4 ms·

Is there really a point to being this strict about child pornography? I'm still uncomfortable with the implications of certain configurations of numbers being i

Is there really a point to being this strict about child pornography? I'm still uncomfortable with the implications of certain configurations of numbers being illegal, and it's unlikely these laws/bans protect any children, unless there are people who exclusively rape children to distribute the resulting images and videos, which seems dubious. I can understand individual sites taking down such images, but anything further seems like overreach.

kstrauser 8y ago
The more restricted an item is, the more a few remaining loyalists will pay to obtain it. We've seen this play out a thousand times with drugs. I infer, then, that there's probably a small set of people making a mint by literally raping children to distribute the resulting images and videos. And I still think enforcement of these laws should be absolutely draconian. This isn't a victimless crime: real lives are being absolutely destroyed. It's not like legalizing weed where suddenly you have a lot of people using it openly and responsibly. There is no acceptable degree of child rape that we can tolerate in society. I'm 100% with you if we were talking about file sharing. I'm 100% opposed to you on this specific subject.
- excalibur 8y ago
  The problem is that the definition of child pornography is fairly broad, and the laws make little to no distinction between the various categories within it. Draconian enforcement is great for the hardened criminals profiting from child rape, but it also leads to locking up teenagers for possessing photos of themselves.
- DuskStar 8y ago
  I think you're conflating "child pornography" with "child rape" here and that might not be entirely fair. Ignoring things like 17 year olds sexting, my view of CP is that it's evidence of a crime, but shouldn't be a crime, and certainly not at the level it is now. The biggest harm - the rape - has already occurred. Someone funding it is one thing - that's almost certainly conspiracy to commit that crime. But possession by someone completely unrelated to the act? Just like videos of people being graphically murdered, for instance. I'd put 3guys1hammer up with anything else on the internet in terms of "should not exist", but that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal to possess/distribute/view.
ballenf 8y ago
> certain configurations of numbers being illegal All matter and objects can be broken down into a configuration of numbers (of electrons, protons, etc.). Either possession of things can be illegal or not. To exempt "digital" things will be less and less a clear line as technology advances (3d printers and, presumably, eventually "replicators"). I don't know the answer, but "they're just numbers" doesn't help us solve these difficult questions. A gun is just iron and various other metals arranged in particular configuration and yet we don't have a problem regulating metals in that manner. Bits are just bits until they're in a configuration that is illegal under current law. Maybe the law should be different, but saying "it's just numbers" isn't very illuminating, imo.
- mooseburger 8y ago
  No, having an image of [thing] is not the same as having [thing], ceci n'est pas une pipe. Replicators would change that, true. Reductively, a gun is a pile of atoms, like everything else, but unlike child pornography, it has the capability of acting upon the material world.
tdb7893 8y ago
Calling it a "certain configuration of numbers" is just willfully ignoring the context of it. To me it would be like calling anthrax a "certain configuration of atoms", it manages to both be literally true while also misrepresenting it.
- ggggtez 8y ago
  Fun fact: Anthrax is naturally occurring, and not really that deadly if correctly diagnosed. Your primary care doctor can treat you for Anthrax, and you'd likely be fine. The only difficulty in 2001 was that individuals were in contact with it that didn't realize, and mistook it for a common cold or flu. Edit: The motivation of that attack was the fear, not the deadliness. In 2001 only 5 people died, and only 17 were infected. As we've seen, a single gunman can do a lot worse without requiring special training or equipment.
manfredo 8y ago
The issue is that it's creating a market for such content, and the production of the content inherently entails harm (sure we can split hairs over whether a 17 or 16 year old is mature enough to produce porn, but I think we all agree that there exists a threshold where that is no longer the case). While I do think concern about over zealous enforcement is warranted, and opens up potential for abuse (e.g. embedding illegal content in other files to troll or extort people), I don't object to the principle behind banning it even if it is "certain configurations of numbers".
briandear 8y ago
> it's unlikely these laws/bans protect any children, unless there are people who exclusively rape children to distribute the resulting images and videos, which seems dubious. When there is a market for something, that will result in more of it. And, you can’t generally make child porn without children. It’s not a huge logical stretch to suggest that some content ought to not be legal, especially when the participants are unable to legally decide if they want to participate. Banning child porn isn’t the slippery slope to full censorship as it is often portrayed as. There should be some common sense involved. Banning child porn doesn’t lead to banning political speech or even distasteful speech, societies should have some limits on speech and I would suggest that child porn would be will within reasonable limits and not necessarily leading us down a road of total censorship. Plenty of legal freaky stuff out there that it seems reasonable to exclude children from the mix.
- mooseburger 8y ago
  Legal child pornography wouldn't mean legal child rape though, or even being able to legally purchase it. Could be something like what France does with prostitution, where only soliciting is criminalized, e.g. purchasing and production remain criminal, but not mere possession, which technically harms no one, even if it triggers strong disgust. In fairness, the only point of this would be a more purist implementation of freedom of speech, but well, the status quo is rather pointless too.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > When there is a market for something, that will result in more of it. So, we should ban not only production, but third-party possession or distribution of any photography/video depicting either results of crime or the actual commission of crime, because it creates a market for crime?
  - DanBC 8y ago
    In the case of images of child sexual abuse we know that's true. We know people trade images to get access to websites, and we know people need to trade newly created images to get access to some websites. We also know that the idea these images are out in the world is something that causes trauma to the victims.
axaxs 8y ago
Absolutely there is. Demand drives production. So even if you for some reason considered the viewing/possession of it as fine, it's driving those who go out and make the material. There's realistically probably not one way to end it forever, but curbing the demand side of it inevitably curbs production. To what degree, I'm not sure anyone knows...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
eridius 8y ago
The general theory is that the continued distribution of child pornography is itself re-victimizing the person or people depicted.

