11 ms·

All the "free speech" advocates here, do you still stand by that when it comes to child porn, or specific threats against individuals? If you do, and publicly,

All the "free speech" advocates here, do you still stand by that when it comes to child porn, or specific threats against individuals? If you do, and publicly, well... at least you're consistent. If you don't then you're already ok with some kind of censorship, and the argument is just about where the line is drawn. I really don't like when people talk about "censorship in general" when they really mean "This is below my line for what should be censored". If you want to make the case for no censorship at all then you need to use the most extreme examples of what will be shared and consumed because that's what will happen.

marcinzm 8y ago
Sure. Except people also confuse "this is where the line is" with "this is the material that will be censored." The line is merely how much material those controlling censorship are able to censor. And nowadays a lot of very vocal right wing politicians are getting elected across the world. Allowing censorship merely moves that line and what ultimately gets censored may be very different from what you wanted or expected to get censored.
sasasassy 8y ago
Yes. You should not go to jail just for having some specific sequences of ones and zeroes on a magnetic device on your home. You should go to jail if you do actual crimes, you know, with real victims. Not imaginary victims that don't know when you see a video in the first place.
- tantalor 8y ago
  IANAL but knowingly transmitting CP is arguably "aiding & abetting" (i.e., encouraging) the "actual crimes" after the fact.
  - sasasassy 8y ago
    Yes but it shouldn't. Sharing some bad videos is considered bad, like child porn or NZ shooting. Sharing others is fine, like beheadings, other terror attacks, war footage. Making violent videogames is fine (see most FPS), but if they are a little more out of the norm they're bad (see a game called "Postal"). I'd like to know who decides on these arbitrary things.
    - tantalor 8y ago
      You have to consider intent of sharing that content, and whether (a reasonable person would conclude) the intent promotes criminal/antisocial behavior. CP is shared with the intent of reciprocity for more CP; hence sharing existing CP promotes future CP. Violent/hateful content is shared with the intent to encourage/persuade others to perform similar acts, or to dehumanize the victims.
      - sasasassy 8y ago
        No I don't. When I share a book on how to teach people to make bombs like the Anarchy Cookbook, I don't have to consider intent at all. Why is CP different? CP, violent and hateful content are shared for a myriad of reasons, some for profit, like the documentary on the Bataclan attack on Netflix, some for sharing with fellow pedophiles. I don't see why I can't see 9/11 footage because someone else might feel different about it.
      - tomp 8y ago
        > and whether (a reasonable person would conclude) the intent promotes criminal/antisocial behavior. No, it should be based on actual research and statistics. For example, many supposedly reasonable people assumed that violent computer games promote criminal/antisocial behaviour, but they actually don’t.
    - anigbrowl 8y ago
      Darn, if only there were some sort of information network that would allow people to find where things like laws and policies originate. I guess we'll never know.
    - halfjew222 8y ago
      I’m leaning more towards your side of this argument, but after looking through the archive of the thread from 8chan where NZ shooter initially announced his plan and linked his streams, these guys are begging for proof and this character is a meme that they’re cheering on. It’s sickening, scary, and quite frankly, I can’t understand how you can get to a point that they are at. That said, the sharing of the video in that thread is something I think we can all agree is 0’s and 1’s that should be attempted to be prevented. The media will come and share these videos for clicks and that’s a separate issue. Initially, this guy is knowingly becoming an Internet celebrity for murdering people. This part of the culture has to be addressed. I am worried this kind of meme-heavy killing is opening up a sickening can of worms.
- happytoexplain 8y ago
  While I agree with this notion generally, you're avoiding the relevant point, which is that information is not something that inherently can have no direct effect on the real world. Child porn is the usual example where you can start to make a reasonable argument that possessing it creates a real-world effect, not due to the possession itself, but due to the necessary action required to possess, which is seeking it out and acquiring it from a provider, etc etc.
  - sasasassy 8y ago
