I personally feel the parent of my comment is the most balanced view on the page currently.
For all I am liberal, or at least centre left, and a free speech advocate, I cannot see any benefit to the existance of child porn.
I would however like to see a reclassification (reduced scope) of what is and is not child pornography, and also introduce a requirement to prove willingness on the possessors part.
I can happily skip the strict black and white view of the world promoted in some of the top comments in this case. I am completely at ease with the idea of promoting free speech whilst going against free speech in the event of something which is harmful (I am referring to real child pornography not what the law currently classifies) and with no merit, not even the wildest interpretations of educational or artistic merit can redeem the need for child pornography to exist.
The harm of child porn isn't just the children that are hurt by its production but also that it fuels the urges of the people who consume it. You don't cure people of any sexual compulsion by indulging it.
>The reason CSAM/CSEM is illegal is because a child had to be abused/exploited in order to create it, not because it's disgusting or immoral.
This is a very Liberal line of thought and it's this exact child porn example that makes me unable to consider myself a full Liberal.
Legal child pornography wouldn't mean legal child rape though, or even being able to legally purchase it. Could be something like what France does with prostitution, where only soliciting is criminalized, e.g. purchasing and production remain criminal, but not mere possession, which technically harms no one, even if it triggers strong disgust.
In fairness, the only point of this would be a more purist implementation of freedom of speech, but well, the status quo is rather pointless too.
Making of child porn with real children is one of the most horrific crimes in the world. Fighting that by criminalizing other steps in the creation/consumption chain makes sense.
On the other hard, child porn in which no real children were involved is a free speech issue, and I'm on the side that favors permitting it.
There's also a third group of issues -- child porn is used as an excuse for general internet surveillance, which then is used to also benefit anti-terrorism, law enforcement, and anti-piracy. That's why copyright lobbyists refer to (concern about) child porn as being a godsend for their industry.
This may have been a hint that I was talking about images of actual child abuse rather than selfies taken by teenagers.
We are in a discussion about an ideal world. Let's imagine that if we were really in a position that governments were legislating about absolute freedom of speech they could also draw up some non stupid laws to protect victims of child abuse?
Maybe, maybe not. That's a fraught subject around pornography in general, with tendentious argumentation on every side.
On the other hand, children are extraordinarily vulnerable to many forms of abuse, this among them. In a system of laws one of whose explicit purposes is to afford those vulnerable to mistreatment protection under law, I don't think it is on its face unreasonable to argue that children merit extraordinary protection as well. While there is perhaps a fair question to be asked around whether the sort of law under discussion actually serves that end, I would at the very least suggest anyone raising the question in a serious way be very well prepared to answer objections and counterarguments of every imaginable sort.
The thing is, you can't just censor it away until it's gone.
To play devil's advocate for a moment: how do we know that?
I'm guessing you and I are both liberally inclined in our politics from the very fact that we're having this conversation. Probably we are both naturally sceptical of any form of censorship.
However, objectively, it is clear that some children really are being exploited in horrible ways to produce the kind of material that we sometimes hear about in the news. If a responsibly operated system for limiting its distribution could have a significant actual benefit in terms of reducing the incentive to create that material in the first place, I don't think a principled "absolutely no censorship allowed" argument is sufficiently powerful to dismiss the alternative out-of-hand.
To make these kinds of policies, I think you have to look at the big picture, and the merits of both positions, and ideally hard evidence about the likely outcomes of each outcome. Even then, you are almost always choosing the least of evils in such a situation, because there will be real and legitimate concerns about any policy you might finally adopt.
It doesn't fight the root of the cause and in the long run will only hurt the society as a whole.
I am absolutely in favour of going after the root cause of abuses, or any other criminal activity. But when you're talking about legislation and law enforcement, I think you have to take a pragmatic view and accept that you aren't going to be able to protect every vulnerable person overnight by magically eliminating all sources of evil in the world, no matter how noble your intentions.
If a responsibly operated system for limiting the distribution of things like child pornography can reduce the amount of exploitation going on in the meantime, at a direct cost in terms of limiting the freedom of expression of those who would distribute such material and an indirect cost of requiring a technical mechanism for censorship and the risk of that mechanism being abused for other purposes, I think it is still reasonable to consider it.
