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

311–320 of 332 posts

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

#311

Post by goggles99 »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #297
rmc wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In other words, you believe that "justice" for distasteful pictures is equivalent to preventing forcible rape of children. And since we can so easily redirect the prevention budget to pictures ...

Are you really stupid enough to think that this would reduce forcible rape? Do you know what a booming industry this would become in some smaller countries? These people do not have Facebook or yearbooks. They do not even have access to computers.

Please explain to me how legalizing kidde porn would reduce the amount of kidde porn?

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

#314

Post by goggles99 »

Please explain to me how legalizing kidde porn would reduce the amount of kidde porn?

Using this same (genius) logic. We should allow the willful purchase, transfer and use of counterfeit bills, but keep the actual counterfeiting illegal. THAT should fix the problem right???

How could any government implement a law to not allow creation of something, but allow it's sale, possession and use? This is not logical.

Anyone who supports this article is too self diluted by a twisted ideology to see the plain logic of why this whole argument is ridiculous.

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

#315

Post by alaaibrahim »

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.

Wow, you do take public urination seriously :)

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

#316

Post by lmm »

jonhendry wrote: post #310
lmm wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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, whethe…

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

Sure, but I wasn't thinking just material profit; any kind of reputation or warm fuzzies or whatever they get from distributing would be diminished if there was a lot of it already out there.

>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.

Interesting thought. I have to admit I have basically no idea what motivates child porn producers/distributors, I just assume they must be gaining something from it. Otherwise, even assuming you did take the pictures/videos, why distribute them?

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

Not the impression I've got; I remember an interview with a "normal" porn producer where he said that 1) there is nothing new or original in (mainstream) porn; every single shot you can take has been done thousands of time before and 2) the widespread availability of free porn on the internet was driving a lot of porn producers out of business or at least into more specialized niches.

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

#317

Post by cabalamat »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #173
icebraining wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, as TFA points out, it's very hard to distinguish the kinds of sharing. Sure, if you're seeding CP, that's clear cut, but sending erotic pictures to your girl/boyfriend is sharing too, and it's illegal if you're a minor.

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?

> 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?

In Scotland, 16 year olds can legally get married (without their parents' consent), and thus have a state-approved sexual relationship. They can perfectly legally take photos of themselves having sex, but the moment they show these photos to anyone else, they are evil child pornographers who must be punished.

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

#318

Post by Daniel_Newby »

goggles99 wrote: post #311
Daniel_Newby wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, you believe that "justice" for distasteful pictures is equivalent to preventing forcible rape of children. And since we can so easily redirect the prevention budget to pictures ...

Are you really stupid enough to think that this would reduce forcible rape? Do you know what a booming industry this would become in some smaller countries? These people do not have Facebook or yearbooks. They do not even have access to computers. Please explain to me how legalizing kidde porn would reduce the amount of kidde porn?

If that became a problem, the U.S. could simply eliminate copyright protection for child pornography. Thai producers could not turn a profit when faced with Mountain View pirates.

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

#319

Post by rmc »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #318
goggles99 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really stupid enough to think that this would reduce forcible rape? Do you know what a booming industry this would become in some smaller countries? These people do not have Facebook or yearbooks. They do not even have access to computers. Please explain to me how legalizing kidde porn would reduce the amount of kidde porn?

If that became a problem, the U.S. could simply eliminate copyright protection for child pornography. Thai producers could not turn a profit when faced with Mountain View pirates.

Im pretty sure possession of child porn is illegal. You don't need to mess with copyright protection at all. And widespread piracy doesn't stop the commercial enterprises, after all, Hollywood is the most pirated and massively profitable

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

#320

Post by rmc »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #297
rmc wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In other words, you believe that "justice" for distasteful pictures is equivalent to preventing forcible rape of children. And since we can so easily redirect the prevention budget to pictures ...

All rape, by definition, is forcible. Voluntary rape is an oxymoron.

Some conservative pundits like mentioned "forcible rape" as a way to try to make many things that are rape legal (like raping ones wife ("she consented when we for married"), raping someone who has consumed alcohol ("she was obviously out for sex, so gave consent that way") etc.). Please don't suggest this is a moral way to talk.

Post reply on HN