14 ms·

As much as I like rms, I find it very difficult to move past his comments on child pornography[1]. [1] https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011

As much as I like rms, I find it very difficult to move past his comments on child pornography[1]. [1] https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011_(Border_Searches) https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011_(Bo...

joana035 6y ago
Since the sky is blue police has been using CP as an excuse to break encryption, search electronic devices, etc. RMS is not wrong.
- yur3i__ 6y ago
  That's not really the part I have an issue with, its more the assertion that child pornography "does not hurt anyone".
  - joana035 6y ago
    You are taking his arguments out of context. Everything out of context will sound strange.
    - KingOfCoders 6y ago
      Because there has been this "out of context" argument used several times in this discussion, and I don't understand it: Can you explain to me how the context of [1] and [4] makes [2] and [3] - "is having that photo is not hurting everyone" - sound different than without the context? "[1] This "child pornography" might be a photo of yourself or your lover that the two of you shared. [2] It might be an image of a sexually mature teenager that any normal adult would find attractive. What's heinous about having such a photo? [3] But even when it is uncontroversial to call the subject depicted a "child", that is no excuse for censorship. Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone, so and if you or I think it is disgusting, that is no excuse for censorship. [4] The government will invent an unlimited number of opportunities to censor us and search us if we grant the legitimacy of its all-purpose excuses for doing so."
      - simion314 6y ago
        Maybe if you and your girlfriend are 17 , she sends you a picture, then next day you are 18 but her picture is of a 17 years old so you are a criminal now. So make CP illegal, find the criminals if you can, stop the commerce with such material , my paranoia is that I could be setup by police, or by someone that does not like me or even by a fucking troll. In today world such an accusation can destroy your life.
        loup-vaillant 6y ago
        There have been cases of both the girl and boy being about 16 and sexting each other, and still being convicted for transmission of child pornography. I recall a specific case where the girl's father was pissed off when he discovered what they did, and used the photos to drag the boy to court. The boy is now registered as a "sex offender", same as a child rapist. Strange how the law sees nothing wrong with two teens fucking each other, but somehow sending nude photos of themselves to each other is a felony.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        I think that #3 is one of rms’s terribly ineffective and perhaps self-destructive “technically correct” arguments. I read that he’s intending the extremely literal meaning of “having” as he often takes extremely precise, literal meanings that make his writings more difficult to understand than would otherwise be. Let me be clear: I’m not in any way supporting child porn, but I can see how rms could hold a view that merely having a specific sequence of bits that can be displayed as a picture does not harm anyone. Perhaps someone was harmed by the circumstances under which the picture was taken. Perhaps some ex- is harmed by the thought that you might have that photo. Almost surely allowing the purchase or trading of such pictures encourages future harm. There are lots of reasons to oppose child porn, but rms is, for reasons known to him, choosing to argue that, in a very literal sense, the passive having of the bits is not among them. Context: I’ve read a lot of rms writings and worked for FSF as his typist for 9 hours back around 1990 before I quit. (I wish I’d have been able to do it longer, but it wasn’t worth the $10/hr to listen to rms dictate keystrokes and enter them. I would frustrate him as I was trying to learn what the keystrokes were doing and he just wanted me to type faster. When I told him I was quitting after the third three hour session, he graciously offered that I was just getting fast enough to not be frustrating, that most people quit in session 1 or 2, and he’d make sure FSF sent me the $90 which they did.) I don’t consider myself to have a particular “side” here, but if my minor interactions with him are relevant to anyone, I wanted to disclose them.
    - magicalhippo 6y ago
      Not really. Here's the context: This "child pornography" might be a photo of yourself or your lover that the two of you shared. Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone, so and if you or I think it is disgusting, that is no excuse for censorship. Having a photo of you out there, shared to people you did not intend or want to have it shared with can most definitely hurt someone. I can't find the quote right now, but there was an interview in the news here last year with a woman who's dad had taken and sold explicit images of her as a child, and she said a major part of her issues as an adult was that a mere glance from a stranger could trigger a crippling fear that the stranger had seen those photos and had recognized her. Let alone a proper look from someone. Even though the images might have been taken with consent, unlike my example case, they might later have been spread without consent as in the numerous "revenge porn" cases. Again this can inflict real hurt to those depicted.
