4 ms·

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 ac

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

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