10 ms·

It's not a private activity, it directly supports an industry of violence against children

by __s 10y ago

jhiska 10y ago
You can make the same argument for the adult porn industry, and that leads to one of two conclusions: - That the viewer of adult porn shouldn't be prosecuted for viewing porn. or - That there is a societal / governmental acceptance of the exploitation of men and women, as long as they are adults. The easy argument out of this hypocrisy is to claim that while children can never consent, adults can, but then that opens the can of worms of whether they're "consenting" under coercion, like under threat of not getting hired again to do work or if they're enslaved, and the answer to that is that it depends on the case. At this point it turns political, with one side generalizing that most do consent, and another side also generalizing that most do not consent, and reaching an agreement is impossible because there is a half-truth to both sides, and after a lot of heated arguments, people get worn out, and nothing gets resolved. So instead I'm just going to direct people to read up on the topic of victimology, which is a sub-genre of criminology, specifically how it affects human traffic (which are >90% women, and has a total volume of enslaved people higher than it was when slavery was legal) and get informed and then make up their own mind about it without bothering others.
- Stanish 10y ago
  Yet another reason a universal basic income makes sense. Slavery by another name becomes much less likely.
- tnzn 10y ago
  I'm surprised you haven't been called a pedophile/pedophile supporter yet. Every time I tried to have that argument, it happened (tho not in HN).
  - marksomnian 10y ago
    And that is the reason you can never have a rational discussion about the subject. No matter how strong the arguments you present, the other side can always say "b... but... but think about the terrorists and the paedophiles!" and if you reply you get called a sympathiser - for having a rational discussion. Welcome to 2017.
    - sgift 10y ago
      Or 16, 15, 19xx, 18xx. Principled defense of something seen as morally wrong was always fraught with "so, you defend it, so, you must like it. Probably, you even do it, don't you?" It's one of the first strategies in the book of shutting down your opposition and probably was one of the first things people tried the moment discussions started.
- krick 10y ago
  Or you can make the same argument for the diamond industry. Buying a diamond you are committing a crime against humanity, as you are supporting war, slavery and a whole lot of violent stuff somewhere in Africa.
mindslight 10y ago
This is a tenuous argument at best, even more so considering the protocol in question is freenet. Sure it's possible to force a commercial model onto any system, but I'd think freenet would be an especially terrible way to monetize. (And "industry" - seriously??) Furthermore, there is presumably enough existing child pornography out there to satiate any viewer for their entire life. Perhaps increasing access to it is the way to discourage more being made! At any rate, paying for it could still be a crime, as opposed to the insanity of strict liability for bitstring possession.
- Natanael_L 10y ago
  I've seen articles about people using CGI as bait to fight it.
ue_ 10y ago
> directly supports an industry of violence against children Not necessarily, and even so, can it be proven?
- erelde 10y ago
  If I see proof (undoctored video) of a dog being beheaded (a child being sexually abused) I think I'm safe to conclude that a dog was killed (a child was raped). If then that video was sold (or distributed in any way) to fetishists of dog beheading I could conclude that there is some kind of commercial (distribution) process going on here. Note for children: I'm using parenthesis in a way that shouldn't be done.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    My point was that the distribution of the material, especially free of charge does not necessarily encourage further abuse, nor does its possession. I do not know, though I admit that I suspect that the abuse would be encouraged because it is being paid for. Edit: In my opinion, the following offences ought to exist with relation to child pornography and abuse: (1) Child abuse is an offence as it currently stands, or with revised ages of consent to better reflect philosophical, scientific and psychological evidence (2) The act of recording of abuse with majority or express intention of furnishing the material for charge or otherwise in order finance or encourage continuing abuse is an offence I think the second part needs some elaboration. I don't think that recording a certain act taking place ought to be illegal, nor I do I think it ought to be illegal to share that material with others. However this presents a dilemma: the abuse may be encouraged by the fact that the material is being sold or even enjoyed. If this encouragement to continue abuse can indeed be proven in a court of law, by some standard deemed appropriate (either the standard 'beyond a reasonable doubt' or the more strict 'balance of probabilities') then the act of making the recording and the act of furnishing the recording, I believe, ought to be an offence. On the other hand, if the recordings are made merely to provide the enjoyment of others, and not for the purpose of encouraging abuse, I do not think there should be an offence. At the risk of over-emphasising the point: A child abuser may be encouraged by (i) money (ii) the thought that people are watching the recording (there may be further motivations). If it can be proven that abuse continued and the abuse was contingent on one or more of these factors, there is sufficient reason to believe that the intent of the recordings aided another crime, which I think may be sufficient to culminate in an offence.
9mit3t2m9h9a 10y ago
Supporting or undermining it by unpaid distribution of its disgusting output material? If he was directly supporting it, he would be already convicted based on tracing the payments, I guess. And if obtaining and distributing the output material of a content industry without payment is supporting the industry, let that be put in writing…