    Acquiring child porn doesn't have to be any more difficult than acquiring videos of beheadings and other vile acts. It was only made difficult to acquire out of puritanism, there's nothing intrinsic about it that suggests you have to commit further crimes to find it. And if the idea is that the public is too dumb and easy to influence and therefore cannot be shown child porn or killings in New Zeland etc then it doesn't make sense at the same time for me to be advertised violent movies in the cinema.
    - mrkstu 8y ago
      People acquire child porn because they are the target market as consumers of it. People, generally, watch video of a terrorist attack to be informed about threats to them or their country, a direct first amendment concern. There is a direct connection between the consumers of child porn and its production that is absent in the other.
      - sasasassy 8y ago
        You are implying there is an actual industry of producing child porn and filling in quotas and receiving payment in some form, I don't think that's the case. In any case, people that watch (many) speeches of Hitler are also the target market of many businesses, and yet there is a correlation between doing so and being radicalized/extremist/dangerous, and yet it is perfectly legal.
    - anigbrowl 8y ago
      And yet CP aficionados often seem to end up producing their own because it becomes an object of trade on certain black markets. Here's an example from just a month ago: http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/porn-actress-director-accused-of-sexually-abusing-young-girl-detectives-searching-for-more-victims http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/porn-actress-director-a... How is it that people who become interested in and start to collect CP would ever become involved in its production, in your model? Having gained access to a product they desire, those people seem to follow the same pattern as enthusiasts of any other taste, and develop an interest in creating their own material, as opposed to being satisfied with that already available.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  I’m sorry, but that crass treatment of “ones and zeroes” as not being part of the real world is a serious logical fallacy. It should apply across the board—if you’re a serious engineer. Those same “ones and zeroes” could cost someone their life as much as a mal-designed truss on a bridge could. That is not a new phenomenon. The same applies to childrens’ safety.
  - sasasassy 8y ago
    Ones and zeroes in my own property are not influencing anything in the "real world". If I use them and they are a virus and damage computer systems, that is a crime. If I made the virus just to learn about hacking, that should be perfectly fine. Childrens' safety is not a digital thing in a computer, and AFAIK nothing suggests childrens' safety is more at risk right now than from other forms of violence that seem to be perfectly tolerated and celebrated in books, movies, music. If I'm trying to make a business out of child porn, sure try to prosecute me. I believe selling other peoples' pictures without consent should be illegal in any case, specially if in demeaning circumstances. If I'm just sharing it, though disgusting it may be, the law should not stick it's nose in it. Just like it's legal to share books on how to make bombs and poison people.
    - guiambros 8y ago
      > Ones and zeroes in my own property are not influencing anything in the "real world"... So you're saying that having illegal material on your computer is not a problem because, well, it's "your property"? Like, it's fine for you to have child porn (or pirated software, or illegally downloaded copyrighted music or movies) because hey, it's all zeroes and ones, and you're not "making a business out of it"? I empathize with the argument of some free speech advocates that it's complicated to find the right balance on where to draw the line in terms of censorship, but frankly the argument that you can do anything you want just because "it's zeroes and ones" and that is not "the real world" is plainly ridiculous. Thankfully what you propose is clearly against the law in most countries.
      - sasasassy 8y ago
jstanley 8y ago
> All the "free speech" advocates here, do you still stand by that when it comes to child porn, or specific threats against individuals? Yes.
TaylorAlexander 8y ago
And if people want the right censored then they’re accepting that the right or center or whoever will censor new critics the way Martin Luther King Jr, The Black Panthers, Muslim movements, Native American Rights movements, Puerto Rican Indepencence movements, and other groups fighting for the rights of their people against the establishment. If we empower an elite to censor information or have any other power over us they will use it to further their own agendas even if that means inhibiting the freedom of millions of people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
deogeo 8y ago