      - drenvuk 6y ago
        Even in the case that you bring up having the photo in your possession should not be illegal. Distributing it or producing it without the consent of the ADULT subject should be illegal. That's where the damage is being done. Every new set of eyes that sees the photo makes it worse. In other words if: 1. someone already has a photo. 2. No one interacts with it besides the current owner 3. Nobody knows or will ever know about it but the current owner Do you think there is damage being done? Right now I don't think so. I think all of the damage is done when material is produced and spread, and then spread again. I dislike talking about this subject so I'm alright with disagreeing.
        magicalhippo 6y ago
        I don't disagree entirely with your post, as with most things legal it comes down to a balance of many aspects. I also don't disagree entirely with the point RMS is trying to make regarding unmotivated searches of property and person. I do disagree with the specifics of his argument though. Child pornography is in many cases indeed a heinous offense, however blanket searches of person and property is also a grand invasion of privacy.
      - 6y ago
  - loopz 6y ago
    Does he still assert that still, or are examples of past being re-used over and over?
  - why_Mr_Anderson 6y ago
    I think the main issue is that there are too many things grouped under the label of 'child pornography'. Anyone making actual CP should be thrown into vulcano, but teens sending nudes to each other are as innocent as they can be.
    - KingOfCoders 6y ago
      I don't think this is the case here: "But even when it is uncontroversial to call the subject depicted a "child", that is no excuse for censorship. Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone, so and if you or I think it is disgusting, that is no excuse for censorship." - https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011_(Border_Searches) https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011_(Bo...
  - drenvuk 6y ago
    I'm tired of people with poor reading comprehension and poor adherence to the intent of the writing. You equate this: "Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone" to "child pornography does not hurt anyone". Do you really think those two sentences mean the same thing? Really? This is the reason the following saying is a thing. >Give me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough in them to hang him. Stop being so aggressively bad in finding faults. I mean, just being realistic, Stallman has most likely been stopped and searched multiple times crossing borders. You'd think if he was a pedo he would've been caught by now. Instead he's speaking his mind about censorship and freedom yet people that will never have an iota of the drive this guy had at least once in his life are trying to tear him down. Do you take some sort of pride in attacking him or something? Regardless of his flaws, what have you done?
    - magicalhippo 6y ago
      It's not poor reading comprehension. It's poor writing at best. "Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone" is factually wrong.
      - drenvuk 6y ago
        Would you care to expand on that? Right now I disagree.
        magicalhippo 6y ago
        You can read my other post[1] where I provide some examples. My examples were porn-related since that's the topic of RMS' post. But they don't need to be. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26722248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26722248
    - yur3i__ 6y ago
      No I don't, until fairly recently i was an ardent supporter of RMS and still do support him in most aspects. > You equate this: "Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone" to "child pornography does not hurt anyone". This was admittedly poorly written, however I do not believe that possession of child pornography is a victimless crime either. > Stallman has most likely been stopped and searched multiple times crossing borders. You'd think if he was a pedo he would've been caught by now I am not saying he is a pedophile but that doesn't make what he said any less bizarre.
  - torthrowaway999 6y ago
    He refers specifically to possession, which is true. The arguments against it tend to be very similar to the arguments against piracy (they even include the whole "illegal prime" concept). He does not say that producing child pornography does not hurt anyone however.
    - yur3i__ 6y ago
      I don't think the same logic that is applied to piracy can be applied to child pornography as possession of child pornography has the added caveat that the subject within most likely did not give informed consent to it being made.
      - torthrowaway998 6y ago
        I do not see how this changes anything.
        yur3i__ 6y ago
        Well by possessing Pornography of someone who didn't want it made, you have to have obtained it. By obtaining said pornography another person is now in possession of compromising material of someone that they didn't consent consent to the production of, by having more people possess the material, the issue becomes worse.
- junon 6y ago
  I think both comments above have taken the argument to the extremes on both ends. OHO, I think RMS is making a point about the excuses governments and LEOs make in favor of censorship/anti-encryption - a good one, at that. OTOH, he does a pretty piss-poor job describing it in that blurb. I'm not convinced this is an argument in favor of child pornography. I'm simply choosing to believe it's poor wording on RMS's part trying to make a point about encryption and he's not actually in favor of child pornography.
