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

241–250 of 332 posts

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

#241

Post by 385668 »

barik wrote: post #136
stickfigure wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I won't automatically be charged and put in jail, but I might be arrested. This is supposed to be reassuring?

> This is supposed to be reassuring? I guess I'll worry about it when and if it happens to me. But no, it's certainly not something I think about on a day to day basis, just as I also don't worry that someone might steal my car in the middle of the night and commit a crime with it -- another scenario in which, yes, you may also be arrested or at the very least questioned. I'm inclined to believe that such arrests are…

If I find myself in possession of a cocaine brick that I did not ask for, I will indeed worry. The point that the article made (as a tangent, admittedly) in regards to cocaine possession is that, should that situation arise, I can't take my cocaine to the police without risking arrest myself, and that's absurd.

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

#242

Post by 385668 »

Symmetry wrote: post #211
guard-of-terra wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And I'm a member of the tautology club because I'm a member of the tautology club.

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

#243

Post by 385668 »

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…

Gotta love the irony in being charged as an adult for making child pornography of yourself.

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

#244

Post by Daniel_Newby »

tzs wrote: post #175
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…

Texas changed that law last year. Now if one partner is under 17 and one over, but they are four years or less apart in age, and the younger partner is at least 15, then consensual sex between the two is legal. People convicted under the old law can petition a court to be removed from the offender list.

> People convicted under the old law can petition a court to be removed from the offender list.

No, listing is permanent. The background check companies never remove anything from their databases. In fact having a court purge an old conviction may make your life worse, since there is no longer an official record of the insignificance of the crime, just a private database that says CRIMINAL, CRIMINAL!

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

#245

Post by jtheory »

jtheory wrote: post #190
unconed wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why would you want to accept and encourage behavior that is not sane?" Because the evidence continues to stack up in staggering amounts that sexual preference is innate and out of our control. 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. Whether you like it or not, people are into kinky…

Do you have research to point to, wrt this? Because the evidence continues to stack up in staggering amounts that sexual preference is innate and out of our control. 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. There's a big jump from "sexual preference is innate" -- e.g., we can't use th…

Ah, hey -- here's an article hitting many of my same points with some actual citations etc. going on (on Gawker of all places? It's fairly solid reporting, though): http://gawker.com/5941037/born-this-way-sympathy-and-science...

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

#246

Post by verroq »

rprasad wrote: post #129
jwatte wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most movies in history would be illegal, because most of them depict murders. Note that it being an /actual/ murder or abused child is not a requirement.

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…

>There is an extremely high (as in, greater than 80%) correlation between willing viewership of child pornography and attempts to abuse/molest/rape a child

Just like there is an extremely high (as in, greater than 80%) correlation between willing viewership of normal pornography and attempts to abuse/molest/rape women.

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

#247

Post by Daniel_Newby »

objclxt wrote: post #110
Falkvinge wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for this additional information about specifics of the United States. The described case with accidentally recording and realizing you accidentally recorded still makes you culpable under the "knowingly", though. Cheers, Rick

I have a real problem with your argument here - as I suspect many lawyers would. I'd go so far as to call your hypothetical example completely laughable. The idea that if I stumble across someone raping a child they would "point and laugh" is completely ridiculous. It's somewhat ironic that given one of the arguments for strict liability laws was "won't someone think of the children" you're basically making the same…

> I'd go so far as to call your hypothetical example completely laughable.

Laughable? It's already happening. I should be able to gather child pornography from across the Internet, match it to photos (school pictures, Facebook, etc.), and report the hits to the police.

But it's illegal. Like all crimes of moral purity, it is not about rescuing the victims or punishing the wicked. It is a PR stunt by and for the witch hunters.

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

#248

Post by Daniel_Newby »

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.

> ... the last time I read the US Constitution, I don't recall it saying anything for or against child pornography, ...

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the free press ..."

Child pornography is explicitly permitted by Federal law. Most state constitutions are the same.

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

#249

Post by Daniel_Newby »

bmelton wrote: post #18
ThePherocity wrote: post #15

I hope he gets hit by a truck today. I really do. There isn't, nor will there ever be an argument where the enablement of child molestation and rape is acceptable. And if there is collateral damage, then so be it. I'd rather 100 go to jail wrongfully accused than to enable 1 child to be rape. This guy make me sick. Seriously Rick, please kill yourself.

I'm not 100% sure if you read the article, but the _first_ _point_ is that making criminalizing child pornography (therefore causing 100 innocent people to wrongfully go to jail) will, in the future, enable more child rapes. The possession of child pornography carries harsher penalties than the act of raping the child in the first place, which is I think wrong on a very obvious level, but by your (hopefully knee-jerk…

> The possession of child pornography carries harsher penalties than the act of raping the child in the first place, ...

And the rape carries higher penalties than recklessly killing them.

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

#250

Post by icebraining »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #228
icebraining wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 maturi…

Ah, your age of majority isn't 16?

Only five countries in the world have the age of majority at 16. The vast majority set it at 18 or older. From a cursory look at the lists, most countries set their age of consent lower than their age of majority.

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?

I think your framing of the question is misleading. Laws don't actually allow or disallow anything; they create incentives do perform certain behaviors. Since law or no law, kids will send pictures of themselves, I don't see exactly who are we helping by branding them as criminals.

Furthermore, I find the very idea of criminalizing such behavior to be obscene, and an insult to free speech.

Post reply on HN