71–79 of 79 posts
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…
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.
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.
But would it not be worse to censor that material to thwart the few perverts that may get off on it, all the while preventing the public from knowing and feeling the truth so viscerally that they may actually deign to do something about it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In your mind, is this limited to sexual abuse without consent, or does bog-standard torture without consent count as well? In your mind, would this include images/videos of cartel beheadings? Killings by religious extremists? Killings by oppressive regimes? Images/videos of the results of war? Images/videos of the results of war that your particular government is responsible for?
I'm not saying that it should be blanket outlawed or it should be fully legal, but if you're going to take a position, take it on the magnitude of abuse and not the age of the person involved. Torture is torture. Abuse is abuse.
I would not consider even laws with exceptions for evidence of government wrong-doing to be acceptable, as that would leave open the possibility that governments could restrict access to evidence of their wrong-doing by denying involvement in the crime, and therefore denying the public the right to distribute or possess that evidence.
We are fortunate that existing laws concerning evidence of abuse of children seemingly have not undermined our system of government. However if these laws are expanded, they will do exactly that.
^ For example, what sort of democracy would we be if the public were not permitted to see or know about the photos of abuse and sexual humiliation at Abu Ghraib (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Abu_Ghraib_prison...)? If our democratic process is to be valued in the slightest, then the public must be allowed to see even the disturbing results of the policies of their nation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's less incredible once you come to terms with the fact that like so much "zero-tolerance" emotionally charged legislation its role is to be a political gun that doesn't require the ammunition of justice or reason to function. "But he's a child molester!" is all you need, logic and facts be damned. What's worse, is it's impossible to get rid of these laws because anyone who tries can easily be branded as a sympathi…
I view the way paedophiles are treated today as the way gay men were treated roughly 50 - 100 years ago. Think about it in chronological order: 1. Gay people are not mentioned and thrown in jail if discovered. 2. Decriminalised, society begins to learn what they are, huge public backlash, declared mental illness. 3. Science catches up, stops declaring it a mental issue. 4. Society catches up. 5. Law catches up. 6. Ga…
That said, there's a huge difference. With social acceptance, gay people can live their desires without hurting anyone. Paedophiles can't do that. They can either resist their urges (ideally with help), or they can act on them which is something neither you or I want to see made legal.
Unlike with homosexuality, I don't think big legal changes are required - sure, there's a lot of related laws that could do with tweaking (for example I read once - though unsure how accurate it is, believe it was a Reddit AMA with a paedophile - that here in the UK you can't get help for paedophilia unless you show it's become a problem, and if you do that you can also be prosecuted for it), but the solution isn't to make sex with children legal.
So yeah, similar situation to homosexuality, but needs completely different solutions.
Edit: just to add another thought on the comparison.. I've never hidden my sexuality, and I've never had a single problem because of it, not even verbal abuse, even at school. (I guess I'm one of the world's luckier gays.) I can imagine how horrible my life would be if I had to pretend to be straight and could never sleep with, or have a relationship with, another man. It would be horrific. But if it was paedophilia, rather than homosexuality, then on top of that you also have knowing that doing what you want would hurt an innocent child, knowing that it could put you in prison, knowing that even wanting to do it without ever doing anything illegal would make a lot of people in your life hate you... I can't imagine how bad it would be to be a paedophile.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not saying that it should be blanket outlawed or it should be fully legal, but if you're going to take a position, take it on the magnitude of abuse and not the age of the person involved. Torture is torture. Abuse is abuse.
I think that any laws restricting the distribution or possession of evidence of torture or atrocities is an extremely dangerous infringement on the public's ability to monitor the actions of their governments. These laws have no place in democracies.^ I would not consider even laws with exceptions for evidence of government wrong-doing to be acceptable, as that would leave open the possibility that governments could…
Abuse of any kind, adult, child, or animal, should be investigated and prosecuted as allowed by law. The products of these acts, which could be in the hands of innumerable people for various reasons, legitimate (investigators, vigilantes, etc.) or otherwise, is something that can't be un-done, not with how the internet works.
Still, it should be important to differentiate between possession, distribution, and production in all of these cases. Any law that fails to tackle even this most fundamental concern is just plain broken, yet they get passed all the time on the emotional basis of "Think of the children!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that any laws restricting the distribution or possession of evidence of torture or atrocities is an extremely dangerous infringement on the public's ability to monitor the actions of their governments. These laws have no place in democracies.^ I would not consider even laws with exceptions for evidence of government wrong-doing to be acceptable, as that would leave open the possibility that governments could…
I completely agree. I can imagine there are those conducting research into politically sensitive subjects that could be caught up in more aggressive laws. For instance, is it illegal for police to hold images of child pornography as part of an investigation? Is it illegal for a child to have pornographic images of themselves? Abuse of any kind, adult, child, or animal, should be investigated and prosecuted as allowed…
> Still, it should be important to differentiate between possession, distribution, and production in all of these cases.
Luckily the relevant law does what you want and answers your questions. You'll want to read it with the sentencing guidelines too.