Many/most free speech advocates seem pretty happy with the way it's implemented in the US, where both child porn and threats are illegal. I really don't like it when people take the few, narrow exceptions to free speech in the US, and try to expand them: https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-the-nazi-exception/ https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-t...
Shivetya 8y ago
Well there we have it then, censorship should only be in force when not doing so deprives someone of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. To put it another way, do not deprive a person of their self, their property, or efforts of their work. Child porn when get caught under depriving children, those unable to consent legally, to their happiness, if not liberty and in some cases their life. Video threats to living people would likely fall under all three as well. As in life, our actions should never deprive another of their rights to live and pursue their non infringing rights.you have a right to self, your property, and the efforts of your work. we balance some of the latter in order to provide a more orderly society and benefit those who cannot fully sustain themselves. A simplistic view I admit but it is when people start having exception after exception we end up with no real liberty but a tyranny of violations. Every thing you do would bound to be covered to where even no action is a wrong.
- tomp 8y ago
  Why block child porn but not leaked porn tapes of adults? Are they somehow less deprived?
  - lohszvu 8y ago
    Leaked porn tapes were filmed with consent. If they were not filmed with consent they are illegal to possess.
vibrato 8y ago
We have laws against those specifics you mention under the first amendment. So yes, I would prefer the tech companies did nothing but assist law enforcement of the violations (when warranted).
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  So... how do you feel about the Hacker News moderation? Or say... spam filtering? Do you think those should go away too?
  - vibrato 8y ago
    Moderation by censorship doesn’t sit right. Responding to comments and the upvote / downvote system seems fair enough. Spam is a tough one. As long as the user of a spam filter can modify their settings and see everything easily I’m not opposed. Perhaps we need to regulate spam / ddos in a similar way to incitement of violence.
Chris_Chambers 8y ago
Obviously the production should be illegal, but child porn itself is evidence of a crime. The more people who have it, the more likely the criminals will be identified by someone who recognizes them by a birthmark, freckles, a balding pattern, the watch they’re wearing, etc. Threats are also potential evidence of a crime. If someone is angry enough to publicly threaten to kill you, and then they actually do it and plan it perfectly in such a way that they would definitely get away with it if it hadn’t been for the previous public threat where they gave their intentions away, then the fact that twitter censored their threat is what enabled them to get away with it. Any other brilliant examples of “good” censorship?
holymacaral 8y ago
Hi I found your comment interesting. Yes, we have free speech forums where you can say and share anything without censorship. Yes, there are illegal things there although 99% of the content is legal. The idea is that you are in control of your own experience. You can & should blacklist entire sections of the website. It's all peer-to-peer and onion routed. The only one who can censor things is the owner although moderators might be able to curate content on their boards (similar to what HN does). Oh, and if the owner throws away his private key then it will keep running just without new updates to the site. People are afraid of freedom but it all works pretty well in the end. Also, I agree with the Ayn Rand definition of free speech, i.e. the term censorship only applies to governments. When a company (such as Facebook) censors something they are really just expressing their private property rights.
x38iq84n 8y ago
Yes. Go after the authors of said horrible crimes, not after those in possession of a video thereof.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  Why do the perpetrators of such crimes put themselves at such extreme legal risk by distributing evidence of their criminal acts? Do you think those media end up on the internet by accident, or are they intended to be shared? Would you say the audience for such content is more or less likely to originate new content than and equivalent-sized pool of non-possessors?
writepub 8y ago
