3 ms·

>Ok, then first: did you look at all pictures in r/jailbait, r/teen_girls, etc? If not, how can you say they were all illegal? I said the majority of them were

by ceol 15y ago

>Ok, then first: did you look at all pictures in r/jailbait, r/teen_girls, etc? If not, how can you say they were all illegal? I said the majority of them were illegal. >What, do you really think the photoshoot of a naked Miley Cyrus (covered, but still naked) was not* intended to arouse men? Ha.* You can continue your conjecturing, but according to [the photographer and Cyrus][0], it was artistic. [0]: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/SummerConcert/story?id=4736358&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/SummerConcert/story?id=4... >Now compare that with r/jailbait, where all photos were clothed and many (most?) were self-shots. Oh, you mean all of those photos taken from their Facebook pages and Photobucket accounts without their permission? The photos meant only for themselves or their friends, spread across the Internet? Totally better than Miley Cyrus taking a single artistic photograph for Vanity Fair. >So they broke the law, not the subreddits. Having a forum called "jailbait" or "teen girls" is not illegal by itself. I never said it was.

yummyfajitas 15y ago
...the subreddit itself was illegal. I never said it was. Could you reconcile these two statements? Also, if you believe that the stolen facebook/photobucket photos are illegal, should facebook/photobucket be held liable for hosting it?
- ceol 15y ago
  I never said the subreddit is illegal because it's titled "jailbait" or "teen girls". I said it's illegal because of the content it hosts and promotes. >Also, if you believe that the stolen facebook/photobucket photos are illegal, should facebook/photobucket be held liable for hosting it? No.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    How can the same picture be child pornography on reddit, but legitimate content on facebook?
    - ceol 15y ago
      I never said it was legitimate content on Facebook. I said Facebook shouldn't be liable. Are you reading any of my replies? Or do you already have your answer formulated in your head before I type anything?
corin_ 15y ago
>I said the majority of them were illegal. Right, so how many of them have you looked at to make that judgement? And perhaps more importantly, isn't it slightly problematic (or at least odd) when a large number of people are justifying the ban by calling this material illegal... and to be able to argue that they must, surely, have committed the crime of viewing child pornography online themselves? (Keeping in mind that, when it comes to child pornography laws, viewing is very much a crime - it's not like witnessing a murder.)
- ceol 15y ago
  >Right, so how many of them have you looked at to make that judgement? Enough to determine there was no intent to post legal content. >And perhaps more importantly, isn't it slightly problematic (or at least odd) when a large number of people are justifying the ban by calling this material illegal... and to be able to argue that they must, surely, have committed the crime of viewing child pornography online themselves? A large number of people are saying this material wasn't illegal. They must surely have viewed it themselves, as well. Where does that get us?
icebraining 15y ago
I said the majority of them were illegal. Have you looked at the majority of pictures in r/jailbait, r/teen_girls, etc? If not, how can you say they were illegal? The fact is, to determine whether they are CP or not, you have to make subjective considerations, since the objective criteria of the test (the focal point of the visual depiction and whether the subject is naked) were not fulfilled by most images there. So the question is, how can you claim "the majority of them were illegal" when it's impossible to objectively determine that? You can continue your conjecturing, but according to [the photographer and Cyrus][0], it was artistic. And I'm sure plenty of r/teen_girls posters would tell you they're posting the images for their artistic value. Oh, you mean all of those photos taken from their Facebook pages and Photobucket accounts without their permission? The photos meant only for themselves or their friends, spread across the Internet? Totally better than Miley Cyrus taking a single artistic photograph for Vanity Fair. That's a completely different issue, don't muddle the discussion. We were discussing what is child pornography and the legality, not the privacy implications.
- ceol 15y ago
  >Have you looked at the majority of pictures in r/jailbait, r/teen_girls, etc? If not, how can you say they were illegal? I saw enough to make the judgement the majority of it was illegal. They had no intention of posting legal content. >So the question is, how can you claim "the majority of them were illegal" when it's impossible to objectively determine that? Okay then, if I were to claim, "The ones I saw were illegal." How would that change anything? There was still blatantly illegal content actively posted to and promoted on a forum. If your goal was to win an argument of semantics, you should rethink your strategy. >And I'm sure plenty of r/teen_girls posters would tell you they're posting the images for their artistic value. No, most of them admitted to wanting sexual gratification out of the images. You must not have visited the subreddit. This wasn't some grey area. >That's a completely different issue, don't muddle the discussion. You were the one to first compare them. You should take your own advice. ;)
  - icebraining 15y ago
    I saw enough to make the judgement the majority of it was illegal. They had no intention of posting legal content. Again, why were those illegal and not the examples I gave? "Artistic value" is not a criteria of the Dost test. Why they were posted isn't either. If those subreddits were illegal, then so are: many magazines, Wikipedia, Facebook (where a lot of them come), Google (try a search for 'jailbait' images), a huge number of movies, various TV shows and more. Okay then, if I were to claim, "The ones I saw were illegal." How would that change anything? There was still blatantly illegal content actively posted to and promoted on a forum. If your goal was to win an argument of semantics, you should rethink your strategy. But (IMO) you still haven't managed to tell me why are those illegal and not the examples I gave. The only reason you gave (artistic value) is irrelevant to their legality, according to the test. No, most of them admitted to wanting sexual gratification out of the images. You must not have visited the subreddit. This wasn't some grey area. I very much doubt you could tell what most of 11600+ people said. But in any case, if I derive sexual gratification from your posts, do they become obscene? The reason they are posted is irrelevant to determine their legality. You were the one to first compare them. You should take your own advice. ;) That's disingenuous. I brought them as examples which are relevant to the point being discussed - whether the images are illegal or not.

