4 ms·

This white supremacist, terrorist massacre in NZ was livestreamed, I'm not aware of that ever happening before. What to do with this footage is in some sense un

by pryce 8y ago

This white supremacist, terrorist massacre in NZ was livestreamed, I'm not aware of that ever happening before. What to do with this footage is in some sense uncharted territory. The video is a graphic video of a massacre and simultaneously propaganda produced by the perpetrator of that massacre. It is a peculiar idea that we as a society cannot legitimately decide that this footage is objectionable in the same way child porn is objectionable, and make it illegal to share it. It is not simply a deeply disturbing act being shown, it also shares with child pornography the property that the footage that could not have been produced without devastating harm to the people involved. The manifesto I feel less strongly about; I read it myself but would never watch the video.

DanBC 8y ago
> the same way child porn is objectionable I agree with you, but a disturbing number of people on HN think that images of child sexual abuse should not be illegal.
- DanBC 8y ago
  It's weird that this got downvoted, because in every thread about images of child sexual abuse there's always one or two people, and usually different accounts, saying exactly this. They'll claim that it's ridiculous to outlaw a series of bits, or that the abuse has already happened and so how can these children still be affected by the images. A bunch of arguments are very similar (perhaps unknowingly so) to arguments made by organisations like NAMBLA. It's easy to find these comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5782697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5782697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5486398#5487425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5486398#5487425 This whole thread is fucked up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5825087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5825087 A bunch of comments in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4495914#4497226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4495914#4497226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6736545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6736545 There are literally hundreds of comments on HN from a range of accounts defending the posession of images of child sexual abuse.
  - ElCapitanMarkla 8y ago
    Actual w t f reading those. Wonder if any of the people commenting there have kids of their own. No system is perfect but fuck me, you’re taking it to the extreme when you’re essentially defending child porn...
    - rstuart4133 8y ago
      > No system is perfect but fuck me, you’re taking it to the extreme when you’re essentially defending child porn... It depends on what you consider extreme I guess. I am a parent. In the past 10 years, 1470 Queensland parents saw their children prosecuted as paedophiles [0]. The kids were sexting each other of course. To me that's beyond extreme, it borders on insanity. That may be because I come from a time when sharing a picture with your mates of your naked mud covered daughter being hosed off by her mother was considered perfectly fine. Now that same picture gets people looking at you suspiciously. The current moral panic about pedo's and pictures makes me wonder if one of the most iconic pictures of my time [1] could be published today. Then there is the case of the fellow gets a criminal record for possessing Simpson cartoons [2]. OK, I get they weren't tasteful cartons - but a criminal record prevents you from doing all sorts of things, such as taking overseas holiday or working as a public servant. I know there weren't tasteful because I've had people email those cartoons (they are jokes which some found funny). The idea of me being banned from travelling to most overseas countries because they were in my Inbox was no laughing matter. I have not heard anybody say anything in support of child porn, which would be my definition of defending it. I'm not sure what your definition is, which again makes me nervous - in fact I would be very nervous if I still had kids at the sexting age. What I have head a lot of people say is "hang on, you are criminalising the possession of images here, and that seems like a dangerous road do go down". And with the benefit of hindsight, they were right. I get some delight in watching people twist themselves into knots to justify their positions, and as it happens my favourite example was child porn. There was a time when a prime minister ask his communications minister to implement a internet censorship filter to protect us Australians from the bad stuff out there. They characterised it as only preventing the worst of the worst. They were both practising Christians, and their undoing was "the worst of the worst" included things like the _Peace Pill Handbook_ (which deals with assisted suicide), so they had grey armies preparing for the filter by inviting hackers to their old people homes to instruct them on how to by-pass the filter. But that didn't come out until later. At first the example of the worst of the worst always trotted out by the Minster was child porn - something nobody could disagree should be blocked. But at the very end the Federal Police let slip child porn would not in fact be blocked by the filter, at least not a first. It was far too useful in tracking the people abusing the kids. So the Federal Police managed to convince a pair of Christian politicians on a censorship mission that letting little child porn float around the internet was actually a good idea. The irony was absolutely delicious. [0] https://www.abc.net.au/news/8511174 https://www.abc.net.au/news/8511174 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc#/media/File:TrangBang.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc#/media/File:... [2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/233562 https://www.abc.net.au/news/233562
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

by pryce 8y ago

DanBC 8y ago

> the same way child porn is objectionable I agree with you, but a disturbing number of people on HN think that images of child sexual abuse should not be illegal.

