5 ms·

Child pornography and homeless people are not comparable. Homeless people have a right to shelter, whereas pictures do not have rights. We take down child porno

by allenz 8y ago

Child pornography and homeless people are not comparable. Homeless people have a right to shelter, whereas pictures do not have rights. We take down child pornography not because we wish to "sweep it under the rug", but because the pictures are inherently and irredeemably harmful.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
At minimum, there needs a mens rea requirement on all child porn statutes. As of right now, someone emailing you an unsolicited CP image means you have broken the law, with absolutely no intent on your side. In fact, this is an avenue of attacking someone, but sending them these pictures. A mens rea would require that the person intended or requested these be sent, and necessitate proof of that. Long story short, I'm against statutory laws by and large. There's almost always a potential justifiable defense, even to homicide. There's also classes of crimes which aren't crimes if there's no mindful intent.
- jstarfish 8y ago
  In what jurisdiction? The US does have mens rea. Mere possession isnt enough; it has to be proven that you sought it, or knew what it was and kept it, and (variable) be in possession of 3 or more artifacts. Keeping it, hiding it in a buried folder and renaming the files using terms common only amongst exploitation rings does not help your defense against any of these factors. Lots of claims of non-solicitation get made--nobody is going to admit otherwise--but after forensics it always turns out to either truly be a really shitty prank or the recipient was way more involved than they were willing to admit. Nobody gets prosecuted for simply being on the wrong end of an email. There is always more to the story.
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    Then I would encourage you to study the law behind the statutes.. https://yalelawtech.org/2009/11/02/why-mens-rea-should-be-applied-to-child-pornography-laws/ https://yalelawtech.org/2009/11/02/why-mens-rea-should-be-ap... "In Osborne v. Ohio, the United States Supreme Court explained that laws making possession of pornography a crime, regardless of the circumstances, were constitutional. " However there are beginning to be some cracks in the strict liability from this case where a 16 year old lied about her age and obtained fake drivers license credentials stating the fraudulent age. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/08/no-strict-liability-for-soliciting-minor-online-for-sex-if-minor-claimed-she-was-above-the-age-of-consent/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.43decfa9b130 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... Obviously, each state can have its own laws. But the key here is "strict liability" versus "mens rea". And no, prosecutorial discretion is no substitute for mens rea.
throwmeawayplz2 8y ago
I don't think it's absolutely certain that already produced cp is inherently and irredeemably harmful after the fact. It has been debated and researched but it's not really clear if distribution and consumption should be treated with anywhere near the same criminality as production. Also parent brings up a good point that almost all platforms that allow content sharing deal with pretty massive amounts of things like cp, but we as a society never really address the popularity head on, similar to how we have treated drug abuse historically ("it's something bad that only bad people do and there aren't that many of them--certainly none I know!")
lopmotr 8y ago
Can you describe what that harm is? If a picture is copied to 100 recipients, does the harm multiply by 100 times also? How is that information communicated to the victim? I can imagine this being the case for defamation. 100 people being told "Johnny is a thief" might cause 100 times as much harm to Johnny's social interactions as 1 person being told that. But how does it work for child porn?
- allenz 8y ago
  Consider it as if you were a child victim. Imagine coming across these pictures of your abuse, or your family coming across these pictures. Or your coworkers. Or strangers. The pictures reenact the crime, invoking shame, dread, and helplessness. Here are some stories: https://redd.it/8af7io https://redd.it/8af7io, http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/a-victim-of-child-pornography-doesnt-get-to-forget/2156937 http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/a-victim-of-chi.... As a moral principle, it should not be legal to share these exploitative pictures. In terms of information, every copy of a picture increases the probability that it comes back to haunt the victim. Finally, many viewers of child pornography find the pictures horrible or even traumatic. Many people are unfazed, but some experience nightmares or severe anxiety, especially investigators and moderators: https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/ https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/.
  - cfadvan 8y ago
    To the first part, it’s hard to imagine someone “stumbling across” child pornography by accident. The first post you linked is more realistic, in that she’s talking about knowing the images still exist, are still in collections and in that sense she’s still victimized. Unlocking some phones isn’t going to change that, nothing will. She’s not seeing it herself, she just knows that since it was distributed, it’s impossible to take it all back. I agree that it shouldn’t be legal to possess or share child pornography, but I don’t think it’s a justification for mass invasion of privacy either. When someone is detected with child porn they should be in legal jeapordy, but we don’t need to kill crypto to make that happen.
    - 8y ago
megous 8y ago
What about pictures of other crimes involving children, like dead and mutilated children. The parents can be re-victimized by seeing their dead children online again and again, potentially. If the child survived, it would surely be triggering to see themselves suffering so horribly. Should people posessing such pictures be treated as harshly as people posessing cp? They certainly are not right now. I guess intent is different on the production side. It's usually reporting (but often times people just sharing pictures they received from someone, without any censorship or much verification). But what do we know why people want to posess such pictures. It's a picture/video of a horrific crime involving a child, perhaps even more horrific than most CP. I mean how can you compare a child being tickled inappropriately for example with a child intentionally burned by chemicals until it slowly drowns to death because of pulmonary edema. Sometimes society's rules are hard do make sense of if you try to make sense of them rationally.
- allenz 8y ago
  Laws are a balance of interests. There are legitimate reasons to show violent crimes in a documentary, work of art, or political commentary, which balance against the harm. There are no reasons to show child pornography. Sexual abuse emphasizes dynamics of objectification, humiliation, powerlessness. I'd argue that victims respond more strongly to pictures of sexual abuse than to pictures of physical violence. Wikipedia says that a million children have been abused to produce child pornography, whereas there are few instances of violence to produce pictures of violence. In this sense, child pornography is inseparable from the crime, whereas with violence, there is a distinction between the crime and the documentation. That said, I do sympathize with the view that sentences for the possession of child pornography are too harsh, especially when viewing pedophilia as a mental disorder. I strongly support efforts to make therapy more accessible, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_Project_Dunkelfeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_Project_Dunkelfeld.
  - megous 8y ago
    Yes, there's a component that some people are attracted to viewing CP, thus there's incentive to produce it. This component is probably not that present in an addiction to gore material. People can be sensitive to the way the material was produced and react differently to accidental/documentary, staged voluntary, or staged involuntary recordings. If you search online you'll find accounts of people being horrified, yet attracted to gore. Psychology of these things is quite interesting.
otakucode 8y ago
Metaphor is not comparison. We do not need to remove the useful construct of metaphor from language simply because it considers two things which are otherwise distinct along the lines where they are similar. Child pornography and homeless people are both things which 'polite society' would like to not have to deal with at all. It is easy to make an argument for eliminating child pornography on its other aspects (the harm), but the facts of homelessness would identically be targeted by any system which seeks to assist 'polite society' in eliminating utterly from social platforms anything which they would like to not be confronted with. Because the system can't be built to target based on harm. But it can be built to target based on 'I don't want to see that'. And in that way, the metaphor is useful.

