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

301–310 of 332 posts

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

#301

Post by c3o »

waterhouse wrote: post #288
goggles99 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just did picture murdering my family over dinner with a fork. I decided the idea holds no attraction to me, and is pretty stupid. I am not worried about deciding to do it in the foreseeable future. Feel free to explain how this situation is not ok. So are you saying that no one is ever harmed physically or emotionally when kidde porn is made? The opposite is actually true. I'm glad Falkvinge is addressing this issu…

So are you saying that no one is ever harmed physically or emotionally when kidde porn is made? The opposite is actually true. Not necessarily. Exactly what is kiddie porn? For starters, if someone uses a hidden camera to photograph or videotape a kid taking a bath, then that can't possibly cause any physical or emotional harm to the kid, because the camera does not physically act on the kid in any observable way, an…

"Furthermore, even in the brutal-rape case, the child is not harmed when a third party makes copies of the video."

What about the privacy rights of the victim? The argument could easily be made that a child can be traumatized all over again when finding out years later a recording of their abuse is spread far and wide on the internet and they have no chance of ever curtailing it. Whether it's feasible to prevent that (as with any other information) is another question, but copying images of child abuse doesn't seem that victimless a crime to me.

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

#302

Post by hcarvalhoalves » 

    So, on your lovely stroll in the park, you turn a corner, and to your shock, see a 12-year-old being brutally raped right in front of you.
    WHAM. You are now a criminal, guilty of recording, distributing, and possessing child pornography.
That makes no sense whatsoever. The author is completely stretching it to make his point valid. It's unlikely you would be charged by handling proofs to authorities in the first place; and if you do for any reason, a judge can obviously distinguish between possession of pornography and the proof of a crime.

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

#303

Post by Torgo »

cantankerous wrote: post #107
nhebb wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same situation happened to a family member of mine. He was 19 and his girlfriend was 17. Her dad got mad at him one night, called the cops, and had him arrested for statutory rape. He is now a registered sex offender. They went on dating and several years later got engaged. The relationship fell through, and they never did get married. But if they had, he would have been a registered sex offender for having sex w…

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.

While this helps, unfortunately there is a burgeoning business of websites that scrape offender lists and re-publish them, and will not remove your name unless you pay them money. There weas one a while back that would actually contact people on the list threatening to put up flyers in their neighborhood unless you paid. Note that this is regardless if your status on the official list has changed. There is no substitute for keeping people off these lists if they never should have been on them in the first place.

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

#304

Post by contumace »

c3o wrote: post #301
waterhouse wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you saying that no one is ever harmed physically or emotionally when kidde porn is made? The opposite is actually true. Not necessarily. Exactly what is kiddie porn? For starters, if someone uses a hidden camera to photograph or videotape a kid taking a bath, then that can't possibly cause any physical or emotional harm to the kid, because the camera does not physically act on the kid in any observable way, an…

"Furthermore, even in the brutal-rape case, the child is not harmed when a third party makes copies of the video." What about the privacy rights of the victim? The argument could easily be made that a child can be traumatized all over again when finding out years later a recording of their abuse is spread far and wide on the internet and they have no chance of ever curtailing it. Whether it's feasible to prevent that…

True. You just have to imagine yourself in that situation to see how unbearable it is. Even censor doesn't stop people from getting their hands on the material.

http://www.komonews.com/news/42848327.html

Quote : That leaves Kylie feeling ice cold every time she thinks about the "sick" people who take pleasure out of watching her "body being ravaged and raped." "Those images are out there forever," Kylie, now 19, said at her father's sentencing. "We can never erase what Ken has done."

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

#305

Post by pbhjpbhj »

icebraining wrote: post #250
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

>Laws don't actually allow or disallow anything; they create incentives do perform certain behaviors. //

That's just being linguistically obtuse. One can still do something that is not "allowed" by the law.

In your terms though the law is "disincentivizing" the relay of erotic images between minors. Why? Well I'd posit that maturer members of the community see that having naked sexually posed images of oneself available online is not especially helpful to the individual and may lead to negative attention, bullying, abuse and such. Making such actions illegal is saying that they are outside of the behaviour expected as morally normative.

>Since law or no law, kids will send pictures of themselves //

This is completely specious reasoning. Presumably then you're for anarchy as 'people break the law therefore it's wrong to have a law'. Great. But that doesn't speak to how to modify the law sensibly which is the locus of discussion.

>I find the very idea of criminalizing such behavior to be obscene //

This just seems like overly emotional speech; as if it's supposed to take the place of reasoned argument. Like "oh you find it obscene, now we must renormalise the societies laws to your personal preference".

Aside:

>The vast majority set [the age of majority] at 18 or older. //

I was quite surprised to find this. It's seem really strange to me not to treat a person over 16 as an adult. In my country they can leave home, vote, get married, have consensual sex, go to war, drink alcohol (with conditions), get tried in court as an adult, make medical consent decisions ... just not be called an adult, weird.

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

#306

Post by Torgo »

erichocean wrote: post #183
alaaibrahim wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, I don't live in the US so maybe I don't really understand, but why do these websites even exist. If someone is a dangerous sex offender, he shouldn't even be in the streets. If not, then he committed the crime, did the time, why does he need to be punished for life?

If not, then he committed the crime, did the time, why does he need to be punished for life? In fact, he didn't "do the time", because part of the punishiment is a life-long listing in the sex offender registries. If you'd rather, you can think of it this way: sexual offenses in the US carry a mandatory life-sentence, with some of that sentence being time spent in jail.

Last I knew, it was justified under public safety. People who had already been sentenced and served their time in the past had been listed on newly-created sex offender lists. Court ruled that it wasn't a punishment, so it couldn't be considered ex post facto punishment. Wikipedia indicates the case that decided this was Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003).

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

#307

Post by watty »

Falling3 wrote: post #59
watty wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like his crime was hidden, you read it yourself. The only thing the 19 year old and a 40 year old who touches toddlers is that they both committed a sexual crime. Even though they are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum it's still true.

No... one is abhorrent and takes a significant toll on someone too young to know what is even happening. The other is sex between to consenting, able-minded people. Conflating the two is dangerous, offensive, and just plain stupid.

I'm not sure I follow. It's also possible for someone to map everyone with felonies, is this inherently wrong? Someone with marijuana possession is certainly not the same as a serial killer but the website isn't making that conclusion.

If you disagree that having sex with a 16 year old as an 18 year old should be a sexual crime then perhaps you should fight the law itself.

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

#308

Post by guard-of-terra »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #300
guard-of-terra wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Naughty troll, back to your hole. I hope you find something productive to do with your time.

I genuinely care about people being wrongfully accused. Does it shock you?

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

#309

Post by Nick_C »

lmm wrote: post #278
jonhendry wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Here's a proposal. Mere possession should be legal, as Falkvinge argues. What should be illegal is purchasing child porn." Really? Why focus on purchase, when sharing is just as bad as far as incentivizing people producing new material to satisfy demand? People will scan and distribute books, or crack software and distribute it, purely for whuffie or reputation. They'll do the same with child porn.

>Why focus on purchase, when sharing is just as bad as far as incentivizing people producing new material to satisfy demand? Huh? Sharing increases supply and thus reduces demand. The more people are sharing existing child porn, the less profit there is to be made in producing new material.

> ... increases supply and thus reduces demand.

Rarely. Usually, increasing supply reduces prices which increases demand. The economic term is elasticity.

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

#310

Post by jonhendry »

lmm wrote: post #278
jonhendry wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Here's a proposal. Mere possession should be legal, as Falkvinge argues. What should be illegal is purchasing child porn." Really? Why focus on purchase, when sharing is just as bad as far as incentivizing people producing new material to satisfy demand? People will scan and distribute books, or crack software and distribute it, purely for whuffie or reputation. They'll do the same with child porn.

>Why focus on purchase, when sharing is just as bad as far as incentivizing people producing new material to satisfy demand? Huh? Sharing increases supply and thus reduces demand. The more people are sharing existing child porn, the less profit there is to be made in producing new material.

"The more people are sharing existing child porn, the less profit there is to be made in producing new material."

a) the producers aren't necessarily driven by a profit motive

b) it's not like they spend a lot on sets and crew and equipment, so 'break-even' isn't even an issue. They'd be taking that trip to Thailand anyway.

c) Porn customers value novelty, so there's pretty much always demand for new material, whether or not there's a viable business model.

Post reply on HN