Then again, I also have strong views on the need for accountability in public office. In particular, I believe that betrayal of the public should be considered a high crime. If you're going to give that much trust to anyone then the penalties for abusing that trust must be severe, and anyone who tried to censor other material using this sort of system should expect to be caught and should be facing significant jail time and a ban on holding public office. If any government isn't willing to accept that responsibility and transparency and oversight, then my view on whether they should be trusted with the kinds of system we're discussing swings sharply against them.
We all know that it doesn't matter how illegal something is; if it can be found, the person looking for it will find it.
No, we don't know that. This is my point.
Obstacles always bear the chance of making it worse for the wrong people.
Yes they do, and that is why those obstacles must have credible oversight to ensure they operate responsibly and severe penalties for anyone who abuses them. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider taking the chance anyway, depending on what is at stake.
The link between the production of child porn and child protection is crystal clear.
The link between hosting child porn and child protection is much more subject to argument. I'd suggest it is banned because enough people suspect the link to be there, not because of any certainty.
It is unfortunately common for terrible ideas to be shepherded in under the pretence of thinking about the children. There needs to be debate about costs and benefits of this stuff beyond the crystal clear parts. It isn't reasonable to just assume someone doesn't care about protecting children just because they're willing to host anything. Although in this case they are being rather disrespectful to the people who use the form and that doesn't sit well with me.
I see your argument; actually it's very good and I mostly agree with the point made.
But still I'd prefer to see other, more applicable, laws used.
Proving somebody saw these nude images (if there are any) is going to be a huge legal minefield. And even then classing it as child pornography is difficult for a variety of reasons.
When I talk about intent I mean the intent to see it as sexual content. Clearly the proper thing to do is delete any inappropriate images - and in this respect there may be some indecency laws that apply. But CP is about the sexual abuse of children and the use of indecent material in a sexual context. This has already been watered down here in the UK to the point of making a conviction barely an inconvenience to them.
You see, this is why I had said it shouldn't be discussed on a forum like this. I believe an honest human response would be more empathic and simply take something like CP being important without requiring extensive rationalization.
Your response, nit-picking my words as a form of debate, is counter to an empathic response, and entirely what I had hoped to avoid. I'm not going to engage in that line of thought because, honestly, there are a multitude of reasons why child pornography should be a priority. I won't argue them, and I understand that might be unpopular, but will you really debate someone on this?
>>Real child porn is not a product of the imagination, it is a documentation of real abuse to victims.
Except that obviously some countries take it too far and people have been convicted for production of child pornography for having a picture of themselves on their own phone(say an 18 year old who took a picture of themselves when they were underage). That's not purely theoretical "this could happen, but probably won't because people apply common sense". That does actually happen in real world. And there is no abuse involved, maybe except for the abuse of he justice system. This wouldn't happen if just simply having a picture wasn't criminal in itself.
>>the justification would argue that the next best way to ensure child rapists are caught would be to illegalise possession of the drawings.
Would it? Because I feel that if any one of us came across child porn accidentally the right solution is to burn the machine down and never ever tell anyone about it, since mere fact of having looked at it(downloaded it to your browser) is a jail sentence in most civilized nations. If it was legal I would have absolutely no problem reporting it the police, which I am sure would help actually catching rapists. Which actually brings me to my next point - as far as I know, as long as minors are not involved, posession of pictures of pretty much any illegal act is not in itself illegal. You can go and google a video of couple guys killing another with a screwdriver - perfectly legal to watch. You can probably go on some snuff websites and watch videos of actual rape - not illegal to watch as far as I know. What's the difference? Because someone might masturbate to one of these but not the others? Now I don't believe that for a second, and it's not like the demand argument doesn't apply here either.
You clearly did not read the end where I made it very, very clear what my opinion is on prosecuting child pornography. And why. Hint: it isn't what you think it is.
I should also note that I have personal reasons for having investigated this topic. Details are private. But I would be moderately surprised if you, for all your righteous outrage, have as much relevant background on this topic...