  - krapp 6y ago
    Part of his argument is that there would be nothing wrong with possessing child pornography if it depicted consensual intercourse - and Stallman's (recently recanted on, to be fair) views that pedophilia is not harmful and that children can give consent and should be allowed to engage in sexual intercourse with adults are well documented. His general argument is a good one, even given how reprehensible child pornography can be - there are ways to fight it without giving open ended backdoors and carte blanche to law enforcement. But part of that argument does rest implicitly on an argument that child pornography itself isn't harmful. His rationale that simply possessing an image does no harm doesn't take into account the harm that went into creating that image or the networks of harm that their creation and distribution supports. Setting everything else aside, that's not really the sort of argument people should want a spokesperson for free software to be making on their behalf. Most people don't see child pornography as mere images with no context or moral weight, so an argument that deviates into a tangent of "and they're just pictures anyway so what's the harm? Maybe the kids were into it" isn't going to be compelling.
    - junon 6y ago
      I don't think the originally linked blurb is implying everything you claim it does - unless you are trying to read between lines, something which I adamently do not do if I do not know the subject personally. Do you have sources for the "well documented" views that pedophilia is not harmful and that children can give consent and should be allowed to engage in sexual intercourse? Because the blurb above certainly does not say any of that.
- gnfargbl 6y ago
  Alternate take: child exploitation has been a pervasive and damaging disease in society "since the sky is blue", and in more recent decades law enforcement has begun seriously attempting to counter it.
why_Mr_Anderson 6y ago
If a 16 years old girl sends nude photo her 16 year old boyfriend in Germany, it's fine. If she does the same in US, he's pedophile. This is what RMS was talking about.
- yur3i__ 6y ago
  >But even when it is uncontroversial to call the subject depicted a "child", that is no excuse for censorship. Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone
  - gnomewascool 6y ago
    Yes, the vast majority of people, including me, would disagree with that. However, why is somebody holding these opinions a show-stopper? One could argue that that's because in many cases somebody holding these opinions is a "dog whistle" for the person actually being a paedophile. In the case of RMS, though, we have no evidence that he actually is a paedophile, despite him being pretty thoroughly scrutinised over the years. We also know that he has a need to question everything and write about where he disagrees with society, which he presents in excruciating detail on his website, so it's not that he has some sort of fixation on this topic. I'd argue that in an ideal society we should encourage thoughtfully heterodox people, since once in a while they'll invent something revolutionary like free software and copyleft, while them also sometimes holding some very weird opinions is not much of a cost. In the non-ideal real world, once RMS came up with his revolutionary ideas, he probably should have stopped talking about his most fringe ideas, so his resignation as president of the FSF, for instance, had been sensible and over-due.
- truculent 6y ago
  That is the most generous possible interpretation, and frankly, I do not think it's supported by the actually linked text. The only line that could be interpreted in that way would be: > This "child pornography" might be a photo of yourself or your lover that the two of you shared. And even then, it is ambiguous.
- Toutouxc 6y ago
  Is it fine in Germany? I believe that over here in the Czech Republic it's the same pedophile story. You can literally have a bunch of 15 year olds having hardcore bdsm group sex, but they're criminals the moment someone snaps a photo of a nipple.
henearkr 6y ago
He seems genuinely ignorant (to his defense) that those are not just still pictures, images, "doing no harm", but that they have a story, they have been taken at some point, sometimes under duress, and then that some people are paying to get them, so it's a whole economics, and it's powerful enough to crush the weak at the bottom end, including non-consentant enslaved children. Then again, maybe what should be prohibited and punished is the sale and the buy, rather than just the possession. But is it technically feasible?
Toutouxc 6y ago
I don't find it difficult at all, because the way he sees it, what he says is strictly logically true. Possession of CP material does not hurt anyone. The fact that people who want to possess (and are willing to pay for) CP material are a huge reason for CP material to be created by whatever means available (that's the part that hurts people) seems to be lost on him. His ideas on free software and freedom in general are certainly noble and inspiring, but it's like he went a hundred steps too far in simplifying everything.
- KingOfCoders 6y ago