by allenz 8y ago

crankylinuxuser 8y ago

At minimum, there needs a mens rea requirement on all child porn statutes. As of right now, someone emailing you an unsolicited CP image means you have broken the law, with absolutely no intent on your side. In fact, this is an avenue of attacking someone, but sending them these pictures. A mens rea would require that the person intended or requested these be sent, and necessitate proof of that. Long story short, I'm against statutory laws by and large. There's almost always a potential justifiable defense, even to homicide. There's also classes of crimes which aren't crimes if there's no mindful intent.

jstarfish 8y ago
In what jurisdiction? The US does have mens rea. Mere possession isnt enough; it has to be proven that you sought it, or knew what it was and kept it, and (variable) be in possession of 3 or more artifacts. Keeping it, hiding it in a buried folder and renaming the files using terms common only amongst exploitation rings does not help your defense against any of these factors. Lots of claims of non-solicitation get made--nobody is going to admit otherwise--but after forensics it always turns out to either truly be a really shitty prank or the recipient was way more involved than they were willing to admit. Nobody gets prosecuted for simply being on the wrong end of an email. There is always more to the story.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  Then I would encourage you to study the law behind the statutes.. https://yalelawtech.org/2009/11/02/why-mens-rea-should-be-applied-to-child-pornography-laws/ https://yalelawtech.org/2009/11/02/why-mens-rea-should-be-ap... "In Osborne v. Ohio, the United States Supreme Court explained that laws making possession of pornography a crime, regardless of the circumstances, were constitutional. " However there are beginning to be some cracks in the strict liability from this case where a 16 year old lied about her age and obtained fake drivers license credentials stating the fraudulent age. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/08/no-strict-liability-for-soliciting-minor-online-for-sex-if-minor-claimed-she-was-above-the-age-of-consent/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.43decfa9b130 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... Obviously, each state can have its own laws. But the key here is "strict liability" versus "mens rea". And no, prosecutorial discretion is no substitute for mens rea.

