5 ms·

> Btw it is non-consensual porn production which is harmful, not distribution. Victims of child sex crimes have ongoing trauma from the knowledge that images o

by dleslie 10y ago

> Btw it is non-consensual porn production which is harmful, not distribution. Victims of child sex crimes have ongoing trauma from the knowledge that images of their abuse and suffering continue to be used for the sexual gratification of others, without their consent.

geondo 10y ago
While I think that's probably true to some degree, why don't we use this to justify banning any sort of media that people wish didn't exist about themselves? For example, secretly filmed or leaked sex videos or pictures containing adults would have a similar effect on the unwilling adult participant(s) but to my knowledge they are not illegal. Something being traumatic or embarrassing to someone is not generally sufficient reason to criminalize its possession.
- ycmbntrthrwaway 10y ago
  > why don't we use this to justify banning any sort of media that people wish didn't exist about themselves? We do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten Some recent news on this: http://www.imdb.com/news/ni60685881/ http://www.imdb.com/news/ni60685881/
  - geondo 10y ago
    Yes, in Europe, where there are weak/no legal speech protections. And already politicians have abused it to remove compromising political info. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27423527 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27423527 http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/11/politicians-criminals-using-right-be-forgotten-law/ http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/11/politicians-cr... http://fortune.com/2015/08/24/twitter-right-to-be-forgotten/ http://fortune.com/2015/08/24/twitter-right-to-be-forgotten/ http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/googles-right-be-forgotten-70000-politicians-criminals-individuals-want-offending-content-1456603 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/googles-right-be-forgotten-70000-po...
    - dleslie 10y ago
      This is a appears to be a different issue. People asking to have search results removed that relate to their previous publications or lawfully public information about themselves is not the same as victims of sexual abuse enduring ongoing trauma from the proliferation of images of their abuse, which were not made consensually or legally. A bit of a false equivalency.
    - summarite 10y ago
      Most of these laws have provisions that explicitly exclude individuals or issues of public interest from being deleted. That people might still try to use the laws for such cases is then not a fault of the laws but rather due to eg companies like Google not being able to/not trying to/not wanting to invest enough to do due diligence.
- ZoFreX 10y ago
  > why don't we use this to justify banning any sort of media that people wish didn't exist about themselves? I absolutely think we should. Secretly filmed or leaked sex videos are pretty messed up.
- dleslie 10y ago
  As others have noted, not every country is as absolutist about free speech as America. I am happy to live in a country where revenge porn is often illegal, and cyber bullying has repercussions.
  - kakarot 10y ago
    My state made uploading revenge porn illegal within the last few years. I'm sure this trend will continue in America.
- summarite 10y ago
  Actually those are illegal in lots of countries. Details differ but it ranges from it not being allowed to share any images, or at least not any sexual images, without permission, to this being covered under damage to reputation or privacy laws, to fairly new laws specifically against "revenge porn". In many places such laws still don't exist/aren't used in this way, especially in more conservative/religious places often the victim is blamed. But that's not surprising given that there are still countries where rape victims have to marry their rapist, so what seems obviously wrong to us might not be as obviously wrong for everyone.