  Me having kicked you doesn't hurt anyone - the act of kicking you does hurt. So after I have kicked you, and you no longer feel pain, no harm done? I'm stealing your lunch and the next day you have a new lunch and are no longer hungry, no harm done? I think the act can't be seperated from the result - this is were people go wrong.
  - McSinyx 6y ago
    You missed the ease of digital replication: one needs not participate in a sexual act involving children to replicate child pornography. It's not like it's a healthy thing to consume such material, but the distinction must be made to avoid the concept being abused by digital publishers who think one sharing an ebook with a friend would cause lost in their revenue.
    - KingOfCoders 6y ago
      If I steal an apple from you and grow more apples from it and give them away, there is no difference to the act of stealing your apple and eating it. As a side note: RMS seams to be totally against "stealing" digital GPLed code.
      - torthrowaway999 6y ago
        >If I steal an apple from you and grow more apples from it and give them away, there is no difference to the act of stealing your apple and eating it. Certainly, but we talk about digital good here, stealing the first apple harms me (unless if I was not going to use it regardless), copying it however does not. >RMS seams to be totally against "stealing" digital GPLed code. Please explain what you mean by stealing here. He is against taking GPLed code, modifying it, compiling it, and then distributing the binary without distributing your modifications. He has no problem with selling the application/code. He has no problem with keeping the modifications to yourself as long as you do not share the binary. He has no problem with distributing the unmodified binary and/or code.
audunw 6y ago
From what I understand his actual views aren't that horrible. But it's almost as if he goes out of his way to write things in the most provoking way possible. He really has no regard for how a reader might interpret his text. Which is expected if he has some form of autism. I really think he should run everything he writes by someone who is more empathic. He is a public figure. He has a serious disability when it comes to public communication. He should take measures to deal with that. But I guess he's too proud? I truly think Stallmans intentions have been OK. But you can't just pretend like it doesn't matter how communications are received by the reader. That's the whole point of communication. It's a bit like driving with poor vision. You don't intend to crash, but it's kind of inevitable if you don't correct for your disability.
- narag 6y ago
  From what I understand his actual views aren't that horrible. But it's almost as if he goes out of his way to write things in the most provoking way possible. Stallman is an activist, the kind of person that intentionally provokes outrage to make a point and bring issues to discussion. The bizarre part of all this saga is that he's being attacked by exactly the same kind of people using his very same tactics. It's like some of those Godzilla vs Kong movies. Honestly I don't find this funny. But I don't care about it either. I had not heard much about the FSF last decade.
- zaarn 6y ago
  While I agree that part of the outrage is probably a bit over the top, I think it's exactly comments like the on linked in the GP that are a good reason why RMS shouldn't be in a top leadership role. That and plenty of other things like him blocking improvements in GCC, Emacs and other GNU projects merely by being able to veto plenty of things outright. This is not the look you want to present to the public if you're the FSF.
- m12k 6y ago
  > Which is expected if he has some form of autism. There's something ironic about a lynch mob calling someone ableist because he's got autistic communication issues.
simion314 6y ago
I don't agree with him but he always has a mathematical way of thinking about things, using logic. In contrast with others that are the reverse, they assume that porn/violent video games, other legal stuff might have an effect so then they argue only based on assumption on removing freedoms. So personally I think when we want to remove a freedom we try our best to prove that we are doing something that has a significant good effect(I am speaking in general).
tremon 6y ago
On the other hand, when children can get themselves and their friends on sex offender lists for privately sharing pictures of themselves, there is undeniably something wrong with the laws in question.
longyap 6y ago
likely a risk of being amplify of false accusation. last time there's a dude being false accuse of rape and throw into jail for 10 years
torthrowaway999 6y ago
Is there anything specific that you disagree with? I personally find his comment totally sensible.
coddle-hark 6y ago
I don't understand the need to "move past" this. It's a personal opinion expressed on his blog, without much context, not even tangentially related to his professional work. Is it reasonable to expect public figures to be 100% agreeable? I don't think so. In fact I think we'd all be a lot better off if we just stopped judging these peoples' character altogether. Shitty people can do good things. Why would we want to stop them?
globular-toast 6y ago
Probably because this particular issue short-circuits your ability to think. You could perhaps try to form an argument against his comments. But what's more likely is you'll just stand there, mouth agape, shocked, and maybe break out the canned rhetoric like "think of the children" etc.