by ceol 15y ago

yummyfajitas 15y ago

...the subreddit itself was illegal. I never said it was. Could you reconcile these two statements? Also, if you believe that the stolen facebook/photobucket photos are illegal, should facebook/photobucket be held liable for hosting it?

ceol 15y ago
I never said the subreddit is illegal because it's titled "jailbait" or "teen girls". I said it's illegal because of the content it hosts and promotes. >Also, if you believe that the stolen facebook/photobucket photos are illegal, should facebook/photobucket be held liable for hosting it? No.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  How can the same picture be child pornography on reddit, but legitimate content on facebook?
  - ceol 15y ago
    I never said it was legitimate content on Facebook. I said Facebook shouldn't be liable. Are you reading any of my replies? Or do you already have your answer formulated in your head before I type anything?

corin_ 15y ago

>I said the majority of them were illegal. Right, so how many of them have you looked at to make that judgement? And perhaps more importantly, isn't it slightly problematic (or at least odd) when a large number of people are justifying the ban by calling this material illegal... and to be able to argue that they must, surely, have committed the crime of viewing child pornography online themselves? (Keeping in mind that, when it comes to child pornography laws, viewing is very much a crime - it's not like witnessing a murder.)

ceol 15y ago
>Right, so how many of them have you looked at to make that judgement? Enough to determine there was no intent to post legal content. >And perhaps more importantly, isn't it slightly problematic (or at least odd) when a large number of people are justifying the ban by calling this material illegal... and to be able to argue that they must, surely, have committed the crime of viewing child pornography online themselves? A large number of people are saying this material wasn't illegal. They must surely have viewed it themselves, as well. Where does that get us?

icebraining 15y ago

I said the majority of them were illegal. Have you looked at the majority of pictures in r/jailbait, r/teen_girls, etc? If not, how can you say they were illegal? The fact is, to determine whether they are CP or not, you have to make subjective considerations, since the objective criteria of the test (the focal point of the visual depiction and whether the subject is naked) were not fulfilled by most images there. So the question is, how can you claim "the majority of them were illegal" when it's impossible to objectively determine that? You can continue your conjecturing, but according to [the photographer and Cyrus][0], it was artistic. And I'm sure plenty of r/teen_girls posters would tell you they're posting the images for their artistic value. Oh, you mean all of those photos taken from their Facebook pages and Photobucket accounts without their permission? The photos meant only for themselves or their friends, spread across the Internet? Totally better than Miley Cyrus taking a single artistic photograph for Vanity Fair. That's a completely different issue, don't muddle the discussion. We were discussing what is child pornography and the legality, not the privacy implications.

ceol 15y ago
>Have you looked at the majority of pictures in r/jailbait, r/teen_girls, etc? If not, how can you say they were illegal? I saw enough to make the judgement the majority of it was illegal. They had no intention of posting legal content. >So the question is, how can you claim "the majority of them were illegal" when it's impossible to objectively determine that? Okay then, if I were to claim, "The ones I saw were illegal." How would that change anything? There was still blatantly illegal content actively posted to and promoted on a forum. If your goal was to win an argument of semantics, you should rethink your strategy. >And I'm sure plenty of r/teen_girls posters would tell you they're posting the images for their artistic value. No, most of them admitted to wanting sexual gratification out of the images. You must not have visited the subreddit. This wasn't some grey area. >That's a completely different issue, don't muddle the discussion. You were the one to first compare them. You should take your own advice. ;)
- icebraining 15y ago
  I saw enough to make the judgement the majority of it was illegal. They had no intention of posting legal content. Again, why were those illegal and not the examples I gave? "Artistic value" is not a criteria of the Dost test. Why they were posted isn't either. If those subreddits were illegal, then so are: many magazines, Wikipedia, Facebook (where a lot of them come), Google (try a search for 'jailbait' images), a huge number of movies, various TV shows and more. Okay then, if I were to claim, "The ones I saw were illegal." How would that change anything? There was still blatantly illegal content actively posted to and promoted on a forum. If your goal was to win an argument of semantics, you should rethink your strategy. But (IMO) you still haven't managed to tell me why are those illegal and not the examples I gave. The only reason you gave (artistic value) is irrelevant to their legality, according to the test. No, most of them admitted to wanting sexual gratification out of the images. You must not have visited the subreddit. This wasn't some grey area. I very much doubt you could tell what most of 11600+ people said. But in any case, if I derive sexual gratification from your posts, do they become obscene? The reason they are posted is irrelevant to determine their legality. You were the one to first compare them. You should take your own advice. ;) That's disingenuous. I brought them as examples which are relevant to the point being discussed - whether the images are illegal or not.