campus and was picked up by police. He got off of the charges on a technicality but almost was convicted. Had he been, he would have had to register as a sex offender. Same goes for public urination. We have a pretty insane system. I'm not sure the general public could ever follow a nuanced argument like this to understand it though. We usually legislate like fu…

Indeed. In a functional society the district attorney would decline to prosecute as there is no benefit to society in going after a public urinator, streaker, or sexting teenage couple. But here in the US a politician has to be "tough on crime" or work for the "benefit of the children".

True, however, most prosecutors are trying to get high conviction rates, and don't care about the good to society.

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

#240

Post by 385668 »

SageRaven wrote: post #161
sliverstorm wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you feel about skimming maps of criminal activity? I have, in the past, used maps of homicides/burglaries/assault to help determine where in town I'm going to live. That hardly seems strange in any way to me, and sexual predators is just another type of this kind of map.

There's a huge difference between looking at a map and seeing anonymous, aggregate stats on crimes and having a database of individuals who have committed those crimes. For example, imagine Google Maps with overlays for different types of crime. Say I check the "Sexual Assault, Children" box and notice that the park two blocks west of the plasma bank has a much higher density of such crime than the park two blocks ea…

Actually, if he's got three convictions under his belt, that is pretty useful information, but I agree, seems like double jeopardy to me.
Post reply on HN