All the "non-free-speech", "speech is violence" advocates here: Violence, call for violence against others, and crimes that happen to have a speech component to them, are NOT protected by the first amendment. Threats against individuals and CP very much fall under crimes, and they have ZERO protection under free speech. > If you want to make the case for no censorship at all then you need to use the most extreme examples of what will be shared and consumed because that's what will happen No free speech advocate worth their salt EVER demanded anything illegal to not be censored, including threats, CP, etc. Absolutely no one should entrust private corporations with the power to decide what is and isn't extreme, or acceptable speech. Because it will immediately be abused (as is happening right now) to censor speech that companies, mostly based in left leaning blue cities with, overwhelming employee bases leaning towards one ideology (hint: left), to spread their worldview to the REST of the world. US law sets clear definitions on free speech, and is a lot more reliable than the "moral" compass of a few individuals at companies. For instance, the very legal and harmless "learn to code" meme was only considered offensive by a very small monitory of silicon valley Twitter censors, but anyone who tweeted that got an immediate temporary suspension.
x_____x 8y ago
For me, the line is what is legal in your area of operation. Not what is acceptable to potential advertisers.
burfog 8y ago
I would treat child porn and specific threats against individuals just the same as I'd treat a shooting video. Arrest the shooter, the child porn producer (unless victim==perpetrator), and the person making the threat. It is fine for others to keep and share the video, photos, text, etc.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  I'm not sure that it's fine, since one would expect network effects to increase proliferations - and empirical results bear out that expectation: http://www.davidmckie.com/final-visualizations/ http://www.davidmckie.com/final-visualizations/
  - burfog 8y ago
    Well, do we want to catch people harming children, or do we just want to not be aware of it? We have an out-of-sight-out-of-mind policy right now. Reporting is discouraged, because then all your stuff would be seized as evidence and you'd be under suspicion. Lots of people probably destroy computers if they accidentally come across the stuff, since mere possession of the data is an offense. If it spreads around, then somebody might recognize a perpetrator. I suppose we could get fancy, with a rule that you can keep it if you register it. That would make it far easier to track things back to the source and then see if anybody is getting harmed.
    - anigbrowl 8y ago
      We have an out-of-sight-out-of-mind policy right now. Then how am I able to provide you with data collected by law enforcement authorities demonstrating decade-long trends, along with information on the methodology employed to collect it?
      - burfog 8y ago
        That is only about possession of what is sometimes evidence of abuse, and only about people who were caught with it. The interesting numbers are how many cases of abuse are hidden from law enforcement because: 1. people won't recognize abusers they know because they won't dare look 2. people would rather destroy a computer than deal with unfriendly police procedures Oh, BTW, one other problem I didn't mention. The current situation is very easy to use for framing a person. This has been determined to be the case in some divorce cases, and of course an unknown of innocent people were unable to prove that they were framed.
dogma1138 8y ago
Context is also important, I have no problems with displaying footage form Nazi experiments on concentration camp prisoners for educational purposes I could however agree that it is ok to block the same footage when it’s shared by neo-Nazis or white supremacist groups on Facebook for lolz and pride. I also think that this is a stupid argument this footage is not illegal and can be considered by many newsworthy hence should be protected at least in some narrow context. Child pornography on the other hand is illegal. Broadcasting or displaying child pornography has no newsworthy or any other value in any context other than the pornographic one.
tomp 8y ago
> All the "free speech" advocates here, do you still stand by that when it comes to child porn, or specific threats against individuals? What if we just oppose continuously expanding the types of content that can be censored?
gotocake 8y ago
Kids were killed in this attack too, unless I’m mistaken. So to add to your point, if you’re against child pornography, but not child snuff what’s the reasoning? Is it just because the social stigma around child abuse is so much stronger than murder? If so, then the child porn “exception” to free speech absolutism is arbitrary; the result of social pressure and not an ethical stance. It seems sad to think people need social pressure to be against it, but I’m not sure how else to reconcile people who condemn the spread of one, but defend the other.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  The point of child porn laws is to put perverts in jail. There are not legions of child snuff film watchers which also kill children.
dmix 8y ago
“Think of the children”