joana035 6y ago

Since the sky is blue police has been using CP as an excuse to break encryption, search electronic devices, etc. RMS is not wrong.

yur3i__ 6y ago
That's not really the part I have an issue with, its more the assertion that child pornography "does not hurt anyone".
- joana035 6y ago
  You are taking his arguments out of context. Everything out of context will sound strange.
  - KingOfCoders 6y ago
    Because there has been this "out of context" argument used several times in this discussion, and I don't understand it: Can you explain to me how the context of [1] and [4] makes [2] and [3] - "is having that photo is not hurting everyone" - sound different than without the context? "[1] This "child pornography" might be a photo of yourself or your lover that the two of you shared. [2] It might be an image of a sexually mature teenager that any normal adult would find attractive. What's heinous about having such a photo? [3] But even when it is uncontroversial to call the subject depicted a "child", that is no excuse for censorship. Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone, so and if you or I think it is disgusting, that is no excuse for censorship. [4] The government will invent an unlimited number of opportunities to censor us and search us if we grant the legitimacy of its all-purpose excuses for doing so."
    - simion314 6y ago
      Maybe if you and your girlfriend are 17 , she sends you a picture, then next day you are 18 but her picture is of a 17 years old so you are a criminal now. So make CP illegal, find the criminals if you can, stop the commerce with such material , my paranoia is that I could be setup by police, or by someone that does not like me or even by a fucking troll. In today world such an accusation can destroy your life.
      - loup-vaillant 6y ago
        There have been cases of both the girl and boy being about 16 and sexting each other, and still being convicted for transmission of child pornography. I recall a specific case where the girl's father was pissed off when he discovered what they did, and used the photos to drag the boy to court. The boy is now registered as a "sex offender", same as a child rapist. Strange how the law sees nothing wrong with two teens fucking each other, but somehow sending nude photos of themselves to each other is a felony.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      I think that #3 is one of rms’s terribly ineffective and perhaps self-destructive “technically correct” arguments. I read that he’s intending the extremely literal meaning of “having” as he often takes extremely precise, literal meanings that make his writings more difficult to understand than would otherwise be. Let me be clear: I’m not in any way supporting child porn, but I can see how rms could hold a view that merely having a specific sequence of bits that can be displayed as a picture does not harm anyone. Perhaps someone was harmed by the circumstances under which the picture was taken. Perhaps some ex- is harmed by the thought that you might have that photo. Almost surely allowing the purchase or trading of such pictures encourages future harm. There are lots of reasons to oppose child porn, but rms is, for reasons known to him, choosing to argue that, in a very literal sense, the passive having of the bits is not among them. Context: I’ve read a lot of rms writings and worked for FSF as his typist for 9 hours back around 1990 before I quit. (I wish I’d have been able to do it longer, but it wasn’t worth the $10/hr to listen to rms dictate keystrokes and enter them. I would frustrate him as I was trying to learn what the keystrokes were doing and he just wanted me to type faster. When I told him I was quitting after the third three hour session, he graciously offered that I was just getting fast enough to not be frustrating, that most people quit in session 1 or 2, and he’d make sure FSF sent me the $90 which they did.) I don’t consider myself to have a particular “side” here, but if my minor interactions with him are relevant to anyone, I wanted to disclose them.
  - magicalhippo 6y ago
    Not really. Here's the context: This "child pornography" might be a photo of yourself or your lover that the two of you shared. Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone, so and if you or I think it is disgusting, that is no excuse for censorship. Having a photo of you out there, shared to people you did not intend or want to have it shared with can most definitely hurt someone. I can't find the quote right now, but there was an interview in the news here last year with a woman who's dad had taken and sold explicit images of her as a child, and she said a major part of her issues as an adult was that a mere glance from a stranger could trigger a crippling fear that the stranger had seen those photos and had recognized her. Let alone a proper look from someone. Even though the images might have been taken with consent, unlike my example case, they might later have been spread without consent as in the numerous "revenge porn" cases. Again this can inflict real hurt to those depicted.
    - drenvuk 6y ago
      Even in the case that you bring up having the photo in your possession should not be illegal. Distributing it or producing it without the consent of the ADULT subject should be illegal. That's where the damage is being done. Every new set of eyes that sees the photo makes it worse. In other words if: 1. someone already has a photo. 2. No one interacts with it besides the current owner 3. Nobody knows or will ever know about it but the current owner Do you think there is damage being done? Right now I don't think so. I think all of the damage is done when material is produced and spread, and then spread again. I dislike talking about this subject so I'm alright with disagreeing.
      - magicalhippo 6y ago
        I don't disagree entirely with your post, as with most things legal it comes down to a balance of many aspects. I also don't disagree entirely with the point RMS is trying to make regarding unmotivated searches of property and person. I do disagree with the specifics of his argument though. Child pornography is in many cases indeed a heinous offense, however blanket searches of person and property is also a grand invasion of privacy.
    - 6y ago
- loopz 6y ago
