4 ms·

Further, the definition of "child porn" now includes cartoon images, statements written by adults of a textual nature, and stories or other creations- by adults

by nirvana 15y ago

Further, the definition of "child porn" now includes cartoon images, statements written by adults of a textual nature, and stories or other creations- by adults- depicting children. Not to mention, many pictures our parents took of us as infants might count, as that is bad enough. "Child Porn" has been stretched to include things that do not involve any actual children in any way, shape or form. As for your last statement, contradictions cannot exist. I think that the presumed rationality of the "justice system" is in error.

abalashov 15y ago
And furthermore, I know of no Constitutionally valid principle under which the government can enact legislation for the sole purpose of preventing you from "thinking bad thoughts" or something of that ilk. So, it must hinge on showing actual harm to children. Downloading bits from the Internet does not harm children. You could argue that paying for them does, but that's not simple possession. I just don't get it. I'd like to think I have a pretty broad mind. I'm not a radical or overly idealistic Libertarian. I am capable of comprehending abstractions, extrapolations, generalisations, and juridical pragmatism in the public interest. Still, the rationality of this eludes me completely.
- polymatter 15y ago
  I would also love a good answer. I think most people just don't think that deeply about it. When I questioned about this (as my camera was being confiscated), people were outraged at the thought of legalising child porn. And when pressed further, they will only say its morally wrong (and threatened to turn me to the police! - to which I backed down of course). The best I can come up with is that legislators fear it will lead to copycats. Its been shown that people who hear about a suicide are more likely to both commit suicide and do it in the same manner. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide. "Examples of celebrities whose suicides have inspired suicide clusters include the Japanese musicians Yukiko Okada and Hide and Marilyn Monroe, whose death was followed by an increase of 200 more suicides than average for that August month". And if you consider that copycat suicides may not have happened without the trigger suicide, the thought that copycat child abuse may not happen without a trigger child abuse is not a wild leap. And the trigger child abuse can be that harmless few bits. I'd feel fine about losing some freedom to stop that child abuse trigger. There are all sorts of reasons why some information is protected from the public, and when that information can cause public harm but not be in any public interest the case to ban it is very strong. Child porn may be equivalent to that sort of may be "harmful and not in public interest" category which gets it perma-banned. tl;dr maybe to stop copycats

by nirvana 15y ago

abalashov 15y ago

And furthermore, I know of no Constitutionally valid principle under which the government can enact legislation for the sole purpose of preventing you from "thinking bad thoughts" or something of that ilk. So, it must hinge on showing actual harm to children. Downloading bits from the Internet does not harm children. You could argue that paying for them does, but that's not simple possession. I just don't get it. I'd like to think I have a pretty broad mind. I'm not a radical or overly idealistic Libertarian. I am capable of comprehending abstractions, extrapolations, generalisations, and juridical pragmatism in the public interest. Still, the rationality of this eludes me completely.

polymatter 15y ago
I would also love a good answer. I think most people just don't think that deeply about it. When I questioned about this (as my camera was being confiscated), people were outraged at the thought of legalising child porn. And when pressed further, they will only say its morally wrong (and threatened to turn me to the police! - to which I backed down of course). The best I can come up with is that legislators fear it will lead to copycats. Its been shown that people who hear about a suicide are more likely to both commit suicide and do it in the same manner. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide. "Examples of celebrities whose suicides have inspired suicide clusters include the Japanese musicians Yukiko Okada and Hide and Marilyn Monroe, whose death was followed by an increase of 200 more suicides than average for that August month". And if you consider that copycat suicides may not have happened without the trigger suicide, the thought that copycat child abuse may not happen without a trigger child abuse is not a wild leap. And the trigger child abuse can be that harmless few bits. I'd feel fine about losing some freedom to stop that child abuse trigger. There are all sorts of reasons why some information is protected from the public, and when that information can cause public harm but not be in any public interest the case to ban it is very strong. Child porn may be equivalent to that sort of may be "harmful and not in public interest" category which gets it perma-banned. tl;dr maybe to stop copycats