marcinzm 8y ago

Sure. Except people also confuse "this is where the line is" with "this is the material that will be censored." The line is merely how much material those controlling censorship are able to censor. And nowadays a lot of very vocal right wing politicians are getting elected across the world. Allowing censorship merely moves that line and what ultimately gets censored may be very different from what you wanted or expected to get censored.

sasasassy 8y ago

Yes. You should not go to jail just for having some specific sequences of ones and zeroes on a magnetic device on your home. You should go to jail if you do actual crimes, you know, with real victims. Not imaginary victims that don't know when you see a video in the first place.

tantalor 8y ago
IANAL but knowingly transmitting CP is arguably "aiding & abetting" (i.e., encouraging) the "actual crimes" after the fact.
- sasasassy 8y ago
  Yes but it shouldn't. Sharing some bad videos is considered bad, like child porn or NZ shooting. Sharing others is fine, like beheadings, other terror attacks, war footage. Making violent videogames is fine (see most FPS), but if they are a little more out of the norm they're bad (see a game called "Postal"). I'd like to know who decides on these arbitrary things.
  - tantalor 8y ago
    You have to consider intent of sharing that content, and whether (a reasonable person would conclude) the intent promotes criminal/antisocial behavior. CP is shared with the intent of reciprocity for more CP; hence sharing existing CP promotes future CP. Violent/hateful content is shared with the intent to encourage/persuade others to perform similar acts, or to dehumanize the victims.
    - sasasassy 8y ago
      No I don't. When I share a book on how to teach people to make bombs like the Anarchy Cookbook, I don't have to consider intent at all. Why is CP different? CP, violent and hateful content are shared for a myriad of reasons, some for profit, like the documentary on the Bataclan attack on Netflix, some for sharing with fellow pedophiles. I don't see why I can't see 9/11 footage because someone else might feel different about it.
    - tomp 8y ago
      > and whether (a reasonable person would conclude) the intent promotes criminal/antisocial behavior. No, it should be based on actual research and statistics. For example, many supposedly reasonable people assumed that violent computer games promote criminal/antisocial behaviour, but they actually don’t.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    Darn, if only there were some sort of information network that would allow people to find where things like laws and policies originate. I guess we'll never know.
  - halfjew222 8y ago
    I’m leaning more towards your side of this argument, but after looking through the archive of the thread from 8chan where NZ shooter initially announced his plan and linked his streams, these guys are begging for proof and this character is a meme that they’re cheering on. It’s sickening, scary, and quite frankly, I can’t understand how you can get to a point that they are at. That said, the sharing of the video in that thread is something I think we can all agree is 0’s and 1’s that should be attempted to be prevented. The media will come and share these videos for clicks and that’s a separate issue. Initially, this guy is knowingly becoming an Internet celebrity for murdering people. This part of the culture has to be addressed. I am worried this kind of meme-heavy killing is opening up a sickening can of worms.
happytoexplain 8y ago
While I agree with this notion generally, you're avoiding the relevant point, which is that information is not something that inherently can have no direct effect on the real world. Child porn is the usual example where you can start to make a reasonable argument that possessing it creates a real-world effect, not due to the possession itself, but due to the necessary action required to possess, which is seeking it out and acquiring it from a provider, etc etc.
- sasasassy 8y ago
  Acquiring child porn doesn't have to be any more difficult than acquiring videos of beheadings and other vile acts. It was only made difficult to acquire out of puritanism, there's nothing intrinsic about it that suggests you have to commit further crimes to find it. And if the idea is that the public is too dumb and easy to influence and therefore cannot be shown child porn or killings in New Zeland etc then it doesn't make sense at the same time for me to be advertised violent movies in the cinema.
  - mrkstu 8y ago
    People acquire child porn because they are the target market as consumers of it. People, generally, watch video of a terrorist attack to be informed about threats to them or their country, a direct first amendment concern. There is a direct connection between the consumers of child porn and its production that is absent in the other.
    - sasasassy 8y ago
      You are implying there is an actual industry of producing child porn and filling in quotas and receiving payment in some form, I don't think that's the case. In any case, people that watch (many) speeches of Hitler are also the target market of many businesses, and yet there is a correlation between doing so and being radicalized/extremist/dangerous, and yet it is perfectly legal.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    And yet CP aficionados often seem to end up producing their own because it becomes an object of trade on certain black markets. Here's an example from just a month ago: http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/porn-actress-director-accused-of-sexually-abusing-young-girl-detectives-searching-for-more-victims http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/porn-actress-director-a... How is it that people who become interested in and start to collect CP would ever become involved in its production, in your model? Having gained access to a product they desire, those people seem to follow the same pattern as enthusiasts of any other taste, and develop an interest in creating their own material, as opposed to being satisfied with that already available.
52-6F-62 8y ago
I’m sorry, but that crass treatment of “ones and zeroes” as not being part of the real world is a serious logical fallacy. It should apply across the board—if you’re a serious engineer. Those same “ones and zeroes” could cost someone their life as much as a mal-designed truss on a bridge could. That is not a new phenomenon. The same applies to childrens’ safety.
- sasasassy 8y ago
  Ones and zeroes in my own property are not influencing anything in the "real world". If I use them and they are a virus and damage computer systems, that is a crime. If I made the virus just to learn about hacking, that should be perfectly fine. Childrens' safety is not a digital thing in a computer, and AFAIK nothing suggests childrens' safety is more at risk right now than from other forms of violence that seem to be perfectly tolerated and celebrated in books, movies, music. If I'm trying to make a business out of child porn, sure try to prosecute me. I believe selling other peoples' pictures without consent should be illegal in any case, specially if in demeaning circumstances. If I'm just sharing it, though disgusting it may be, the law should not stick it's nose in it. Just like it's legal to share books on how to make bombs and poison people.
  - guiambros 8y ago
    > Ones and zeroes in my own property are not influencing anything in the "real world"... So you're saying that having illegal material on your computer is not a problem because, well, it's "your property"? Like, it's fine for you to have child porn (or pirated software, or illegally downloaded copyrighted music or movies) because hey, it's all zeroes and ones, and you're not "making a business out of it"? I empathize with the argument of some free speech advocates that it's complicated to find the right balance on where to draw the line in terms of censorship, but frankly the argument that you can do anything you want just because "it's zeroes and ones" and that is not "the real world" is plainly ridiculous. Thankfully what you propose is clearly against the law in most countries.
    - sasasassy 8y ago

jstanley 8y ago

> All the "free speech" advocates here, do you still stand by that when it comes to child porn, or specific threats against individuals? Yes.