kstrauser 8y ago

The more restricted an item is, the more a few remaining loyalists will pay to obtain it. We've seen this play out a thousand times with drugs. I infer, then, that there's probably a small set of people making a mint by literally raping children to distribute the resulting images and videos. And I still think enforcement of these laws should be absolutely draconian. This isn't a victimless crime: real lives are being absolutely destroyed. It's not like legalizing weed where suddenly you have a lot of people using it openly and responsibly. There is no acceptable degree of child rape that we can tolerate in society. I'm 100% with you if we were talking about file sharing. I'm 100% opposed to you on this specific subject.

excalibur 8y ago
The problem is that the definition of child pornography is fairly broad, and the laws make little to no distinction between the various categories within it. Draconian enforcement is great for the hardened criminals profiting from child rape, but it also leads to locking up teenagers for possessing photos of themselves.
DuskStar 8y ago
I think you're conflating "child pornography" with "child rape" here and that might not be entirely fair. Ignoring things like 17 year olds sexting, my view of CP is that it's evidence of a crime, but shouldn't be a crime, and certainly not at the level it is now. The biggest harm - the rape - has already occurred. Someone funding it is one thing - that's almost certainly conspiracy to commit that crime. But possession by someone completely unrelated to the act? Just like videos of people being graphically murdered, for instance. I'd put 3guys1hammer up with anything else on the internet in terms of "should not exist", but that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal to possess/distribute/view.

ballenf 8y ago

> certain configurations of numbers being illegal All matter and objects can be broken down into a configuration of numbers (of electrons, protons, etc.). Either possession of things can be illegal or not. To exempt "digital" things will be less and less a clear line as technology advances (3d printers and, presumably, eventually "replicators"). I don't know the answer, but "they're just numbers" doesn't help us solve these difficult questions. A gun is just iron and various other metals arranged in particular configuration and yet we don't have a problem regulating metals in that manner. Bits are just bits until they're in a configuration that is illegal under current law. Maybe the law should be different, but saying "it's just numbers" isn't very illuminating, imo.

mooseburger 8y ago
No, having an image of [thing] is not the same as having [thing], ceci n'est pas une pipe. Replicators would change that, true. Reductively, a gun is a pile of atoms, like everything else, but unlike child pornography, it has the capability of acting upon the material world.

tdb7893 8y ago

Calling it a "certain configuration of numbers" is just willfully ignoring the context of it. To me it would be like calling anthrax a "certain configuration of atoms", it manages to both be literally true while also misrepresenting it.

ggggtez 8y ago
Fun fact: Anthrax is naturally occurring, and not really that deadly if correctly diagnosed. Your primary care doctor can treat you for Anthrax, and you'd likely be fine. The only difficulty in 2001 was that individuals were in contact with it that didn't realize, and mistook it for a common cold or flu. Edit: The motivation of that attack was the fear, not the deadliness. In 2001 only 5 people died, and only 17 were infected. As we've seen, a single gunman can do a lot worse without requiring special training or equipment.

manfredo 8y ago

The issue is that it's creating a market for such content, and the production of the content inherently entails harm (sure we can split hairs over whether a 17 or 16 year old is mature enough to produce porn, but I think we all agree that there exists a threshold where that is no longer the case). While I do think concern about over zealous enforcement is warranted, and opens up potential for abuse (e.g. embedding illegal content in other files to troll or extort people), I don't object to the principle behind banning it even if it is "certain configurations of numbers".

briandear 8y ago

> it's unlikely these laws/bans protect any children, unless there are people who exclusively rape children to distribute the resulting images and videos, which seems dubious. When there is a market for something, that will result in more of it. And, you can’t generally make child porn without children. It’s not a huge logical stretch to suggest that some content ought to not be legal, especially when the participants are unable to legally decide if they want to participate. Banning child porn isn’t the slippery slope to full censorship as it is often portrayed as. There should be some common sense involved. Banning child porn doesn’t lead to banning political speech or even distasteful speech, societies should have some limits on speech and I would suggest that child porn would be will within reasonable limits and not necessarily leading us down a road of total censorship. Plenty of legal freaky stuff out there that it seems reasonable to exclude children from the mix.

mooseburger 8y ago
Legal child pornography wouldn't mean legal child rape though, or even being able to legally purchase it. Could be something like what France does with prostitution, where only soliciting is criminalized, e.g. purchasing and production remain criminal, but not mere possession, which technically harms no one, even if it triggers strong disgust. In fairness, the only point of this would be a more purist implementation of freedom of speech, but well, the status quo is rather pointless too.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> When there is a market for something, that will result in more of it. So, we should ban not only production, but third-party possession or distribution of any photography/video depicting either results of crime or the actual commission of crime, because it creates a market for crime?
- DanBC 8y ago
  In the case of images of child sexual abuse we know that's true. We know people trade images to get access to websites, and we know people need to trade newly created images to get access to some websites. We also know that the idea these images are out in the world is something that causes trauma to the victims.

axaxs 8y ago

Absolutely there is. Demand drives production. So even if you for some reason considered the viewing/possession of it as fine, it's driving those who go out and make the material. There's realistically probably not one way to end it forever, but curbing the demand side of it inevitably curbs production. To what degree, I'm not sure anyone knows...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

eridius 8y ago

The general theory is that the continued distribution of child pornography is itself re-victimizing the person or people depicted.