It's not a private activity, it directly supports an industry of violence against children

by __s 10y ago

It's not a private activity, it directly supports an industry of violence against children

You can make the same argument for the adult porn industry, and that leads to one of two conclusions: - That the viewer of adult porn shouldn't be prosecuted for viewing porn. or - That there is a societal / governmental acceptance of the exploitation of men and women, as long as they are adults. The easy argument out of this hypocrisy is to claim that while children can never consent, adults can, but then that opens the can of worms of whether they're "consenting" under coercion, like under threat of not getting hired again to do work or if they're enslaved, and the answer to that is that it depends on the case. At this point it turns political, with one side generalizing that most do consent, and another side also generalizing that most do not consent, and reaching an agreement is impossible because there is a half-truth to both sides, and after a lot of heated arguments, people get worn out, and nothing gets resolved. So instead I'm just going to direct people to read up on the topic of victimology, which is a sub-genre of criminology, specifically how it affects human traffic (which are >90% women, and has a total volume of enslaved people higher than it was when slavery was legal) and get informed and then make up their own mind about it without bothering others.

Stanish 10y ago
Yet another reason a universal basic income makes sense. Slavery by another name becomes much less likely.
tnzn 10y ago
I'm surprised you haven't been called a pedophile/pedophile supporter yet. Every time I tried to have that argument, it happened (tho not in HN).
- marksomnian 10y ago
  And that is the reason you can never have a rational discussion about the subject. No matter how strong the arguments you present, the other side can always say "b... but... but think about the terrorists and the paedophiles!" and if you reply you get called a sympathiser - for having a rational discussion. Welcome to 2017.
  - sgift 10y ago
    Or 16, 15, 19xx, 18xx. Principled defense of something seen as morally wrong was always fraught with "so, you defend it, so, you must like it. Probably, you even do it, don't you?" It's one of the first strategies in the book of shutting down your opposition and probably was one of the first things people tried the moment discussions started.
krick 10y ago
Or you can make the same argument for the diamond industry. Buying a diamond you are committing a crime against humanity, as you are supporting war, slavery and a whole lot of violent stuff somewhere in Africa.

mindslight 10y ago

This is a tenuous argument at best, even more so considering the protocol in question is freenet. Sure it's possible to force a commercial model onto any system, but I'd think freenet would be an especially terrible way to monetize. (And "industry" - seriously??) Furthermore, there is presumably enough existing child pornography out there to satiate any viewer for their entire life. Perhaps increasing access to it is the way to discourage more being made! At any rate, paying for it could still be a crime, as opposed to the insanity of strict liability for bitstring possession.

Natanael_L 10y ago
I've seen articles about people using CGI as bait to fight it.

ue_ 10y ago

> directly supports an industry of violence against children Not necessarily, and even so, can it be proven?

erelde 10y ago
If I see proof (undoctored video) of a dog being beheaded (a child being sexually abused) I think I'm safe to conclude that a dog was killed (a child was raped). If then that video was sold (or distributed in any way) to fetishists of dog beheading I could conclude that there is some kind of commercial (distribution) process going on here. Note for children: I'm using parenthesis in a way that shouldn't be done.
- ue_ 10y ago
  My point was that the distribution of the material, especially free of charge does not necessarily encourage further abuse, nor does its possession. I do not know, though I admit that I suspect that the abuse would be encouraged because it is being paid for. Edit: In my opinion, the following offences ought to exist with relation to child pornography and abuse: (1) Child abuse is an offence as it currently stands, or with revised ages of consent to better reflect philosophical, scientific and psychological evidence (2) The act of recording of abuse with majority or express intention of furnishing the material for charge or otherwise in order finance or encourage continuing abuse is an offence I think the second part needs some elaboration. I don't think that recording a certain act taking place ought to be illegal, nor I do I think it ought to be illegal to share that material with others. However this presents a dilemma: the abuse may be encouraged by the fact that the material is being sold or even enjoyed. If this encouragement to continue abuse can indeed be proven in a court of law, by some standard deemed appropriate (either the standard 'beyond a reasonable doubt' or the more strict 'balance of probabilities') then the act of making the recording and the act of furnishing the recording, I believe, ought to be an offence. On the other hand, if the recordings are made merely to provide the enjoyment of others, and not for the purpose of encouraging abuse, I do not think there should be an offence. At the risk of over-emphasising the point: A child abuser may be encouraged by (i) money (ii) the thought that people are watching the recording (there may be further motivations). If it can be proven that abuse continued and the abuse was contingent on one or more of these factors, there is sufficient reason to believe that the intent of the recordings aided another crime, which I think may be sufficient to culminate in an offence.

9mit3t2m9h9a 10y ago

Supporting or undermining it by unpaid distribution of its disgusting output material? If he was directly supporting it, he would be already convicted based on tracing the payments, I guess. And if obtaining and distributing the output material of a content industry without payment is supporting the industry, let that be put in writing…