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

And if people want the right censored then they’re accepting that the right or center or whoever will censor new critics the way Martin Luther King Jr, The Black Panthers, Muslim movements, Native American Rights movements, Puerto Rican Indepencence movements, and other groups fighting for the rights of their people against the establishment. If we empower an elite to censor information or have any other power over us they will use it to further their own agendas even if that means inhibiting the freedom of millions of people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

deogeo 8y ago

Many/most free speech advocates seem pretty happy with the way it's implemented in the US, where both child porn and threats are illegal. I really don't like it when people take the few, narrow exceptions to free speech in the US, and try to expand them: https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-the-nazi-exception/ https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-t...

Shivetya 8y ago

Well there we have it then, censorship should only be in force when not doing so deprives someone of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. To put it another way, do not deprive a person of their self, their property, or efforts of their work. Child porn when get caught under depriving children, those unable to consent legally, to their happiness, if not liberty and in some cases their life. Video threats to living people would likely fall under all three as well. As in life, our actions should never deprive another of their rights to live and pursue their non infringing rights.you have a right to self, your property, and the efforts of your work. we balance some of the latter in order to provide a more orderly society and benefit those who cannot fully sustain themselves. A simplistic view I admit but it is when people start having exception after exception we end up with no real liberty but a tyranny of violations. Every thing you do would bound to be covered to where even no action is a wrong.

tomp 8y ago
Why block child porn but not leaked porn tapes of adults? Are they somehow less deprived?
- lohszvu 8y ago
  Leaked porn tapes were filmed with consent. If they were not filmed with consent they are illegal to possess.

vibrato 8y ago

We have laws against those specifics you mention under the first amendment. So yes, I would prefer the tech companies did nothing but assist law enforcement of the violations (when warranted).

amanaplanacanal 8y ago
So... how do you feel about the Hacker News moderation? Or say... spam filtering? Do you think those should go away too?
- vibrato 8y ago
  Moderation by censorship doesn’t sit right. Responding to comments and the upvote / downvote system seems fair enough. Spam is a tough one. As long as the user of a spam filter can modify their settings and see everything easily I’m not opposed. Perhaps we need to regulate spam / ddos in a similar way to incitement of violence.

Chris_Chambers 8y ago

Obviously the production should be illegal, but child porn itself is evidence of a crime. The more people who have it, the more likely the criminals will be identified by someone who recognizes them by a birthmark, freckles, a balding pattern, the watch they’re wearing, etc. Threats are also potential evidence of a crime. If someone is angry enough to publicly threaten to kill you, and then they actually do it and plan it perfectly in such a way that they would definitely get away with it if it hadn’t been for the previous public threat where they gave their intentions away, then the fact that twitter censored their threat is what enabled them to get away with it. Any other brilliant examples of “good” censorship?

holymacaral 8y ago

Hi I found your comment interesting. Yes, we have free speech forums where you can say and share anything without censorship. Yes, there are illegal things there although 99% of the content is legal. The idea is that you are in control of your own experience. You can & should blacklist entire sections of the website. It's all peer-to-peer and onion routed. The only one who can censor things is the owner although moderators might be able to curate content on their boards (similar to what HN does). Oh, and if the owner throws away his private key then it will keep running just without new updates to the site. People are afraid of freedom but it all works pretty well in the end. Also, I agree with the Ayn Rand definition of free speech, i.e. the term censorship only applies to governments. When a company (such as Facebook) censors something they are really just expressing their private property rights.

x38iq84n 8y ago

Yes. Go after the authors of said horrible crimes, not after those in possession of a video thereof.

anigbrowl 8y ago
Why do the perpetrators of such crimes put themselves at such extreme legal risk by distributing evidence of their criminal acts? Do you think those media end up on the internet by accident, or are they intended to be shared? Would you say the audience for such content is more or less likely to originate new content than and equivalent-sized pool of non-possessors?

