4 ms·

Absolutely but I'll go further. Having something in your hard drive or book or whatever should never be a crime in itself. I mean in India it is a crime to carr

by mcny 9y ago

Absolutely but I'll go further. Having something in your hard drive or book or whatever should never be a crime in itself. I mean in India it is a crime to carry an authentic map of India with you. What harm does the contents of an encrypted disk do to society? It is not like he was going out and trying to legalize child abuse. If the person was involved in child abuse, we must try to convict him absolutely but we should be able to do that without what's on the hard disk. Oh and while I have your attention I'd like the reader to look up something unrelated but still very important. Look up cfaa. If you're in the us, please help repeal it!

JohnBooty 9y ago
Yeah, I'm uncomfortable with the banning of certain kinds of content. The root problem here is child abuse. Anybody abusing children, or financially supporting the abuse of children, is doing a seriously bad thing and this is what should be illegal. I'm highly skeptical that images on a hard drive can cause the abuse of children. That's the same kind of logic people used back in the 1970s to argue that playing D&D and listening to Kiss were going to result in a whole generation of Satan-worshippers. You could show a non-pedophiliac person the entire contents of that hard drive, and it wouldn't arouse them or make them want to go abuse children. Wouldn't make me go abuse kids. I'd probably cry a lot and go volunteer to help some kids[1]. So I am not convinced that the contents of this guy's hard drive are going to result in more kids being molested somehow. If anything, I think the opposite may be more likely. Access to porn is correlated to a reduction in rape. I don't know if this extends to pedophiles, but it sure seems entirely possible: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201601/ev... Would I want my kids hanging around somebody with a hard drive full of that stuff? Probably not, but I also wouldn't want them hanging around supporters of certain political parties either, and I don't think they should be rotting in prison indefinitely with no trial. ______ [1] I already do volunteer work; no need to send me illegal porn in order to get me off of my couch
- Pharylon 9y ago
  But children were abused to create these photos.
  - gonmf 9y ago
    I agree that child pornography should not be illegal to possess, only to make or profit from the distribution. My theory goes: if you're not a pedophile, I don't think stumbling upon child porn will make you one, just like watching violent movies won't make you a violent person. If you are a pedophile already then seeing child porn may be a way out of actually harming children, just like watching gore movies be a way out for some sexual fetish with corpses. We should be going after abusers (obviously) and people who actually profit from distribution, which add an incentive for child abuse even for people who are not pedophiles, just desperate for money. Having pictures on your computer without an intent that could cause harm should not be illegal.
  - dTal 9y ago
    A 9 year old girl was napalmed to create this photo. Should it be illegal to possess? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg
    - Tech-Noir 9y ago
      Really? The reason she was napalmed was to create that photo? You're sticking with that?
      - dTal 9y ago
        I'll allow that I exploited an ambiguity in the wording to make a point. The girl was not napalmed in order to create the photo, but existence of the photo did depend on her being napalmed. Either is a valid interpretation of the wording. I don't think it invalidates the point, though. I'm pretty sure that provenance is irrelevant to child pornography possession - underage selfies and telephoto nude beach shots count even though no abuse took place. Conversely, photos of terrible things being done to children are legal provided they are not of a sexual nature. It seems to me that the true crime being punished is a thought crime: the crime of sexual arousal from inappropriate things. Thought experiment: consider if you found a Polaroid of a child being abused in the street. What would the state response be, assuming it found out, if you: a) left it there b) picked it up and put it in the bin c) took it home, intending to report it to the police, but forgetting about it d) took it home, intending to masturbate over it, but forgetting about it e) as d, but following through
Zhenya 9y ago
What's an "Authentic Map of India"?
- tekacs 9y ago
  Based on a bit of Google-ing, it looks like this is what the GP was talking about: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/06/cartographers-beware-india-warns-of-15-million-fine-for-maps-it-doesnt-like/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/06...

by mcny 9y ago

JohnBooty 9y ago

Yeah, I'm uncomfortable with the banning of certain kinds of content. The root problem here is child abuse. Anybody abusing children, or financially supporting the abuse of children, is doing a seriously bad thing and this is what should be illegal. I'm highly skeptical that images on a hard drive can cause the abuse of children. That's the same kind of logic people used back in the 1970s to argue that playing D&D and listening to Kiss were going to result in a whole generation of Satan-worshippers. You could show a non-pedophiliac person the entire contents of that hard drive, and it wouldn't arouse them or make them want to go abuse children. Wouldn't make me go abuse kids. I'd probably cry a lot and go volunteer to help some kids[1]. So I am not convinced that the contents of this guy's hard drive are going to result in more kids being molested somehow. If anything, I think the opposite may be more likely. Access to porn is correlated to a reduction in rape. I don't know if this extends to pedophiles, but it sure seems entirely possible: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201601/ev... Would I want my kids hanging around somebody with a hard drive full of that stuff? Probably not, but I also wouldn't want them hanging around supporters of certain political parties either, and I don't think they should be rotting in prison indefinitely with no trial. ______ [1] I already do volunteer work; no need to send me illegal porn in order to get me off of my couch

Pharylon 9y ago
But children were abused to create these photos.
- gonmf 9y ago
  I agree that child pornography should not be illegal to possess, only to make or profit from the distribution. My theory goes: if you're not a pedophile, I don't think stumbling upon child porn will make you one, just like watching violent movies won't make you a violent person. If you are a pedophile already then seeing child porn may be a way out of actually harming children, just like watching gore movies be a way out for some sexual fetish with corpses. We should be going after abusers (obviously) and people who actually profit from distribution, which add an incentive for child abuse even for people who are not pedophiles, just desperate for money. Having pictures on your computer without an intent that could cause harm should not be illegal.
- dTal 9y ago
  A 9 year old girl was napalmed to create this photo. Should it be illegal to possess? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg
  - Tech-Noir 9y ago
    Really? The reason she was napalmed was to create that photo? You're sticking with that?
    - dTal 9y ago
      I'll allow that I exploited an ambiguity in the wording to make a point. The girl was not napalmed in order to create the photo, but existence of the photo did depend on her being napalmed. Either is a valid interpretation of the wording. I don't think it invalidates the point, though. I'm pretty sure that provenance is irrelevant to child pornography possession - underage selfies and telephoto nude beach shots count even though no abuse took place. Conversely, photos of terrible things being done to children are legal provided they are not of a sexual nature. It seems to me that the true crime being punished is a thought crime: the crime of sexual arousal from inappropriate things. Thought experiment: consider if you found a Polaroid of a child being abused in the street. What would the state response be, assuming it found out, if you: a) left it there b) picked it up and put it in the bin c) took it home, intending to report it to the police, but forgetting about it d) took it home, intending to masturbate over it, but forgetting about it e) as d, but following through

Zhenya 9y ago

What's an "Authentic Map of India"?

tekacs 9y ago
Based on a bit of Google-ing, it looks like this is what the GP was talking about: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/06/cartographers-beware-india-warns-of-15-million-fine-for-maps-it-doesnt-like/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/06...