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    I don't think that the anguish that someone feels due to having photo/video of them distributed justifies censorship, and I think that there is even less justification in the case where the 'victim' (I put that in quotes, because they may not have been victimised by the act itself) consents to the distribution (if they are able to consent). Granted that we probably have different standards for what we deem to be enough to censor people, I do not believe any curtailment of freedom of speech or expression ought to be allowed in a free society. This is one of the reasons I am an anarchist, actually. Laws that prevent me from sharing materials once I have received them I believe to be inherently unjust. The act iteslf of child abuse is heinous, very few people deny this (though I believe there ought to be a good debate and scientific and philosophical and psychological investigation into the concept of 'age of consent', and what age that is), though I do not believe that to merely create a video of the act should be illegal, unless it has been demonstrably in order to cause psychological anguish, and I certainly do not believe that distribution of such video should be made illegal for those who have not contributed at all to the act. I think that it is totally disjoint from privacy laws, and just as I believe copyright is unjust, so too I believe any kind of censorship is unjust. Child abuse may be illegalised, so too may cracking into a bank account, so too may installing secret cameras in someone's home - but the distribution of the materials obtained therein, unless demonstrably causing harm (and even this is a dubious concept, though worthy of debate as if it justifies censorship) should not be illegalised, at least in my opinion. Not only does it set a dangerous precedent that censorship is in fact OK but it also causes people to police what they say for fear of censorship, and furthermore influences truly stupid laws such as those criminalising drawn pornography of fictional characters who appear to be under the age of 18. Such a law as is present in the US, UK and many other countries, would have no basis at all if it were not for the fact that people think censorship is OK at any level. And if you do not think these are bad things, observe that in Canada a man was let off a criminal conviction which would have given him jail time. His crime? Importing a sex doll torso from Japan, which appeared to represent one of a personage under the age of 18. When people go to prison for having certain drawings or sex dolls, there is a problem with society.
ycmbntrthrwaway 10y ago
I am not denying it. But even for distribution the criminal is someone who produces, not someone who distributes or downloads. That is why it is impossible to prosecute someone for storing drugs or CP for personal use, reading or distributing leaked documents, and things like that. Ban on distribution is a half measure that is justified by the lack of power to ban actual production as it usually takes places in some other part of the world. However, it should be reevaluated from time to time and taken down as soon as possible.
- dleslie 10y ago
  Possession of CP is criminal in many countries.
  - ycmbntrthrwaway 10y ago
    Already answered on this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13568088 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13568088 It is means justified by the goals, but not the crime by itself.
    - dleslie 10y ago
      It's like you've forgotten what thread you are in. Here, allow me to pop the stack for you. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13567284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13567284
Pica_soO 10y ago
I honestly believe that no one in this debate, not even those claiming to be their lawyers has there interests at heart. People typing on I-phones assembled with child-labour, in sneakers glued together by child-labour, foaming at perverts watching the security footage of the phone&shoe-factory. Its the good old power-triangle of the proto-state crafted from instincts rearing its ugly head. Men hate pedophiles. Men love woman. Woman sanction pedophile existence as religion. Religion promises to uphold basic contracts. To build a 3-pillar state from nothing but brain deformations. Is the one you consented on in your constitution, not good enough, anymore? What a atrocity crafted from electric charged pudding. What disgusting deformed figures in each pillar playing the weakest for their own profit in each pillar. Nothing in this debate is self-evident, but the self-interest of every party. Thought crimes and social justice warriors, trying to erect a new church, men trying to bring back the likes of the old catholic church, where the non-compliant weak and widdows would be fed to the third pillar. And maybe even worser, lazy monks getting what they desire, not being forced to work, not being under constant surveillance by the all watching eye of the algorithms watching social media. I refuse to be part of anything, that your instincts crave. I choose my own middle ground. In this in Zuckerberg and Google i trust more, then in your and my own guts.
- ycmbntrthrwaway 10y ago
  What should one read to understand this? Sounds to me like translated French philosophy.