writepub 8y ago

All the "non-free-speech", "speech is violence" advocates here: Violence, call for violence against others, and crimes that happen to have a speech component to them, are NOT protected by the first amendment. Threats against individuals and CP very much fall under crimes, and they have ZERO protection under free speech. > If you want to make the case for no censorship at all then you need to use the most extreme examples of what will be shared and consumed because that's what will happen No free speech advocate worth their salt EVER demanded anything illegal to not be censored, including threats, CP, etc. Absolutely no one should entrust private corporations with the power to decide what is and isn't extreme, or acceptable speech. Because it will immediately be abused (as is happening right now) to censor speech that companies, mostly based in left leaning blue cities with, overwhelming employee bases leaning towards one ideology (hint: left), to spread their worldview to the REST of the world. US law sets clear definitions on free speech, and is a lot more reliable than the "moral" compass of a few individuals at companies. For instance, the very legal and harmless "learn to code" meme was only considered offensive by a very small monitory of silicon valley Twitter censors, but anyone who tweeted that got an immediate temporary suspension.

x_____x 8y ago

For me, the line is what is legal in your area of operation. Not what is acceptable to potential advertisers.

burfog 8y ago

I would treat child porn and specific threats against individuals just the same as I'd treat a shooting video. Arrest the shooter, the child porn producer (unless victim==perpetrator), and the person making the threat. It is fine for others to keep and share the video, photos, text, etc.

anigbrowl 8y ago
I'm not sure that it's fine, since one would expect network effects to increase proliferations - and empirical results bear out that expectation: http://www.davidmckie.com/final-visualizations/ http://www.davidmckie.com/final-visualizations/
- burfog 8y ago
  Well, do we want to catch people harming children, or do we just want to not be aware of it? We have an out-of-sight-out-of-mind policy right now. Reporting is discouraged, because then all your stuff would be seized as evidence and you'd be under suspicion. Lots of people probably destroy computers if they accidentally come across the stuff, since mere possession of the data is an offense. If it spreads around, then somebody might recognize a perpetrator. I suppose we could get fancy, with a rule that you can keep it if you register it. That would make it far easier to track things back to the source and then see if anybody is getting harmed.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    We have an out-of-sight-out-of-mind policy right now. Then how am I able to provide you with data collected by law enforcement authorities demonstrating decade-long trends, along with information on the methodology employed to collect it?
    - burfog 8y ago
      That is only about possession of what is sometimes evidence of abuse, and only about people who were caught with it. The interesting numbers are how many cases of abuse are hidden from law enforcement because: 1. people won't recognize abusers they know because they won't dare look 2. people would rather destroy a computer than deal with unfriendly police procedures Oh, BTW, one other problem I didn't mention. The current situation is very easy to use for framing a person. This has been determined to be the case in some divorce cases, and of course an unknown of innocent people were unable to prove that they were framed.

dogma1138 8y ago

Context is also important, I have no problems with displaying footage form Nazi experiments on concentration camp prisoners for educational purposes I could however agree that it is ok to block the same footage when it’s shared by neo-Nazis or white supremacist groups on Facebook for lolz and pride. I also think that this is a stupid argument this footage is not illegal and can be considered by many newsworthy hence should be protected at least in some narrow context. Child pornography on the other hand is illegal. Broadcasting or displaying child pornography has no newsworthy or any other value in any context other than the pornographic one.

tomp 8y ago

> All the "free speech" advocates here, do you still stand by that when it comes to child porn, or specific threats against individuals? What if we just oppose continuously expanding the types of content that can be censored?

gotocake 8y ago

Kids were killed in this attack too, unless I’m mistaken. So to add to your point, if you’re against child pornography, but not child snuff what’s the reasoning? Is it just because the social stigma around child abuse is so much stronger than murder? If so, then the child porn “exception” to free speech absolutism is arbitrary; the result of social pressure and not an ethical stance. It seems sad to think people need social pressure to be against it, but I’m not sure how else to reconcile people who condemn the spread of one, but defend the other.

SamReidHughes 8y ago
The point of child porn laws is to put perverts in jail. There are not legions of child snuff film watchers which also kill children.

dmix 8y ago

“Think of the children”