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

171–180 of 332 posts

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

#171

Post by SageRaven »

One of the big arguments for banning child porn is that having the material "out there" causes continual anguish to the victim. In fact, victims have been awarded financial damages from those convicted of possession. (Can't find the source now, but I recall reading about the case in the "cybercrime blog").

In my opinion, this whole argument is specious at best. One could argue that making the "Star Wars Kid" viral video (among so many others) illegal would have saved that poor dude some major suffering. Why are things of a sexual nature so special?

One argument for decriminalizing simple possession is the fact that crowd-analyzed investigation at the citizen level is severely hampered. I recall reading an amazing account of the investigation and rescue of the then-8-year-old girl in the "Tara series". A relatively small group of people analyzed the photos, identified paintings and drapes in a motel, which allowed law enforcement to home in on the victim and her captor.

Can you imagine the scope of such investigations if these pics were allowed to be viewed and discussed in a public forum? The power of anon and /b/ could be used for so much greater good than hunting down kids who torture cats.

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

#172

Post by zerostar07 »

crazygringo wrote: post #56

There's a lot of food for thought here, and important points. But in one area, the author completely glosses over a crucial distinction: > why is it only documentation of sex crimes against minors that are being banned in this way? The lawmen are perfectly fine with a video documenting how a teenager is being stabbed with a screwdriver in both eyes, then murdered. ... why is the ban just related to anything sexual, a…

But child porn is already relatively easily accessible for free via anonymous networks, maybe we could find stats whether this lead to increase or reduction of the volume that is circulating.

One thing that then legal ban does is it adds to the taboo factor that makes this stuff more desirable.

I think the bigger issue is that people still don't have frank discussions about sexual matters even in the west.

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

#173

Post by pbhjpbhj »

icebraining wrote: post #137
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.

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?

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

#174

Post by pbhjpbhj »

billswift wrote: post #7
droob wrote: post #2

I find these edge cases extremely implausible, and counter to the way crimes are investigated and prosecuted. "Possessing cocaine is illegal but IMAGINE IF SOMEONE THREW A COCAINE BRICK AT YOU AND YOU CAUGHT IT!!!"

There have been cases where drugs were mailed to an address and the person receiving the package, not knowing what was in it, was arrested. That is one reason why no one who has any sense will accept a package they were not expecting.

>There have been cases [...] //

You know what's great about legal cases, particularly this sort, they are so well documented and mentioned in newspapers, etc..

Citations please.

Now there being cases where a crim' claimed that they didn't know the package was drugs, that I can imagine in a heart beat.

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

#175

Post by tzs »

sudonim wrote: post #24

When I lived in Houston and was buying a house I used a website to look up sex offenders in the neighborhood. I remember seeing one guy who was in the sex offender database because when he was 19, he had sex with a 17 year old. It made me feel a little uncomfortable. It struck me because I was in my mid 20s and I think we were around the same age at the time. Something is amiss in a system that punishes him for life…

Texas changed that law last year. Now if one partner is under 17 and one over, but they are four years or less apart in age, and the younger partner is at least 15, then consensual sex between the two is legal.

People convicted under the old law can petition a court to be removed from the offender list.

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

#176

Post by pbhjpbhj »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #114
angersock wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are painting in such broad strokes here that you don't really seem to be contributing anything reasonable. You do realize this, right? I don't know where you get this notion of not "helping poor raise their children". Even if accurate, you haven't explained why that's good or bad. What's the "good stuff"? If you want to go bandy about how awful Big Jesus is, you really need to have more thorough rhetoric.

If you dislike S(omething) (e.g. abortions) you can go two ways. First, you can help people avoid S. You can argue against S. You can support people who rejected S. You can give prizes to people who skip S. Second, you can violate whatever social conventions there were and make S illegal. This means more people in jails, this means pain, doubt, suffer. This does NOT guarantee any reduction of S, however. Religious or…

So murder, for example, should be legal because making something illegal - simply because the current moral norm is against it - is wrong?

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

#177

Post by sellandb »

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?

That's kind of one of the three legs of the article, that it shouldn't be rape for two 17 year olds to have sex and similarly it should not be a sexual crime for them to send each other pictures of themselves. Both of these "crimes" are clearly not the targets of their respective laws, so why are we creating "sex offenders" out of these people?

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

#178

Post by fiblye »

droob wrote: post #2

I find these edge cases extremely implausible, and counter to the way crimes are investigated and prosecuted. "Possessing cocaine is illegal but IMAGINE IF SOMEONE THREW A COCAINE BRICK AT YOU AND YOU CAUGHT IT!!!"

People in other parts of the world have been arrested for having stepped on marijuana particles: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1884201...

America's CP laws are quite similar to this. If you even have a 32x32 thumbnail cached in your browser history, whether or not you were even looking for it, you'll get arrested and imprisoned in most places. I think New York is the only state to have ruled this out and require you to knowingly save it.

And yes, people quite frequently have drugs planted on them or have a friend leave something behind without their knowledge and get charged with it.

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

#179

Post by guard-of-terra »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #176
guard-of-terra wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you dislike S(omething) (e.g. abortions) you can go two ways. First, you can help people avoid S. You can argue against S. You can support people who rejected S. You can give prizes to people who skip S. Second, you can violate whatever social conventions there were and make S illegal. This means more people in jails, this means pain, doubt, suffer. This does NOT guarantee any reduction of S, however. Religious or…

So murder, for example, should be legal because making something illegal - simply because the current moral norm is against it - is wrong?

If legalising murder somehow leads to consistently lower murder rates, it should be done.

Why the hell not? The main idea is keeping people alive and well. The main idea is NOT the persecution for crimes. That's a tool of limited usability.

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

#180

Post by sunnysunday »

Some time ago, thanks to a tip on HN, I was listening to a interview with Stanley Kubrick recorded in the 1960's in New York. He's a genius in the opinion of many, myself included, so I was happy for the tip. This is what makes HN worth reading.

In the interview, one of the films that was mentioned a few times was Lolita (1962). This is one Kubrick film I have never seen. So I did a little research on it.

It's based on a novel from 1955 by Vladmir Nabokov. It just so happens this is one of best-selling novels of all-time, in the "50-100 million copies sold" bracket, according to Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books.html

It's also listed as one of the best novels of all-time on the Random House web site. Top 5 I think. I believe it was also selected as on of the best books of all-time in a survey of a book club in Norway, if my memory is correct. But don't take my word as fact. Check these sources yourself; they are linked from Wikipedia.

http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html

What is the subject of the book? That's left for the curious reader to discover. You might be surprised. I certainly was.

Remember, this book was published in 1955.

Also, though I might not thnk highly of the "messenger", the message in this thread about the "market" for videos of murder was thought-provoking. There was a terrible film about five years ago about this subject, starring Diane Lane. The film is centered around the Hollywood's version of the internet, so it's a little painful to watch. But the whole premise of the film was the most disturbing. Why was this film even made? And why the heck does Diane Lane want to star in it?

Then there's the recent story of a young person who worked as an independent contractor reviewing uploaded content for Google (Picasa, YouTube, etc.). From the sort of things he was exposed to, he ended up needing psychological treatment.

No one should have to watch this stuff. But even more important, no one should _want_ to watch this stuff. The question is: Why do people want to watch violence and murder?

Maybe we should as Arnold whatever his name is, the Terminator.

Hypocrisy abounds.

Post reply on HN