throwmeawayplz2 8y ago

I don't think it's absolutely certain that already produced cp is inherently and irredeemably harmful after the fact. It has been debated and researched but it's not really clear if distribution and consumption should be treated with anywhere near the same criminality as production. Also parent brings up a good point that almost all platforms that allow content sharing deal with pretty massive amounts of things like cp, but we as a society never really address the popularity head on, similar to how we have treated drug abuse historically ("it's something bad that only bad people do and there aren't that many of them--certainly none I know!")

lopmotr 8y ago

Can you describe what that harm is? If a picture is copied to 100 recipients, does the harm multiply by 100 times also? How is that information communicated to the victim? I can imagine this being the case for defamation. 100 people being told "Johnny is a thief" might cause 100 times as much harm to Johnny's social interactions as 1 person being told that. But how does it work for child porn?

allenz 8y ago
Consider it as if you were a child victim. Imagine coming across these pictures of your abuse, or your family coming across these pictures. Or your coworkers. Or strangers. The pictures reenact the crime, invoking shame, dread, and helplessness. Here are some stories: https://redd.it/8af7io https://redd.it/8af7io, http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/a-victim-of-child-pornography-doesnt-get-to-forget/2156937 http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/a-victim-of-chi.... As a moral principle, it should not be legal to share these exploitative pictures. In terms of information, every copy of a picture increases the probability that it comes back to haunt the victim. Finally, many viewers of child pornography find the pictures horrible or even traumatic. Many people are unfazed, but some experience nightmares or severe anxiety, especially investigators and moderators: https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/ https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/.
- cfadvan 8y ago
  To the first part, it’s hard to imagine someone “stumbling across” child pornography by accident. The first post you linked is more realistic, in that she’s talking about knowing the images still exist, are still in collections and in that sense she’s still victimized. Unlocking some phones isn’t going to change that, nothing will. She’s not seeing it herself, she just knows that since it was distributed, it’s impossible to take it all back. I agree that it shouldn’t be legal to possess or share child pornography, but I don’t think it’s a justification for mass invasion of privacy either. When someone is detected with child porn they should be in legal jeapordy, but we don’t need to kill crypto to make that happen.
  - 8y ago

megous 8y ago

What about pictures of other crimes involving children, like dead and mutilated children. The parents can be re-victimized by seeing their dead children online again and again, potentially. If the child survived, it would surely be triggering to see themselves suffering so horribly. Should people posessing such pictures be treated as harshly as people posessing cp? They certainly are not right now. I guess intent is different on the production side. It's usually reporting (but often times people just sharing pictures they received from someone, without any censorship or much verification). But what do we know why people want to posess such pictures. It's a picture/video of a horrific crime involving a child, perhaps even more horrific than most CP. I mean how can you compare a child being tickled inappropriately for example with a child intentionally burned by chemicals until it slowly drowns to death because of pulmonary edema. Sometimes society's rules are hard do make sense of if you try to make sense of them rationally.

allenz 8y ago
Laws are a balance of interests. There are legitimate reasons to show violent crimes in a documentary, work of art, or political commentary, which balance against the harm. There are no reasons to show child pornography. Sexual abuse emphasizes dynamics of objectification, humiliation, powerlessness. I'd argue that victims respond more strongly to pictures of sexual abuse than to pictures of physical violence. Wikipedia says that a million children have been abused to produce child pornography, whereas there are few instances of violence to produce pictures of violence. In this sense, child pornography is inseparable from the crime, whereas with violence, there is a distinction between the crime and the documentation. That said, I do sympathize with the view that sentences for the possession of child pornography are too harsh, especially when viewing pedophilia as a mental disorder. I strongly support efforts to make therapy more accessible, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_Project_Dunkelfeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_Project_Dunkelfeld.
- megous 8y ago
  Yes, there's a component that some people are attracted to viewing CP, thus there's incentive to produce it. This component is probably not that present in an addiction to gore material. People can be sensitive to the way the material was produced and react differently to accidental/documentary, staged voluntary, or staged involuntary recordings. If you search online you'll find accounts of people being horrified, yet attracted to gore. Psychology of these things is quite interesting.

otakucode 8y ago

Metaphor is not comparison. We do not need to remove the useful construct of metaphor from language simply because it considers two things which are otherwise distinct along the lines where they are similar. Child pornography and homeless people are both things which 'polite society' would like to not have to deal with at all. It is easy to make an argument for eliminating child pornography on its other aspects (the harm), but the facts of homelessness would identically be targeted by any system which seeks to assist 'polite society' in eliminating utterly from social platforms anything which they would like to not be confronted with. Because the system can't be built to target based on harm. But it can be built to target based on 'I don't want to see that'. And in that way, the metaphor is useful.