3 ms·
> People don't want to seriously grapple with these sorts of harm reduction arguments Because there's no evidence it works and the idea makes no fucking sense.
by krainboltgreene 4y ago
> People don't want to seriously grapple with these sorts of harm reduction arguments
Because there's no evidence it works and the idea makes no fucking sense. It approaches the problem in a way that all experts agree is wrong.
- Huh1337 4y agoTo ban something you need evidence that it's causing some harm, not vice versa.
- miracle2k 4y ago> Because there's no evidence it works and the idea makes no fucking sense. It approaches the problem in a way that all experts agree is wrong. Experts in what exactly? There are two ways to defend a law that penalizes virtual child pornography: - On evidence that there is harm. - On general moral terms, aka "we just don't like that this is happening". Worth noting that a ban on generated CSAM images was struck down as unconstitutional in Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit...