4 ms·

Am I being thick or is this not the explicit intention? I mean "exploring your sexuality" via picture messaging, or physically with another person would be a c

by kypro 4y ago

Am I being thick or is this not the explicit intention? I mean "exploring your sexuality" via picture messaging, or physically with another person would be a crime in most European countries if you're a child. Similarly, many political opinions are illegal to hold in Europe. Part of the justification of this law is that it will give the state extra powers to keep us safe from harmful opinions people hold in private. Currently they can only police harmful opinions expressed in public. So yeah, this doesn't surprise me at all. The whole point is that kids are less free to explore their sexuality and that we are less able to discuss ideas the state disapproves of. The right question to be asking here is whether the state is correct to impose these limitations on us?

seydor 4y ago
Political opinions are not illegal to hold. Expressing them, maybe
- johngladtj 4y ago
  Only because without expression there is not yet a way to prove it
- kypro 4y ago
  This is incorrect. As an example simply reading ISIS content online can be enough to charge you with a terror offence (at least in the UK). https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41479620 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41479620 Edit: Although, I suppose you could define reading ISIS content as an expression of ISIS beliefs, so maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kurthr 4y ago
    Wow, the judge and prosecutor are terrorists, or do they have a "legitimate excuse" too?! To be fair, they're probably not brown so can't be the "bad" kind of terrorist. Still OMG, thought crime.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  “Whee” You’re free to have thoughts - for now.
  - version_five 4y ago
    Not in the UK https://reason.com/2023/02/10/in-britain-you-can-be-arrested-for-silently-praying-outside-an-abortion-clinic/ https://reason.com/2023/02/10/in-britain-you-can-be-arrested...
- throwaway049 4y ago
  Expressing them definitely. I once saw a guy in London with a t-shirt that said "support the pkk", which the UK designated as a terrorist org at the time (maybe still) and so this support was a crime. Still, big difference between something being the law and someone actually getting charged with a crime.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  That's a pretty clear cut case of 1st amendment. What's interesting is to look at the political systems and constitutional protections the young, educated Europeans flock to: In a survey of scientists from 16 countries[0], the US is the top destination from 13 of the 15 others and the #2 choice from the other two. There's a constant influx of these young, educated entrepreneurs, engineers and innovators coming here to America and the Bay Area. It's not a new trend; back in the 20th century America became a refuge for scientists from Europe wanting to escape! [1] [2] I have to wonder what's Europe's end goal here... sure seems these measure won't help curb that brain drain. [0] http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-brain-trade http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-bra... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_(scientists) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_(scientists) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Grove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Grove
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >By sitting in the alcove, and keeping well back, Winston was able to remain outside the range of the telescreen, so far as sight went. He could be heard, of course, but so long as he stayed in his present position he could not be seen.
Symbiote 4y ago
The age of consent is mostly between 14 and 16 in the EU, and there are other actions (like kissing or even holding hands) which, as I understood things, aren't restricted between consenting 13 year olds.
Hizonner 4y ago
> Am I being thick or is this not the explicit intention? Well, yeah, it is the intention, at least on the part of the major proponents of that kind of surveillance, in Europe and elsewhere. But if the people being "protected" don't share that opinion, it's worth pointing that out. Even if you don't trust their judgement because they're "just kids", you should listen to them about what actual effects a policy might have on their total experience. You may not have thought of everything. That's what the link is saying. > I mean "exploring your sexuality" via picture messaging, or physically with another person would be a crime in most European countries if you're a child. If you're 8, sure. If you're 16, and the other person is also 16? As far as I can tell, "exploring", right up to actual sexual intercourse, is legal for you in most European countries. In a lot of countries, it's legal in person but illegal in messaging, but that seems seems kind of perverse, actually. That's why there's a problem with the word "child". At least when and where I grew up, if you said "child" in normal conversation, that meant somebody roughly 12 or under. If you meant people older than that, you used words like "teenager". "Child" meant under 18 in a legal document, but that wasn't true anywhere but in a legal document. When proponents argue in public about "protecting children" on the Internet, they intentionally shift between those meanings. Nearly every example they bring up is about adults trolling for preteens, or maybe adults trolling for young teens. They hope that, when they say "children are being sex-talked at", you'll think they mean children in the sense of children. They try to keep the focus there, except when they want to quote big numbers, at which point they get a lot more inclusive about the definition, and may or may not mention that they've done so. Nonetheless, the rules they actually write tend to apply to all minors, not just preteens, communicating with each other, not just adults. In the same way, when they talk about actual activities, they talk about physical sexual contact, or about things that might lead to that, or about sharing obviously sexual images, or "dirty talk" meant to arouse. But the kind of "exploring your sexuality" that gets included in the rules isn't just doing things to arouse each other. It can end up including confiding in your best friend that you think you're gay. Anyway, if it's surveillance you're talking about, it kind of doesn't matter what is or isn't legal. The point is that they want to spy on everybody's legal communication, in order to find some people's illegal communication. Knowing that could have a chilling effect on anybody, but especially on somebody young. Maybe they're uncertain about how things work or what's allowed. Maybe they don't want to have to watch themselves constantly to avoid accidentally slipping over some line. Or maybe they justifiably think they're unusually likely to get flagged, just because of who they are. There will be false positives under any of these proposals. A computer, or even a human, can't always understand the full meaning of some isolated message, without knowing the context. Suppose you generate a hit, and even suppose that, after investigation, "nothing happens". Still, is everybody going to be comfortable when the police, or some kind of automated system, call their parents as part of checking out the "lead"? Especially when maybe they were trying to feel out the very limits of their own comfort zones?

