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

251–260 of 332 posts

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

#251

Post by rmc »

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…

Drug prohibition is a different issue.

Yes, there are cases of things which are not child porn in spirit, however its important to remember that there are things that are actual child porn. There are pictures of young children and toddlers and babies being raped. We don't see them in the mass media, because they are disgusting, but they exist. Don't forget that creating this pictures is probably one of the most horrific and harmful crimes in modern society.

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

#252

Post by rmc »

olalonde wrote: post #5
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!!!"

I don't thing it's such an edge case. I'd be willing to bet that at least 90% of people on HN have witnessed child pornography at least once on the Internet. That's a lot of criminals. Spend a few minutes on 4chan's /b/ and you will probably see some.

What? When you say "child porn" do you mean a 17 year old in a bikini? Or a 3 year old being raped? There is a massive difference between the 2.

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

#253

Post by rmc »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #247
objclxt wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I suspect one reason why thats illegal is because it would be an easy way for Aaron pedophile to use it as an excuse. More bad guys would use that excuse to avoid justice than good guys.

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

#254

Post by rimantas »

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…

  > there isn't a big market for watching videos of murders.
This market is already saturated. Just count how many murders you see on TV every day.

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

#255

Post by rimantas »

ceol wrote: post #224
veidr wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I guess by now we are so desensitised to murder and violence by watching action movies and playing video games that it became normal activity for us?

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

#256

Post by jahmed »

koide wrote: post #235
Johngibb wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

I tend to agree with getting put on some kind of shame list if you get caught urinating in public though. If you're regularly getting caught pissing in bushes you are obviously really bad at not having people see you pissing in bushes.

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

#257

Post by contumace »

rmc wrote: post #252
olalonde wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't thing it's such an edge case. I'd be willing to bet that at least 90% of people on HN have witnessed child pornography at least once on the Internet. That's a lot of criminals. Spend a few minutes on 4chan's /b/ and you will probably see some.

What? When you say "child porn" do you mean a 17 year old in a bikini? Or a 3 year old being raped? There is a massive difference between the 2.

A 17 year old in a bikini isn't pornographic. I don't think anyone got arrested for that.

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

#258

Post by guard-of-terra »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #218
guard-of-terra wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am claiming that calling 16 years old taking shots of themselves "producing and distributing child pornography" does not help any children.

I could not care less about actual child pornography being illegal. Do whatever pleases you. Just take your dirty hands off teenagers.

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

#259

Post by contumace »

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

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Who is harmed by "virtual child porn"?

We wouldn't know what "virtual child porn" could/would be based on (real children depicted in virtual fantasies, pictures of real child abuse etc.). I know virtual child porn is often a reference to unrealistically drawn lolicon material. But what causes much more controversy is realistic material (3D, photorealistic).

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

#260

Post by koide »

jahmed wrote: post #256
koide wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

I tend to agree with getting put on some kind of shame list if you get caught urinating in public though. If you're regularly getting caught pissing in bushes you are obviously really bad at not having people see you pissing in bushes.

I'm not opposed to what you say, the big problem I expect you agree with is mixing (and thus equating) the "urinators" with the rapists.
Post reply on HN