Live data from Hacker News

UK official involved in national porn filter arrested for child porn

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN

Print view View original

51–60 of 79 posts

Re: UK official involved in national porn filter arrested for child porn

#51

Post by nate_meurer » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 4:46 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.

How about describing it in words? Or merely thinking about it? Should those be crimes too? How about cartoon or CG depictions? And who gets to decide which of these things sends you to prison?

I'm not trying to be a smartass, and I actually upvoted your comment, but you do seem to have completely missed the point of Hitchens' speech.

Re: UK official involved in national porn filter arrested for child porn

#52

Post by polymatter » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 4:50 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #43

rainer89 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think it would be fair to argue that Asians (girls especially) look much younger to Europeans than they actually are. In Vietnam, we had a guide that I judged to be 16-19 years old. and it turned out she was 23. So anime, even though they look like kids, do not represent depictions of children.

Only if you convince a jury of that. Anime girls can also typically display very child-like behaviour (to a European eye). I'm thinking of things like princess dresses, overly excited about simple things, still into teddy bears etc. And you can't very well tell a fictional characters age, especially if it is in a fictional universe.

It only needs to be an anime in which characters might have sex or be doing something sexual explicit enough for a jury to decide they are "indecent". Also it doesn't need to be pictographic or 'on screen'. Fantasy stories are also covered. So its not like its safe to read manga or where the anime isn't explicitly a porn either. Plus, in case that wasn't draconian enough, possession is criminal, regardless of intent.

Plus these are huge stakes here. The mere accusation can be life destroying. Taking it to jury and winning would still significantly affect your personal and professional relationships. Its not something you really want to risk. Especially not if you want to ever have children or work anywhere near them. Its not something you can really gamble on convincing a jury and everyone who ever hears that you took this to a jury trial whether you thought the character in the anime was 16 or 23.

Plus I believe the same thing applies to rape fantasy as well. So if a 23 year old fictional anime character was raped in a completely fictional anime, that could land you prosecuted as well. For possession. In theory. Of course they will probably use their discretion not to prosecute you.

You might get away with it if the manga was in the original japanese. I doubt they bother enforcing this draconian law to the extent of employing translators.

Re: UK official involved in national porn filter arrested for child porn

#53

Post by philbarr » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 4:59 PM UTC

DanHulton wrote: post #48

christoph wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I dunno, the Immigration minister there seems like he acted pretty well. When he hired the cleaning lady, she showed proper documents and - if I'm reading this correctly - insisted she continued to have the right to work even when she didn't. When he found out his mistake, he corrected it by letting her go and resigning. Maybe the article's being too generous, but that seems like pretty above-the-board behaviour for…

If I remember this correctly, I think he had just been actively accusing employers of not doing due diligence when hiring people and that ignorance was no excuse.

Then it turns out that he was doing the exact same thing...

Re: UK official involved in national porn filter arrested for child porn

#54

Post by gadders » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 5:06 PM UTC

nate_meurer wrote: post #51

gadders wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How about describing it in words? Or merely thinking about it? Should those be crimes too? How about cartoon or CG depictions? And who gets to decide which of these things sends you to prison? I'm not trying to be a smartass, and I actually upvoted your comment, but you do seem to have completely missed the point of Hitchens' speech.

The first two don't involved the abuse of an actual, physical child though so I think a fairly clear depiction could be drawn between them and a photo or video of an actual act of abuse.

As to "who gets to decide which of these acts sends you to prison?" that would be our elected representatives, right? They make all sorts of decisions at our request on our behalf.

Re: UK official involved in national porn filter arrested for child porn

#55

Post by christoph » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 5:06 PM UTC

philbarr wrote: post #53

DanHulton wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, the Immigration minister there seems like he acted pretty well. When he hired the cleaning lady, she showed proper documents and - if I'm reading this correctly - insisted she continued to have the right to work even when she didn't. When he found out his mistake, he corrected it by letting her go and resigning. Maybe the article's being too generous, but that seems like pretty above-the-board behaviour for…

If I remember this correctly, I think he had just been actively accusing employers of not doing due diligence when hiring people and that ignorance was no excuse. Then it turns out that he was doing the exact same thing...

Yes. He was in the process of passing legislation that doubled the fine for "lazy" employers that didn't fully check the immigration status of their employees.

Re: UK official involved in national porn filter arrested for child porn

#56

Post by nate_meurer » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 5:21 PM UTC

gadders wrote: post #54

nate_meurer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about describing it in words? Or merely thinking about it? Should those be crimes too? How about cartoon or CG depictions? And who gets to decide which of these things sends you to prison? I'm not trying to be a smartass, and I actually upvoted your comment, but you do seem to have completely missed the point of Hitchens' speech.

The first two don't involved the abuse of an actual, physical child though so I think a fairly clear depiction could be drawn between them and a photo or video of an actual act of abuse. As to "who gets to decide which of these acts sends you to prison?" that would be our elected representatives, right? They make all sorts of decisions at our request on our behalf.

What? A written description (story, song, poem, etc) is a depiction of an event just the same as a photo. A sketch drawn by someone at the scene? What exactly is the difference? The story could be fake, the photo could be photoshopped. It doesn't matter. It's all mere depiction of an illegal act. There's no question that the act itself is illegal. What you will be punished for is simply regarding the act in some form at a later time.

> "that would be our elected representatives, right?"

Awesome. Yes, I know how our laws are made. Please read the Hitchens quote above for context. The question is, can a society that values freedom of expression safely entrust any human with the power to decide which sorts of expression are allowed and which are not?

History, generally, does not make "yes" the obvious answer.

Re: UK official involved in national porn filter arrested for child porn

#57

Post by dspillett » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 5:27 PM UTC

taybin wrote: post #40

dspillett wrote: post #5

A lot of people who are rabidly fighting against the Internet being a free-for-all are significantly damaged and assume the rest of the world is damaged in the same way so need to be protected.

So if the internet were a free for all, there wouldn't be child pornography? Your logic here doesn't follow.

No, I neither said nor meant anything of the sort. I was meaning that people who overreact and propose unworkable solutions tend to be those that have a problem themselves. They assume we all need saving from ourselves in the same way that they need help, they have trouble coping with the idea that their thoughts/desires/reactions to such things are far different from everyone else because in (almost) every other way they consider themselves normal.

Filtering the web will not make any real long-term difference to either those distributing or those looking for CP, IMO. You are not going to just stumble upon CP because a filter failed: people distributing that sort of material don't want to be found that easily because they don't want the authorities to stumble upon them. Likewise if someone really wants to find that sort of thing then the sort of filters proposed with not stop them in the slightest. It is one of those "people problems" that I very much doubt you can fix with technical measures (how you could fix it I have no idea, but I'm pretty sure that the proposed filters will be ineffective and will cause inconvenience elsewhere while not actually doing their job).

Re: UK official involved in national porn filter arrested for child porn

#58

Post by gadders » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 5:35 PM UTC

nate_meurer wrote: post #56

gadders wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first two don't involved the abuse of an actual, physical child though so I think a fairly clear depiction could be drawn between them and a photo or video of an actual act of abuse. As to "who gets to decide which of these acts sends you to prison?" that would be our elected representatives, right? They make all sorts of decisions at our request on our behalf.

What? A written description (story, song, poem, etc) is a depiction of an event just the same as a photo. A sketch drawn by someone at the scene? What exactly is the difference? The story could be fake, the photo could be photoshopped. It doesn't matter. It's all mere depiction of an illegal act. There's no question that the act itself is illegal. What you will be punished for is simply regarding the act in some form…

But governments limit other forms of speech such as hate speech. Or what about false advertising claims? Or holocaust deniers or people who claim vaccines don't work?

And yes, photos can be photoshopped but in that case I think they should be treated separately. Similarly, sketches and stories can all be works of the imagination without an event happening. A (genuine) photo or a movie is a capture of an actual event, not an invention.

Re: UK official involved in national porn filter arrested for child porn

#59

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 5:40 PM UTC

nate_meurer wrote: post #56

gadders wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first two don't involved the abuse of an actual, physical child though so I think a fairly clear depiction could be drawn between them and a photo or video of an actual act of abuse. As to "who gets to decide which of these acts sends you to prison?" that would be our elected representatives, right? They make all sorts of decisions at our request on our behalf.

What? A written description (story, song, poem, etc) is a depiction of an event just the same as a photo. A sketch drawn by someone at the scene? What exactly is the difference? The story could be fake, the photo could be photoshopped. It doesn't matter. It's all mere depiction of an illegal act. There's no question that the act itself is illegal. What you will be punished for is simply regarding the act in some form…

[deleted]

Re: UK official involved in national porn filter arrested for child porn

#60

Post by chrisdevereux » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 5:40 PM UTC

gadders wrote: post #44

chrisdevereux wrote: post #11

The most interesting thing about this to me is that shortly after the advisor was arrested, the rightwing Daily Mail started a smear campaign against senior members of the opposition, effectively accusing them of having supported paedophilia in the 1970s[1]. It dominated UK headlines for about a week, until the Ukraine crisis, at which point the (much more serious and concrete) allegations against the government advi…

And as that Guardian article concludes: "But I'm with the Mail on this. On the basis of the paper's evidence, I think Harman, Dromey and Hewitt do need to address this matter seriously. It isn't good enough to say the world was different then (as some have been suggesting in relation to the recent crop of historic sex abuse court cases) because there has never been a time when it has been all right to advocate sex wi…

Yeah, I posted that article because it gave a good summary of the sequence of events w/r/t the Mail's reporting. I don't really agree with that last point.

There's no evidence that any of the Labour politicians expressed sympathetic attitudes towards paedophilia. Their argument at the time was about exactly where criminality should begin --- arguing against a blanket ban on images of nude children (because it might criminalise totally innocent parents) and sex between underage children of a similar age (which is arguably more an issue for education, youth services, etc. than the police and courts) --- y'know, the sort of things you'd expect a civil liberties organisation to be concerned with.

You might disagree with their position, but the Mail's reports really were trying to cast them as having been sympathetic to child abuse ("LABOUR MP ADVOCATES LOWERING OF AGE OF CONSENT TO 10", etc.), which clearly wasn't the case. It's hard to see it as anything other than a smear campaign (or, at best, extremely sensationalized journalism) given that.

Post reply on HN