by kypro 4y ago

seydor 4y ago

Political opinions are not illegal to hold. Expressing them, maybe

johngladtj 4y ago
Only because without expression there is not yet a way to prove it
kypro 4y ago
This is incorrect. As an example simply reading ISIS content online can be enough to charge you with a terror offence (at least in the UK). https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41479620 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41479620 Edit: Although, I suppose you could define reading ISIS content as an expression of ISIS beliefs, so maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kurthr 4y ago
  Wow, the judge and prosecutor are terrorists, or do they have a "legitimate excuse" too?! To be fair, they're probably not brown so can't be the "bad" kind of terrorist. Still OMG, thought crime.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
“Whee” You’re free to have thoughts - for now.
- version_five 4y ago
  Not in the UK https://reason.com/2023/02/10/in-britain-you-can-be-arrested-for-silently-praying-outside-an-abortion-clinic/ https://reason.com/2023/02/10/in-britain-you-can-be-arrested...
throwaway049 4y ago
Expressing them definitely. I once saw a guy in London with a t-shirt that said "support the pkk", which the UK designated as a terrorist org at the time (maybe still) and so this support was a crime. Still, big difference between something being the law and someone actually getting charged with a crime.
908B64B197 4y ago
That's a pretty clear cut case of 1st amendment. What's interesting is to look at the political systems and constitutional protections the young, educated Europeans flock to: In a survey of scientists from 16 countries[0], the US is the top destination from 13 of the 15 others and the #2 choice from the other two. There's a constant influx of these young, educated entrepreneurs, engineers and innovators coming here to America and the Bay Area. It's not a new trend; back in the 20th century America became a refuge for scientists from Europe wanting to escape! [1] [2] I have to wonder what's Europe's end goal here... sure seems these measure won't help curb that brain drain. [0] http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-brain-trade http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-bra... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_(scientists) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_(scientists) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Grove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Grove
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>By sitting in the alcove, and keeping well back, Winston was able to remain outside the range of the telescreen, so far as sight went. He could be heard, of course, but so long as he stayed in his present position he could not be seen.

Symbiote 4y ago

The age of consent is mostly between 14 and 16 in the EU, and there are other actions (like kissing or even holding hands) which, as I understood things, aren't restricted between consenting 13 year olds.

Hizonner 4y ago

> Am I being thick or is this not the explicit intention? Well, yeah, it is the intention, at least on the part of the major proponents of that kind of surveillance, in Europe and elsewhere. But if the people being "protected" don't share that opinion, it's worth pointing that out. Even if you don't trust their judgement because they're "just kids", you should listen to them about what actual effects a policy might have on their total experience. You may not have thought of everything. That's what the link is saying. > I mean "exploring your sexuality" via picture messaging, or physically with another person would be a crime in most European countries if you're a child. If you're 8, sure. If you're 16, and the other person is also 16? As far as I can tell, "exploring", right up to actual sexual intercourse, is legal for you in most European countries. In a lot of countries, it's legal in person but illegal in messaging, but that seems seems kind of perverse, actually. That's why there's a problem with the word "child". At least when and where I grew up, if you said "child" in normal conversation, that meant somebody roughly 12 or under. If you meant people older than that, you used words like "teenager". "Child" meant under 18 in a legal document, but that wasn't true anywhere but in a legal document. When proponents argue in public about "protecting children" on the Internet, they intentionally shift between those meanings. Nearly every example they bring up is about adults trolling for preteens, or maybe adults trolling for young teens. They hope that, when they say "children are being sex-talked at", you'll think they mean children in the sense of children. They try to keep the focus there, except when they want to quote big numbers, at which point they get a lot more inclusive about the definition, and may or may not mention that they've done so. Nonetheless, the rules they actually write tend to apply to all minors, not just preteens, communicating with each other, not just adults. In the same way, when they talk about actual activities, they talk about physical sexual contact, or about things that might lead to that, or about sharing obviously sexual images, or "dirty talk" meant to arouse. But the kind of "exploring your sexuality" that gets included in the rules isn't just doing things to arouse each other. It can end up including confiding in your best friend that you think you're gay. Anyway, if it's surveillance you're talking about, it kind of doesn't matter what is or isn't legal. The point is that they want to spy on everybody's legal communication, in order to find some people's illegal communication. Knowing that could have a chilling effect on anybody, but especially on somebody young. Maybe they're uncertain about how things work or what's allowed. Maybe they don't want to have to watch themselves constantly to avoid accidentally slipping over some line. Or maybe they justifiably think they're unusually likely to get flagged, just because of who they are. There will be false positives under any of these proposals. A computer, or even a human, can't always understand the full meaning of some isolated message, without knowing the context. Suppose you generate a hit, and even suppose that, after investigation, "nothing happens". Still, is everybody going to be comfortable when the police, or some kind of automated system, call their parents as part of checking out the "lead"? Especially when maybe they were trying to feel out the very limits of their own comfort zones?