UK official involved in national porn filter arrested for child porn

Post by doreo » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 3:59 PM UTC

drdaeman wrote: post #31

astrodust wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There need to be prohibitions that don't discriminate on the basis of age. If someone's being abused, against their will, that's the same thing. It doesn't matter if they've crossed the magical line where they're an adult. If you're going to make a stand, at least make a principled one ("We're trying to prevent abuse") and not one on emotional basis ("Think of the children!")

It's age-based because it's defined that kids just can't (legally) consent, so lack of consent can be determined. You can't determine whenever characters on picture are consenting or not (or pretending they're not consenting but actually do). Especially if they're drawings that bear no resemblance to any real persons. So, while your suggestion is logically right by its nature, it just can't work in reality. Well, unl…

Post by tomp » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 4:14 PM UTC

rainer89 wrote: post #35

tomp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's worse, it doesn't actually need to be child pornography. Even computer-generated/digitally modified images/videos where actors resemble children, and even drawings that can be interpreted as children having sex, are illegal!

So if u are an anime fan you are so fuck in UK

Post by gadders » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 4:18 PM UTC

christoph wrote: post #16

zimpenfish wrote: post #2

I wish I could be surprised by the ongoing hypocrisy of our UK politicians but ...

It's hilarious just how badly you can pick them... Immigration minister resigns after hiring illegal immigrant cleaner http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/106261... Communications director resigns after phone hacking scandal http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jan/21/andy-coulson-re...

Post by Crito » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 4:33 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #20

tomp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's worse, it doesn't actually need to be child pornography. Even computer-generated/digitally modified images/videos where actors resemble children, and even drawings that can be interpreted as children having sex, are illegal!

There need to be prohibitions that don't discriminate on the basis of age. If someone's being abused, against their will, that's the same thing. It doesn't matter if they've crossed the magical line where they're an adult. If you're going to make a stand, at least make a principled one ("We're trying to prevent abuse") and not one on emotional basis ("Think of the children!")

Post by com_kieffer » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 4:40 PM UTC

gadders wrote: post #46

argumentum wrote: post #34

This is a longish, but awesome quote from my favorite Christopher Hitchens speech that's quite relevant to this: Every time you violate – or propose the violate – the right to free speech of someone else, you in potentia you’re making a rod for your own back. Because (…), to who do you reward the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker? Or to determine in advance what are the harmful co…

I get the "slippery slope" arguments etc, but I can't help feeling that the right to free speech shouldn't include the right to look at pictures of children being raped.