DanBC 8y ago
It's weird that this got downvoted, because in every thread about images of child sexual abuse there's always one or two people, and usually different accounts, saying exactly this. They'll claim that it's ridiculous to outlaw a series of bits, or that the abuse has already happened and so how can these children still be affected by the images. A bunch of arguments are very similar (perhaps unknowingly so) to arguments made by organisations like NAMBLA. It's easy to find these comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5782697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5782697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5486398#5487425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5486398#5487425 This whole thread is fucked up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5825087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5825087 A bunch of comments in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4495914#4497226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4495914#4497226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6736545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6736545 There are literally hundreds of comments on HN from a range of accounts defending the posession of images of child sexual abuse.
- ElCapitanMarkla 8y ago
  Actual w t f reading those. Wonder if any of the people commenting there have kids of their own. No system is perfect but fuck me, you’re taking it to the extreme when you’re essentially defending child porn...
  - rstuart4133 8y ago
    > No system is perfect but fuck me, you’re taking it to the extreme when you’re essentially defending child porn... It depends on what you consider extreme I guess. I am a parent. In the past 10 years, 1470 Queensland parents saw their children prosecuted as paedophiles [0]. The kids were sexting each other of course. To me that's beyond extreme, it borders on insanity. That may be because I come from a time when sharing a picture with your mates of your naked mud covered daughter being hosed off by her mother was considered perfectly fine. Now that same picture gets people looking at you suspiciously. The current moral panic about pedo's and pictures makes me wonder if one of the most iconic pictures of my time [1] could be published today. Then there is the case of the fellow gets a criminal record for possessing Simpson cartoons [2]. OK, I get they weren't tasteful cartons - but a criminal record prevents you from doing all sorts of things, such as taking overseas holiday or working as a public servant. I know there weren't tasteful because I've had people email those cartoons (they are jokes which some found funny). The idea of me being banned from travelling to most overseas countries because they were in my Inbox was no laughing matter. I have not heard anybody say anything in support of child porn, which would be my definition of defending it. I'm not sure what your definition is, which again makes me nervous - in fact I would be very nervous if I still had kids at the sexting age. What I have head a lot of people say is "hang on, you are criminalising the possession of images here, and that seems like a dangerous road do go down". And with the benefit of hindsight, they were right. I get some delight in watching people twist themselves into knots to justify their positions, and as it happens my favourite example was child porn. There was a time when a prime minister ask his communications minister to implement a internet censorship filter to protect us Australians from the bad stuff out there. They characterised it as only preventing the worst of the worst. They were both practising Christians, and their undoing was "the worst of the worst" included things like the _Peace Pill Handbook_ (which deals with assisted suicide), so they had grey armies preparing for the filter by inviting hackers to their old people homes to instruct them on how to by-pass the filter. But that didn't come out until later. At first the example of the worst of the worst always trotted out by the Minster was child porn - something nobody could disagree should be blocked. But at the very end the Federal Police let slip child porn would not in fact be blocked by the filter, at least not a first. It was far too useful in tracking the people abusing the kids. So the Federal Police managed to convince a pair of Christian politicians on a censorship mission that letting little child porn float around the internet was actually a good idea. The irony was absolutely delicious. [0] https://www.abc.net.au/news/8511174 https://www.abc.net.au/news/8511174 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc#/media/File:TrangBang.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc#/media/File:... [2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/233562 https://www.abc.net.au/news/233562
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]