3 ms·

>By indicating you want it and being a participant in the market for it. Does it count as being in the market if no exchange of money takes place? Is Github a

>By indicating you want it and being a participant in the market for it. Does it count as being in the market if no exchange of money takes place? Is Github a market, for example? If not, this would seem to invalidate the idea at least when the material is found by chance or provided free. >There are people who, knowing you are like them and enjoy that sort of thing, will make it for you. That's true, but if you're using this as an argument against all the material then I think I should step in and say that it does not apply to all the material, or at least, you haven't provided evidence that it does. I don't doubt it happens, but to use this as a general argument seems to fall flat on its face. The "good porn" analogues are people who record themselves because they like the attention. But I think this is a minority.

openasocket 9y ago
Generally you have to pay or provide some child porn of your own to access those sites. And they have forums for them, talking about the best way to find a child to molest, etc. Plus there's the torment of the victim, knowing that there are people out there to this day jerking off to video of the worst experience of their lives.
- etplayer 9y ago
  I'm someone familiar with how it works, though obviously I do not search for the material myself - but it depends where one goes. I2P is known for its torrent capability and the torrents can be freely obtained. Tor has various forums that are free to sign up for. Freenet has many, many sites from what I can tell are freesites for this content. I simply don't buy the idea that the majority of CP advertised on the dark web is only available for pay or exchange; I'm sure a lot of it is, but this "market effect" thing is unsubstantiated as far as I can tell, even though many would like to believe it's a good argument against something heinous, that doesn't mean we should just accept it. >Plus there's the torment of the victim, knowing that there are people out there to this day jerking off to video of the worst experience of their lives. This I can understand and actually I regard it as a bigger motivator to the illegalisation of possession. However often they don't know, and could you reassure them that it's not happening if you put an effort toward eradicating only their images? And if they don't know, doesn't that also eradicate this argument in those cases too? What if they don't have a problem with it, or rather, they are neutral about it? The harm would have to be found, and if there is no harm, the argument collapses in that case. Of course the argument also does not apply to pornography in which the victims are dead or unconscious etc. which would seem to, considering only this argument, make such material permissible.
  - openasocket 9y ago
    Is it wrong to rape someone who is unconscious, who would never know what you did? What if you rape them then murder them? Sure, the murder is unethical, but should you still be held accountable for the rape? Also consider the viewer of the child pornography. They have no way of knowing if the victim is aware of the video, or the victim's opinion about the video. So if they go forward and view it without caring if harm was caused, isn't that wrong?
    - etplayer 9y ago
      >Is it wrong to rape someone who is unconscious, who would never know what you did? Perhaps I was too hasty. Of course it's wrong, even if they didn't know. But in this case, the actual harm you're claiming exists (and I agree that it can exist) is knowledge itself. The knowledge is a side effect; if this side effect can be stopped from manifesting itself, then the harm is no longer done. i.e rape involves harm not through knowledge but by matter of fact, by its very definition. This is not the case with the crime of possessing child pornography. With regard to death, I'm not sure what your point is - your argument for harm caused by knowledge does not hold up when the victim of the harm is dead. Of course that dosen't mean that it's OK to kill the victim, but if that were to happen, it would eliminate the crime of harm by knowledge. >So if they go forward and view it without caring if harm was caused, isn't that wrong? Not if there was no harm caused. I'm becoming more skeptical of this argument. If knowledge that something is happening constitutes sufficient harm, then would it follow that somebody laughing at you in another coutry, which you know to be happening somehow (such as being told by a friend), can be considered as harm?
      - openasocket 9y ago
        I'm afraid I've lost the thread of this a bit. What exactly are you advocating? Are you proposing a change in the law? Or are we strictly in the land of ethics?
        etplayer 9y ago
        Yes, I am proposing a change that such material should not be illegal to possess. As to distribution, I have not made up my mind.

openasocket 9y ago

Generally you have to pay or provide some child porn of your own to access those sites. And they have forums for them, talking about the best way to find a child to molest, etc. Plus there's the torment of the victim, knowing that there are people out there to this day jerking off to video of the worst experience of their lives.

etplayer 9y ago
I'm someone familiar with how it works, though obviously I do not search for the material myself - but it depends where one goes. I2P is known for its torrent capability and the torrents can be freely obtained. Tor has various forums that are free to sign up for. Freenet has many, many sites from what I can tell are freesites for this content. I simply don't buy the idea that the majority of CP advertised on the dark web is only available for pay or exchange; I'm sure a lot of it is, but this "market effect" thing is unsubstantiated as far as I can tell, even though many would like to believe it's a good argument against something heinous, that doesn't mean we should just accept it. >Plus there's the torment of the victim, knowing that there are people out there to this day jerking off to video of the worst experience of their lives. This I can understand and actually I regard it as a bigger motivator to the illegalisation of possession. However often they don't know, and could you reassure them that it's not happening if you put an effort toward eradicating only their images? And if they don't know, doesn't that also eradicate this argument in those cases too? What if they don't have a problem with it, or rather, they are neutral about it? The harm would have to be found, and if there is no harm, the argument collapses in that case. Of course the argument also does not apply to pornography in which the victims are dead or unconscious etc. which would seem to, considering only this argument, make such material permissible.
- openasocket 9y ago
  Is it wrong to rape someone who is unconscious, who would never know what you did? What if you rape them then murder them? Sure, the murder is unethical, but should you still be held accountable for the rape? Also consider the viewer of the child pornography. They have no way of knowing if the victim is aware of the video, or the victim's opinion about the video. So if they go forward and view it without caring if harm was caused, isn't that wrong?
  - etplayer 9y ago
    >Is it wrong to rape someone who is unconscious, who would never know what you did? Perhaps I was too hasty. Of course it's wrong, even if they didn't know. But in this case, the actual harm you're claiming exists (and I agree that it can exist) is knowledge itself. The knowledge is a side effect; if this side effect can be stopped from manifesting itself, then the harm is no longer done. i.e rape involves harm not through knowledge but by matter of fact, by its very definition. This is not the case with the crime of possessing child pornography. With regard to death, I'm not sure what your point is - your argument for harm caused by knowledge does not hold up when the victim of the harm is dead. Of course that dosen't mean that it's OK to kill the victim, but if that were to happen, it would eliminate the crime of harm by knowledge. >So if they go forward and view it without caring if harm was caused, isn't that wrong? Not if there was no harm caused. I'm becoming more skeptical of this argument. If knowledge that something is happening constitutes sufficient harm, then would it follow that somebody laughing at you in another coutry, which you know to be happening somehow (such as being told by a friend), can be considered as harm?
    - openasocket 9y ago
      I'm afraid I've lost the thread of this a bit. What exactly are you advocating? Are you proposing a change in the law? Or are we strictly in the land of ethics?
      - etplayer 9y ago
        Yes, I am proposing a change that such material should not be illegal to possess. As to distribution, I have not made up my mind.