  Does he still assert that still, or are examples of past being re-used over and over?
- why_Mr_Anderson 6y ago
  I think the main issue is that there are too many things grouped under the label of 'child pornography'. Anyone making actual CP should be thrown into vulcano, but teens sending nudes to each other are as innocent as they can be.
  - KingOfCoders 6y ago
    I don't think this is the case here: "But even when it is uncontroversial to call the subject depicted a "child", that is no excuse for censorship. Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone, so and if you or I think it is disgusting, that is no excuse for censorship." - https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011_(Border_Searches) https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011_(Bo...
- drenvuk 6y ago
  I'm tired of people with poor reading comprehension and poor adherence to the intent of the writing. You equate this: "Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone" to "child pornography does not hurt anyone". Do you really think those two sentences mean the same thing? Really? This is the reason the following saying is a thing. >Give me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough in them to hang him. Stop being so aggressively bad in finding faults. I mean, just being realistic, Stallman has most likely been stopped and searched multiple times crossing borders. You'd think if he was a pedo he would've been caught by now. Instead he's speaking his mind about censorship and freedom yet people that will never have an iota of the drive this guy had at least once in his life are trying to tear him down. Do you take some sort of pride in attacking him or something? Regardless of his flaws, what have you done?
  - magicalhippo 6y ago
    It's not poor reading comprehension. It's poor writing at best. "Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone" is factually wrong.
    - drenvuk 6y ago
      Would you care to expand on that? Right now I disagree.
      - magicalhippo 6y ago
        You can read my other post[1] where I provide some examples. My examples were porn-related since that's the topic of RMS' post. But they don't need to be. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26722248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26722248
  - yur3i__ 6y ago
    No I don't, until fairly recently i was an ardent supporter of RMS and still do support him in most aspects. > You equate this: "Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone" to "child pornography does not hurt anyone". This was admittedly poorly written, however I do not believe that possession of child pornography is a victimless crime either. > Stallman has most likely been stopped and searched multiple times crossing borders. You'd think if he was a pedo he would've been caught by now I am not saying he is a pedophile but that doesn't make what he said any less bizarre.
- torthrowaway999 6y ago
  He refers specifically to possession, which is true. The arguments against it tend to be very similar to the arguments against piracy (they even include the whole "illegal prime" concept). He does not say that producing child pornography does not hurt anyone however.
  - yur3i__ 6y ago
    I don't think the same logic that is applied to piracy can be applied to child pornography as possession of child pornography has the added caveat that the subject within most likely did not give informed consent to it being made.
    - torthrowaway998 6y ago
      I do not see how this changes anything.
      - yur3i__ 6y ago
        Well by possessing Pornography of someone who didn't want it made, you have to have obtained it. By obtaining said pornography another person is now in possession of compromising material of someone that they didn't consent consent to the production of, by having more people possess the material, the issue becomes worse.
junon 6y ago
I think both comments above have taken the argument to the extremes on both ends. OHO, I think RMS is making a point about the excuses governments and LEOs make in favor of censorship/anti-encryption - a good one, at that. OTOH, he does a pretty piss-poor job describing it in that blurb. I'm not convinced this is an argument in favor of child pornography. I'm simply choosing to believe it's poor wording on RMS's part trying to make a point about encryption and he's not actually in favor of child pornography.
- krapp 6y ago
  Part of his argument is that there would be nothing wrong with possessing child pornography if it depicted consensual intercourse - and Stallman's (recently recanted on, to be fair) views that pedophilia is not harmful and that children can give consent and should be allowed to engage in sexual intercourse with adults are well documented. His general argument is a good one, even given how reprehensible child pornography can be - there are ways to fight it without giving open ended backdoors and carte blanche to law enforcement. But part of that argument does rest implicitly on an argument that child pornography itself isn't harmful. His rationale that simply possessing an image does no harm doesn't take into account the harm that went into creating that image or the networks of harm that their creation and distribution supports. Setting everything else aside, that's not really the sort of argument people should want a spokesperson for free software to be making on their behalf. Most people don't see child pornography as mere images with no context or moral weight, so an argument that deviates into a tangent of "and they're just pictures anyway so what's the harm? Maybe the kids were into it" isn't going to be compelling.
  - junon 6y ago
    I don't think the originally linked blurb is implying everything you claim it does - unless you are trying to read between lines, something which I adamently do not do if I do not know the subject personally. Do you have sources for the "well documented" views that pedophilia is not harmful and that children can give consent and should be allowed to engage in sexual intercourse? Because the blurb above certainly does not say any of that.
gnfargbl 6y ago
Alternate take: child exploitation has been a pervasive and damaging disease in society "since the sky is blue", and in more recent decades law enforcement has begun seriously attempting to counter it.

