Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
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

61–70 of 79 posts

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

#61

Post by [deleted] »

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

#62

Post by a3_nm »

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…

There is a difference between a sketch or textual description of child rape, which can be fictional, and a photo, film, recording, etc., which does not seem fake, and for which it is overwhelmingly probable that it was created through actual child rape. (This being said, I agree with the comment pointing out that "child rape", in this context, is not qualitatively different from any other crime.)

While I think this distinction exists, I do not think that any kind of data should be prohibited, even if the data should not have been created had the law been respected. If a crime was committed to produce the data, of course the crime should be investigated and its perpetrators should hopefully be punished, but I see no reason to believe that it will make any difference to further regulate what is done with the resulting data.

I think there is a gut reaction that you do not want to know that people are looking at authentic pictures of children being raped, people being killed... but you have to acknowledge that you have no say on what people are doing on their own, as long as they are not harming others, and that people watching this data are not harming anyone directly by doing so.

(Of course, there is the line of argument that people buying child porn are doing harm to people indirectly because they finance a criminal system... but then it's the financing that may be criminal, not the actual data.)

(Then, there is the line of argument that people may be tempted to act out the crime because they look at images/videos of crimes... but (1) to my knowledge, this is not adequately substantiated by evidence; (2) it is a very slippery slope to argue "you should ban data X because it makes people who see it more likely to commit crime Y".)

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

#63

Post by a3_nm »

gadders wrote: post #58
nate_meurer wrote: post #56

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,…

> But governments limit other forms of speech such as hate speech.

Yes, and I would argue that this is also a bad thing.

> Or what about false advertising claims?

Advertising is quite a particular kind of speech. Banning a piece of data (as is done with child porn, _Mein Kampf_ in some countries, etc.) is not the same thing as forbidding people from making certain deceptive claims. (Although ultimately I would argue that prohibiting false advertising is not necessarily a good thing either.)

> Or holocaust deniers or people who claim vaccines don't work?

Prohibiting holocaust denial is in my opinion a bad thing. As for vaccines, I certainly hope it is not illegal to argue that vaccines don't work, as it should not be illegal to argue, say, that the earth is flat. (However, if people, e.g., start to prevent their kids from getting vaccines, this should be illegal, to protect the interests of the child.)

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

#64

Post by nate_meurer »

gadders wrote: post #58
nate_meurer wrote: post #56

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,…

You continue to reinforce my point for me:

> "photos can be photoshopped but in that case I think they should be treated separately."

It's great that you think they should be treated separately. But the people in charge say otherwise, and therefore in the U.S. and much of western europe you can be prosecuted for looking at simulated child abuse. Actors? CG? Doesn't matter, still illegal. You have all kinds of clean lines and distinctions in your mind to help you justify this stuff. The people in charge will naturally make their own distinctions, which currently means you'll go to prison for merely possessing data which may or may not depict an actual abuse which occurred in the past.

And then we can add all the other forms of expression that many of our leaders would like to outlaw, many of which are FAR more dangerous than child porn. Things like political dissent, which can destabilize entire nations. Gotta put a stop to that shit.

False advertising is an orange among apples. It's fraud, and typically dealt with as such.

I should admit that I am sympathetic to the view that the circulation of child porn creates a market for further abuse. IMO, if the banning of any kind of speech/expression is to be justified, it had better be along those lines.

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

#65

Post by DaleHarries1 »

aegiso wrote: post #37
clarry wrote: post #7

I still find it incredible that merely possessing some files is enough to get you arrested and possibly end your career. Weirder still, it seems to be ok to have just about all other sorts of horrific photos depicting, say, brutal violence..

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. Gay people == Straight people

Now, of course paedophiles bring their own set of problems but think about this timetable:

1. Paedophiles not mentioned and thrown in jail. 2. Society begins to learn what they are, huge backlash, declared mental illness. 3. Science catches up, discovers why paedophiles are the way they are and comes up with treatments. 4. Society catches up, focus on treatment and feels pity rather than contempt. 5. Law catches up. 6. Paedophiles == Normal people (Obviously in need of treatment though)

I have this feeling that in 100 years we will look back and think "Jesus Christ did we do that to these poor people, they needed treatment not throwing in jail". That's even before you ask questions about the current systems ability to protect children. (I don't believe it does at all)

Of course if you made this statement outside of an intelligent forum like hacker news you would be accused of being Gary Giltter's pimp! IMHO that just shows how emotionally unintelligent we are to deal with this issue. Give it 20 - 30 years and we'll be in a far more advanced place.

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

#66

Post by hrjet »

com_kieffer wrote: post #49
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.

I've struggled with that for a long time but in the end how is an image of a child being raped different from an image of a man being killed ? Both depict equally heinous acts.

A child is generally more mentally vulnerable than a grown up. So the effect of a crime on the former is generally larger and hence considered more heinous.

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

#67

Post by astrodust »

Crito wrote: post #47
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!")

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.

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

#68

Post by cgore »

com_kieffer wrote: post #49
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.

I've struggled with that for a long time but in the end how is an image of a child being raped different from an image of a man being killed ? Both depict equally heinous acts.

I don't think most people really care for snuff films either.

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

#70

Post by iamwithnail »

a3_nm wrote: post #62
nate_meurer wrote: post #56

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…

There is a difference between a sketch or textual description of child rape, which can be fictional, and a photo, film, recording, etc., which does not seem fake, and for which it is overwhelmingly probable that it was created through actual child rape. (This being said, I agree with the comment pointing out that "child rape", in this context, is not qualitatively different from any other crime.) While I think this d…

Not in the UK. The creation of pseudoimages, including in some cases, cartoons, has been held to violate the same law. Concur on the correlation vs causation stuff though. But the creation of the material creates the demand, which leads to more abuse, which is why it's doubly damaging. There's fairly strong evidence (look on The CEOP website, the UN concurs) of that.
Post reply on HN