by dleslie 10y ago

geondo 10y ago

While I think that's probably true to some degree, why don't we use this to justify banning any sort of media that people wish didn't exist about themselves? For example, secretly filmed or leaked sex videos or pictures containing adults would have a similar effect on the unwilling adult participant(s) but to my knowledge they are not illegal. Something being traumatic or embarrassing to someone is not generally sufficient reason to criminalize its possession.

ycmbntrthrwaway 10y ago
> why don't we use this to justify banning any sort of media that people wish didn't exist about themselves? We do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten Some recent news on this: http://www.imdb.com/news/ni60685881/ http://www.imdb.com/news/ni60685881/
- geondo 10y ago
  Yes, in Europe, where there are weak/no legal speech protections. And already politicians have abused it to remove compromising political info. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27423527 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27423527 http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/11/politicians-criminals-using-right-be-forgotten-law/ http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/11/politicians-cr... http://fortune.com/2015/08/24/twitter-right-to-be-forgotten/ http://fortune.com/2015/08/24/twitter-right-to-be-forgotten/ http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/googles-right-be-forgotten-70000-politicians-criminals-individuals-want-offending-content-1456603 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/googles-right-be-forgotten-70000-po...
  - dleslie 10y ago
    This is a appears to be a different issue. People asking to have search results removed that relate to their previous publications or lawfully public information about themselves is not the same as victims of sexual abuse enduring ongoing trauma from the proliferation of images of their abuse, which were not made consensually or legally. A bit of a false equivalency.
  - summarite 10y ago
    Most of these laws have provisions that explicitly exclude individuals or issues of public interest from being deleted. That people might still try to use the laws for such cases is then not a fault of the laws but rather due to eg companies like Google not being able to/not trying to/not wanting to invest enough to do due diligence.
ZoFreX 10y ago
> why don't we use this to justify banning any sort of media that people wish didn't exist about themselves? I absolutely think we should. Secretly filmed or leaked sex videos are pretty messed up.
dleslie 10y ago
As others have noted, not every country is as absolutist about free speech as America. I am happy to live in a country where revenge porn is often illegal, and cyber bullying has repercussions.
- kakarot 10y ago
  My state made uploading revenge porn illegal within the last few years. I'm sure this trend will continue in America.
summarite 10y ago
Actually those are illegal in lots of countries. Details differ but it ranges from it not being allowed to share any images, or at least not any sexual images, without permission, to this being covered under damage to reputation or privacy laws, to fairly new laws specifically against "revenge porn". In many places such laws still don't exist/aren't used in this way, especially in more conservative/religious places often the victim is blamed. But that's not surprising given that there are still countries where rape victims have to marry their rapist, so what seems obviously wrong to us might not be as obviously wrong for everyone.
- ue_ 10y ago
  I don't think that the anguish that someone feels due to having photo/video of them distributed justifies censorship, and I think that there is even less justification in the case where the 'victim' (I put that in quotes, because they may not have been victimised by the act itself) consents to the distribution (if they are able to consent). Granted that we probably have different standards for what we deem to be enough to censor people, I do not believe any curtailment of freedom of speech or expression ought to be allowed in a free society. This is one of the reasons I am an anarchist, actually. Laws that prevent me from sharing materials once I have received them I believe to be inherently unjust. The act iteslf of child abuse is heinous, very few people deny this (though I believe there ought to be a good debate and scientific and philosophical and psychological investigation into the concept of 'age of consent', and what age that is), though I do not believe that to merely create a video of the act should be illegal, unless it has been demonstrably in order to cause psychological anguish, and I certainly do not believe that distribution of such video should be made illegal for those who have not contributed at all to the act. I think that it is totally disjoint from privacy laws, and just as I believe copyright is unjust, so too I believe any kind of censorship is unjust. Child abuse may be illegalised, so too may cracking into a bank account, so too may installing secret cameras in someone's home - but the distribution of the materials obtained therein, unless demonstrably causing harm (and even this is a dubious concept, though worthy of debate as if it justifies censorship) should not be illegalised, at least in my opinion. Not only does it set a dangerous precedent that censorship is in fact OK but it also causes people to police what they say for fear of censorship, and furthermore influences truly stupid laws such as those criminalising drawn pornography of fictional characters who appear to be under the age of 18. Such a law as is present in the US, UK and many other countries, would have no basis at all if it were not for the fact that people think censorship is OK at any level. And if you do not think these are bad things, observe that in Canada a man was let off a criminal conviction which would have given him jail time. His crime? Importing a sex doll torso from Japan, which appeared to represent one of a personage under the age of 18. When people go to prison for having certain drawings or sex dolls, there is a problem with society.

ycmbntrthrwaway 10y ago

I am not denying it. But even for distribution the criminal is someone who produces, not someone who distributes or downloads. That is why it is impossible to prosecute someone for storing drugs or CP for personal use, reading or distributing leaked documents, and things like that. Ban on distribution is a half measure that is justified by the lack of power to ban actual production as it usually takes places in some other part of the world. However, it should be reevaluated from time to time and taken down as soon as possible.

dleslie 10y ago
Possession of CP is criminal in many countries.
- ycmbntrthrwaway 10y ago
  Already answered on this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13568088 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13568088 It is means justified by the goals, but not the crime by itself.
  - dleslie 10y ago
    It's like you've forgotten what thread you are in. Here, allow me to pop the stack for you. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13567284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13567284

Pica_soO 10y ago

I honestly believe that no one in this debate, not even those claiming to be their lawyers has there interests at heart. People typing on I-phones assembled with child-labour, in sneakers glued together by child-labour, foaming at perverts watching the security footage of the phone&shoe-factory. Its the good old power-triangle of the proto-state crafted from instincts rearing its ugly head. Men hate pedophiles. Men love woman. Woman sanction pedophile existence as religion. Religion promises to uphold basic contracts. To build a 3-pillar state from nothing but brain deformations. Is the one you consented on in your constitution, not good enough, anymore? What a atrocity crafted from electric charged pudding. What disgusting deformed figures in each pillar playing the weakest for their own profit in each pillar. Nothing in this debate is self-evident, but the self-interest of every party. Thought crimes and social justice warriors, trying to erect a new church, men trying to bring back the likes of the old catholic church, where the non-compliant weak and widdows would be fed to the third pillar. And maybe even worser, lazy monks getting what they desire, not being forced to work, not being under constant surveillance by the all watching eye of the algorithms watching social media. I refuse to be part of anything, that your instincts crave. I choose my own middle ground. In this in Zuckerberg and Google i trust more, then in your and my own guts.

ycmbntrthrwaway 10y ago
What should one read to understand this? Sounds to me like translated French philosophy.