why_Mr_Anderson 6y ago

If a 16 years old girl sends nude photo her 16 year old boyfriend in Germany, it's fine. If she does the same in US, he's pedophile. This is what RMS was talking about.

yur3i__ 6y ago
>But even when it is uncontroversial to call the subject depicted a "child", that is no excuse for censorship. Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone
- gnomewascool 6y ago
  Yes, the vast majority of people, including me, would disagree with that. However, why is somebody holding these opinions a show-stopper? One could argue that that's because in many cases somebody holding these opinions is a "dog whistle" for the person actually being a paedophile. In the case of RMS, though, we have no evidence that he actually is a paedophile, despite him being pretty thoroughly scrutinised over the years. We also know that he has a need to question everything and write about where he disagrees with society, which he presents in excruciating detail on his website, so it's not that he has some sort of fixation on this topic. I'd argue that in an ideal society we should encourage thoughtfully heterodox people, since once in a while they'll invent something revolutionary like free software and copyleft, while them also sometimes holding some very weird opinions is not much of a cost. In the non-ideal real world, once RMS came up with his revolutionary ideas, he probably should have stopped talking about his most fringe ideas, so his resignation as president of the FSF, for instance, had been sensible and over-due.
truculent 6y ago
That is the most generous possible interpretation, and frankly, I do not think it's supported by the actually linked text. The only line that could be interpreted in that way would be: > This "child pornography" might be a photo of yourself or your lover that the two of you shared. And even then, it is ambiguous.
Toutouxc 6y ago
Is it fine in Germany? I believe that over here in the Czech Republic it's the same pedophile story. You can literally have a bunch of 15 year olds having hardcore bdsm group sex, but they're criminals the moment someone snaps a photo of a nipple.

henearkr 6y ago

He seems genuinely ignorant (to his defense) that those are not just still pictures, images, "doing no harm", but that they have a story, they have been taken at some point, sometimes under duress, and then that some people are paying to get them, so it's a whole economics, and it's powerful enough to crush the weak at the bottom end, including non-consentant enslaved children. Then again, maybe what should be prohibited and punished is the sale and the buy, rather than just the possession. But is it technically feasible?

Toutouxc 6y ago

I don't find it difficult at all, because the way he sees it, what he says is strictly logically true. Possession of CP material does not hurt anyone. The fact that people who want to possess (and are willing to pay for) CP material are a huge reason for CP material to be created by whatever means available (that's the part that hurts people) seems to be lost on him. His ideas on free software and freedom in general are certainly noble and inspiring, but it's like he went a hundred steps too far in simplifying everything.

