4 ms·

I think there's a rather extreme hierarchy of wrongs here. 1. The crime that utterly dwarfs all others is involving children in the making of child porn. 2. A

I think there's a rather extreme hierarchy of wrongs here. 1. The crime that utterly dwarfs all others is involving children in the making of child porn. 2. After that, the crimes that dwarf all the rest are those that provide financial or practical support to child porn makers. Consuming child porn is generally regarded as one of those, and I'm fine with that categorization. 3. I'm sorry, but violating a victim's theoretical privacy by distributing the images a little further doesn't seem to be nearly as big a deal as helping to prevent the next live video of child porn from being made. I'm usually regarded as being pro-privacy, but privacy is not something to be a rabid extremist about. Preventing physical sexual abuse of children, on the other hand, is a fine area for extremism.

YPCrumble 10y ago
People who question what the FBI is doing are not "rabid extremist". That combines an ad-hominem and a straw man fallacy in the same line. You then claim that preventing child abuse is a fine area for extremism. That's an appeal to emotion and also a fallacy. Perhaps we could debate whether extremism is justified but let's do it without all the nonsense you wrap around your argument to cloud the real question. You say that extremism is justified but all of the reasons your posit as justification are fallacies.
Bjartr 10y ago
Screw chilling effects, I'm going to ask this anyway because being afraid of having these discussions is detrimental to making real progress as a society. Making the assumption* that some decent fraction of those who consume such media would be sated if they could get it and not move on to actually hurting children. Then couldn't a preventative measure be to take all the existing child porn and make it available to them? Though I guess that risks normalizing the condition and could lead to it being more commonplace (certainly it would appear so as those who successfully suppress it would hide it less) and if it's more commonplace than the fraction that does still act harmfully upon the impulse could, in absolute numbers, exceed those that do today. Figuring out how things fall would first require a good understanding of the numbers. *I don't know if this is true or false and would be interested to know if there is existing general consensus on the evolution of seeking out fantasy fulfillment over time in general and how it's affected by free access v. restricted access to related material.
- Latty 10y ago
  Arguably we are at a point where good (here meaning effective) CG or Art should be able to replace such a thing without any real child being abused or having their privacy invaded, which would be preferable. Of course, in some countries, that too is illegal, for some reason.
  - CurtMonash 10y ago
    This is very much in line with my thinking. 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.
- jcbrand 10y ago
  > Then couldn't a preventative measure be to take all the existing child porn and make it available to them? What about the victims' right not to have their privacy and dignity violated by the continuing consumption of the material?
  - Lawtonfogle 10y ago
    Yes, what about that. The only way the FBI is justified is if we ignore that. And if we are choosing to ignore it to justify the FBI's actions then why not do it here for the greater good? Personally I'm with you that we shouldn't ignore it in either case.
    - flowersoldier 10y ago
      I read a post where someone actually set up a honey pot without actually hosting CP. There was an application system where the pedos thought they were going to get cp via an application process or were a big enough part of the "community." I feel like the FBI could have implemented something similar without actually hosting the images. I feel like there is no excuse for distributing cp, even if it is to catch pedos. You shouldn't become a pedo to catch pedos.
ball_of_lint 10y ago
The thing is that it's not really about what's right or best, it's about what's lawful. It is definitely good that this happened and that the people using the sites for CP were identified and caught. It is scary for the FBI, an agency that upholds the law, to break the law, even if it is for good reason.

YPCrumble 10y ago

People who question what the FBI is doing are not "rabid extremist". That combines an ad-hominem and a straw man fallacy in the same line. You then claim that preventing child abuse is a fine area for extremism. That's an appeal to emotion and also a fallacy. Perhaps we could debate whether extremism is justified but let's do it without all the nonsense you wrap around your argument to cloud the real question. You say that extremism is justified but all of the reasons your posit as justification are fallacies.

Bjartr 10y ago

Screw chilling effects, I'm going to ask this anyway because being afraid of having these discussions is detrimental to making real progress as a society. Making the assumption* that some decent fraction of those who consume such media would be sated if they could get it and not move on to actually hurting children. Then couldn't a preventative measure be to take all the existing child porn and make it available to them? Though I guess that risks normalizing the condition and could lead to it being more commonplace (certainly it would appear so as those who successfully suppress it would hide it less) and if it's more commonplace than the fraction that does still act harmfully upon the impulse could, in absolute numbers, exceed those that do today. Figuring out how things fall would first require a good understanding of the numbers. *I don't know if this is true or false and would be interested to know if there is existing general consensus on the evolution of seeking out fantasy fulfillment over time in general and how it's affected by free access v. restricted access to related material.

Latty 10y ago
Arguably we are at a point where good (here meaning effective) CG or Art should be able to replace such a thing without any real child being abused or having their privacy invaded, which would be preferable. Of course, in some countries, that too is illegal, for some reason.
- CurtMonash 10y ago
  This is very much in line with my thinking. 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.
jcbrand 10y ago
> Then couldn't a preventative measure be to take all the existing child porn and make it available to them? What about the victims' right not to have their privacy and dignity violated by the continuing consumption of the material?
- Lawtonfogle 10y ago
  Yes, what about that. The only way the FBI is justified is if we ignore that. And if we are choosing to ignore it to justify the FBI's actions then why not do it here for the greater good? Personally I'm with you that we shouldn't ignore it in either case.
  - flowersoldier 10y ago
    I read a post where someone actually set up a honey pot without actually hosting CP. There was an application system where the pedos thought they were going to get cp via an application process or were a big enough part of the "community." I feel like the FBI could have implemented something similar without actually hosting the images. I feel like there is no excuse for distributing cp, even if it is to catch pedos. You shouldn't become a pedo to catch pedos.

ball_of_lint 10y ago

The thing is that it's not really about what's right or best, it's about what's lawful. It is definitely good that this happened and that the people using the sites for CP were identified and caught. It is scary for the FBI, an agency that upholds the law, to break the law, even if it is for good reason.