I never said you endorse it. I said the position which you take has the effect of endorsing it. At the least, the position you appear to support requires a person to ignore this particular crime, or accept it as a necessary consequence. So far you have not explained why this particular feature is something society should accept.
In my opinion saying that there is something so valuable to be preserved that we should countenance the perpetration of a crime to achieve it, is endorsing that crime as a necessary component of the goal. People who endorse due process admit that allowing criminals to escape justice is a necessary feature, and in some sense are endorsing a system where some criminals avoid capture. So are free speech purists endorsing the necessity of a means for conveyance of child porn, so as to facilitate other speech.
That's not the same as saying that free speech purists endorse the porn itself, only the necessity of the freedom to transmit it.
Personally I have some sympathy for the argument that possessing child porn should not be criminal. There are arguments for this. They satisfy urges and curiosities without victimizing real children. They are documents of abuse that could lead to more victims being discovered and perpetrators being prosecuted.
We do not, for instance, ban rape porn (yet) because there is no evidence it harms society. Cp is somewhat different because the children can not legally consent, whereas in produced rape porn the acts are consensual.
I can't tell if you're trolling or not but I'll bite.
You're perverting the definition of "speech". Creation/dissemination of child pornography is not a statement of opinion (and its malicious too, which would exempt it from protection); creation/dissemination of child pornography is an act that directly and tangibly harms others. Same goes for pirated content. I know there's lots of HN readers who believe that libertarianism and meritocracy will solve the world's ills but cmon man, you really think child pornography should be protected speech????
American jurisprudence has taken a troubling tack on free speech, choosing to take it in a very libertarian direction. In fact the biggest loser of such libertarian free speech ideals is the American political system: shameless attack ads that cheapen political discourse, the fusion of money and political favour (PACs), and the rise of populist rightwing hate-mongers who routinely attack minorities and inspire intolerance. Funny, a piece of legislation originally created to protect the citizens from their government is now being used by citizens (politicians) to destroy the government....
I'm a firm believer in free speech but it made a lot more sense 300 years ago when the government could easily control your speech. In 2015, with the internet and mobile phones, the government would have an incredibly difficult time preventing people from expressing their unfavourable opinions. Maybe it's time to stop living in the past and instead create legislation that reflects the world we live in today.
1) The causal link described remains a matter of dispute, with evidence supporting both sides; a plausible argument can be made for the opposite case that wider access to child pornography, and making more 'efficient' use of existing images, could quell demand for the creation of new images, and thus reduce new abuse cases;
2) Legislation prohibiting child pornography often extends its reach beyond cases of serious abuse; in many countries it encompasses 'softcore' images, even semi-nude images if they are sexually suggestive. These kind of images (the kind that you would find on /r/jailbait over on reddit) are often created by the subjects themselves, and one could argue that their creation caused no harm to anyone.
Proponents of child porn argue that it should be protected speech, just as distribution of legal porn is often argued on free speech grounds.
I completely agree that it child porn exposes children to abuse and should be illegal, but it’s important to note how proponents of that medium argue for its legitimacy.
It's easy to talk about freedom of speech and expression in the abstract. Practice shows that many political forces that do so adopt much less liberal positions on specific issues when it comes to the kind of speech that they don't like, or that they see as beneficial to target from an appeal-to-the-voter perspective.
So, given that this proposal is entirely framed as a way to combat child porn, and that "liberal pedophile elites" are part of the current far right zeitgeist, I wouldn't be so sure that they would be all that strongly opposed to it. Especially if they get to rewrite it in name (but not substance) to claim credit for it.
For all I am liberal, or at least centre left, and a free speech advocate, I cannot see any benefit to the existance of child porn.
I would however like to see a reclassification (reduced scope) of what is and is not child pornography, and also introduce a requirement to prove willingness on the possessors part.
I can happily skip the strict black and white view of the world promoted in some of the top comments in this case. I am completely at ease with the idea of promoting free speech whilst going against free speech in the event of something which is harmful (I am referring to real child pornography not what the law currently classifies) and with no merit, not even the wildest interpretations of educational or artistic merit can redeem the need for child pornography to exist.
reply