KingOfCoders 6y ago
Me having kicked you doesn't hurt anyone - the act of kicking you does hurt. So after I have kicked you, and you no longer feel pain, no harm done? I'm stealing your lunch and the next day you have a new lunch and are no longer hungry, no harm done? I think the act can't be seperated from the result - this is were people go wrong.
- McSinyx 6y ago
  You missed the ease of digital replication: one needs not participate in a sexual act involving children to replicate child pornography. It's not like it's a healthy thing to consume such material, but the distinction must be made to avoid the concept being abused by digital publishers who think one sharing an ebook with a friend would cause lost in their revenue.
  - KingOfCoders 6y ago
    If I steal an apple from you and grow more apples from it and give them away, there is no difference to the act of stealing your apple and eating it. As a side note: RMS seams to be totally against "stealing" digital GPLed code.
    - torthrowaway999 6y ago
      >If I steal an apple from you and grow more apples from it and give them away, there is no difference to the act of stealing your apple and eating it. Certainly, but we talk about digital good here, stealing the first apple harms me (unless if I was not going to use it regardless), copying it however does not. >RMS seams to be totally against "stealing" digital GPLed code. Please explain what you mean by stealing here. He is against taking GPLed code, modifying it, compiling it, and then distributing the binary without distributing your modifications. He has no problem with selling the application/code. He has no problem with keeping the modifications to yourself as long as you do not share the binary. He has no problem with distributing the unmodified binary and/or code.

audunw 6y ago

From what I understand his actual views aren't that horrible. But it's almost as if he goes out of his way to write things in the most provoking way possible. He really has no regard for how a reader might interpret his text. Which is expected if he has some form of autism. I really think he should run everything he writes by someone who is more empathic. He is a public figure. He has a serious disability when it comes to public communication. He should take measures to deal with that. But I guess he's too proud? I truly think Stallmans intentions have been OK. But you can't just pretend like it doesn't matter how communications are received by the reader. That's the whole point of communication. It's a bit like driving with poor vision. You don't intend to crash, but it's kind of inevitable if you don't correct for your disability.

narag 6y ago
From what I understand his actual views aren't that horrible. But it's almost as if he goes out of his way to write things in the most provoking way possible. Stallman is an activist, the kind of person that intentionally provokes outrage to make a point and bring issues to discussion. The bizarre part of all this saga is that he's being attacked by exactly the same kind of people using his very same tactics. It's like some of those Godzilla vs Kong movies. Honestly I don't find this funny. But I don't care about it either. I had not heard much about the FSF last decade.
zaarn 6y ago
While I agree that part of the outrage is probably a bit over the top, I think it's exactly comments like the on linked in the GP that are a good reason why RMS shouldn't be in a top leadership role. That and plenty of other things like him blocking improvements in GCC, Emacs and other GNU projects merely by being able to veto plenty of things outright. This is not the look you want to present to the public if you're the FSF.
m12k 6y ago
> Which is expected if he has some form of autism. There's something ironic about a lynch mob calling someone ableist because he's got autistic communication issues.

simion314 6y ago

I don't agree with him but he always has a mathematical way of thinking about things, using logic. In contrast with others that are the reverse, they assume that porn/violent video games, other legal stuff might have an effect so then they argue only based on assumption on removing freedoms. So personally I think when we want to remove a freedom we try our best to prove that we are doing something that has a significant good effect(I am speaking in general).

tremon 6y ago

On the other hand, when children can get themselves and their friends on sex offender lists for privately sharing pictures of themselves, there is undeniably something wrong with the laws in question.

longyap 6y ago

likely a risk of being amplify of false accusation. last time there's a dude being false accuse of rape and throw into jail for 10 years

torthrowaway999 6y ago

Is there anything specific that you disagree with? I personally find his comment totally sensible.

coddle-hark 6y ago

I don't understand the need to "move past" this. It's a personal opinion expressed on his blog, without much context, not even tangentially related to his professional work. Is it reasonable to expect public figures to be 100% agreeable? I don't think so. In fact I think we'd all be a lot better off if we just stopped judging these peoples' character altogether. Shitty people can do good things. Why would we want to stop them?

globular-toast 6y ago

Probably because this particular issue short-circuits your ability to think. You could perhaps try to form an argument against his comments. But what's more likely is you'll just stand there, mouth agape, shocked, and maybe break out the canned rhetoric like "think of the children" etc.