4 ms·

You've managed to circumvent my entire post and you're still wrong; my point was that ideas are communicated through a medium, and they can even be communicated

You've managed to circumvent my entire post and you're still wrong; my point was that ideas are communicated through a medium, and they can even be communicated through, for instance, threats and pornography. You have given no convincing reason to single out child-pornographic images for censorship while allowing others, such as regular pornography. What differentiates the free speech content of child pornography from other pornography, or even art which required harm in its creation? Obviously I'm not defending child pornography here, but I think there's a logical flaw in your reasoning. The fact that ideas can be communicated through other media is irrelevant, since it would mean that we can censor whatever ideas we like in any major category (e.g ideas conveyed in photography and film) but thereby only farcically allow them otherwise (e.g the expression of the idea is only allowed through physical speech).

hackinthebochs 8y ago
>and they can even be communicated through, for instance, threats and pornography. But censoring one particular medium is not censoring the idea. So your attempt at finding a contradiction doesn't hold water. >What differentiates the free speech content of child pornography from other pornography, or even art which required harm in its creation? Consent. >since it would mean that we can censor whatever ideas we like in any major category This doesn't follow from my argument that censoring one particular medium is OK. Child porn is a genuine special case (direct harm in its production, lack of consent in dissemination) that doesn't transfer to other mediums that don't have the same problems.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  Censoring a medium is an instance of censoring the idea, and if censoring one particular medium is permissible, then any number of media may be therefore censored. >This doesn't follow from my argument that censoring one particular medium is OK. It does, since by your own admission, censoring a particular medium does not entail censoring the idea. >Child porn is a genuine special case (direct harm in its production, lack of consent in dissemination) So this is what I was getting at - you say it's fine to censor a particular way of conveying an idea due to other harms being associated with that particular way of conveying. In child pornography it's the violation of consent in its production and violation of privacy in its reproduction. Extending this argument from child pornography to regular pornography, some would say there are significant harms involved there too (e.g it conveys the idea that women ought to be subservient to men), and then to hate speech. The core idea is that speech is not absolute, just like actions aren't absolute. You're free to swing your fist so long as it doesn't hurt anyone, and you're free to say things so long as they don't hurt anyone (or require anyone to be hurt, of course). This means that with a sufficiently convincing empirical dataset, we can outlaw regular pornography and hate speech.

hackinthebochs 8y ago

>and they can even be communicated through, for instance, threats and pornography. But censoring one particular medium is not censoring the idea. So your attempt at finding a contradiction doesn't hold water. >What differentiates the free speech content of child pornography from other pornography, or even art which required harm in its creation? Consent. >since it would mean that we can censor whatever ideas we like in any major category This doesn't follow from my argument that censoring one particular medium is OK. Child porn is a genuine special case (direct harm in its production, lack of consent in dissemination) that doesn't transfer to other mediums that don't have the same problems.

claudiawerner 8y ago
Censoring a medium is an instance of censoring the idea, and if censoring one particular medium is permissible, then any number of media may be therefore censored. >This doesn't follow from my argument that censoring one particular medium is OK. It does, since by your own admission, censoring a particular medium does not entail censoring the idea. >Child porn is a genuine special case (direct harm in its production, lack of consent in dissemination) So this is what I was getting at - you say it's fine to censor a particular way of conveying an idea due to other harms being associated with that particular way of conveying. In child pornography it's the violation of consent in its production and violation of privacy in its reproduction. Extending this argument from child pornography to regular pornography, some would say there are significant harms involved there too (e.g it conveys the idea that women ought to be subservient to men), and then to hate speech. The core idea is that speech is not absolute, just like actions aren't absolute. You're free to swing your fist so long as it doesn't hurt anyone, and you're free to say things so long as they don't hurt anyone (or require anyone to be hurt, of course). This means that with a sufficiently convincing empirical dataset, we can outlaw regular pornography and hate speech.