3 ms·

No, absolutely not, the distribution of it should be prosecuted, not people looking at it. Criminalizing looking at things is a throwback from medieval times. A

No, absolutely not, the distribution of it should be prosecuted, not people looking at it. Criminalizing looking at things is a throwback from medieval times. And is a hallmark of totalitarianism, a police state. No other person, or government has the right to dictate to you what you can read or not. It's a fundamental, natural right in my opinion. And nobody can take that right away from you. They can say anything they like, make any excuses for trying to do so, they still don't have the right to control your reading habits.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pohl 3y ago
Suppliers are motivated by demand. Consumption of CP causes child exploitation.
- deely3 3y ago
  Also, attacks on "forbidden topic" consumers is always an easy win.
- zirgs 3y ago
  In case when someone deliberately seeks such material, purchases it on a darknet market or distributes it to others - I totally agree. But how does prosecuting someone for accidentally viewing it, because some sicko posted it on a public forum, helps exploited children?
  - windexh8er 3y ago
    It doesn't. But it does help LE and our elected officials to stand behind these practices and legislation to prove that people are prosecuted for the heinous crime of being part of collateral damage. I've emailed my senators on the EARN IT Act here in the US. None of them have engaged in the conversation even after multiple times reaching out. What's really annoying to me is that they are elected and paid with my tax dollars, yet the best they can do is send me some precanned non-response and all of them hide behind form contact these days. There's no way to email them directly anymore because they don't want to have to deal with that open line of communication. While I understand that I'm sure there are a lot of horrible things that get sent to them - that's the job. And there's plenty of ways to filter abusers in 2023.
    - 1827163 3y ago
      They only serve us on paper, in reality they end up serving the oligarchs in big business and powerful lobbyists and pressure groups. Some of those pressure groups being front organizations for radical feminists and evangelical Christians, having hidden agendas. Who are big proponents of censorship in the name of supposedly protecting our morals. This has been going on for decades, since the 1970s at least. Some of these organizations have even renamed themselves to hide their religious origins, operating under the name of preventing human trafficking and sexual abuse. There's even a name for it: "femi-servatives", a portmantau of feminism and conservatives. Yes, an unusual alliance. Citation below, from a reliable source: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/gender/2013/11/21/rescuers-redeemers-evangelical-church-role-anti-trafficking-movement/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/gender/2013/11/21/rescuers-redeemers... " The focus on sex trafficking, therefore, becomes yet another channel through which Christian institutions are able to carry out their sex-negative agenda, particularly by casting themselves as Rescuer, Redeemer, and even the familiar role of Western male hero saving the passive and helpless female. " Another one below, less reliable though: https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-exodus-cry-the-shady-evangelical-group-with-trump-ties-waging-war-on-pornhub https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-exodus-cry-the-shady-ev... Finally, it's disturbing in how the two-way (transmit/receive) nature of the Internet as a medium, has virtually let all these "morality police" organizations into our homes, to watch over us, through their lobbying efforts to change the law. That wasn't possible with radio and satellite television, which were receive only. Where you could watch or listen to anything you wanted and explore freely, without ever having to worry about the thought police breaking your door down, should you happen to stumble over something deemed "inappropriate" by them. The difference between that and the Internet is stark and highlights the sheer madness and insanity of what the Internet has made possible. The Internet became like the telescreen in George Orwell's 1984 novel. You can never be sure if it's watching you or not. In the past, this was the stuff of nightmares, but it's here for real now in the 21st Century, because of widespread Internet usage in society. And your children are at risk from it, from sexting, from a teenage son coming across this material and viewing it, maybe even intentionally. Perhaps the risk of your children being prosecuted for breaking these laws is greater than the risk of them being physically abused by a pedophile? https://www.teenvogue.com/story/how-sex-offender-registries-impact-youth https://www.teenvogue.com/story/how-sex-offender-registries-... https://jlc.org/news/most-states-require-some-youth-be-sex-offender-registries https://jlc.org/news/most-states-require-some-youth-be-sex-o... https://magazine.jhsph.edu/2022/harms-placing-kids-sex-offender-registries https://magazine.jhsph.edu/2022/harms-placing-kids-sex-offen... https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/childrens-rights/articles/2022/summer2022-young-people-caught-in-the-net-of-sex-offender-registries/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/chi...
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    I would hope most jurisdictions allow for accidental viewing to not be a criminal act. In my jurisdiction, firstly it requires knowing possession (i.e. if it was just in your web cache because it was downloaded in a hidden img tag) and you didn't know it was there, then you would technically not be guilty. My jurisdiction also has a safety valve that allows you to immediately delete the image after viewing it and realizing the nature of the content. As long as the deletion happens within a reasonable time, there is no crime. The problem with this is that it is an affirmative defense, which means you have to prove your innocence, you are assumed guilty. (There are many crimes where you are legally assumed guilty rather than innocent)
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
  I never quite bought this. It is known that this is even done live, on request. And in those cases, yes, the viewer who made requests or payments to make it happen is definitely complicit. Where the argument loses me is that I simply don't believe that the demand in any way causes people to become rapists just to produce content. They were gonna become rapists anyway. The better argument that seeking it out at all should be illegal is that it's a (very severe) privacy violation. And I would agree with that. But it is hard to get away from the fact that part of this really is thought crime. In some countries, even things like loli manga are illegal even though no children were harmed making them. And speaking of demand and exploitation of children, should we prosecute people who bought clothes made with child labour? Their demand also caused child exploitation in some sense. Serious question, because I think prosecuting based on vague economic theories of "motivating suppliers" sets an interesting precedent for all sorts of different behaviours normally thought of as perfectly legal.
  - 1827163 3y ago
    Yes, as a thought experiment, maybe we should prosecute those who purchase eggs, even free range ones, from so called 'ethical' farms, for animal abuse? Each hen lays 600 eggs in its lifespan [1]. For every hen there was a male chick that was shredded alive in a macerator in the hatchery [2,3]. The link between abuse and consumption is concrete in this case. Buying more eggs requires the farm to raise more hens, which causes more male chicks to be shredded. There is a direct supplier and customer here, and money is clearly transferred. So the average person consumes 277 eggs per year [4], that means approximately every 2 years, we all shred a male chick alive, by proxy. And by using the same argument as for the illegal pornography, we should be going to jail for animal abuse? 1. https://backyardpoultry.iamcountryside.com/chickens-101/how-long-do-chickens-lay-eggs-breeds-that-go-the-extra-mile/ https://backyardpoultry.iamcountryside.com/chickens-101/how-... 2. https://thehumaneleague.org.uk/article/what-happens-to-male-chicks-in-the-egg-industry https://thehumaneleague.org.uk/article/what-happens-to-male-... 3. https://demeter.net/chick-culling/ https://demeter.net/chick-culling/ 4. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183678/per-capita-consumption-of-eggs-in-the-us-since-2000/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183678/per-capita-consum... With illegal pornography, which is information, and can be copied effortlessly at zero cost, and when no money is transferred, the link between consumption and abuse is much less clear. In fact most of those images are distributed for free, so I guess it's pirated illegal pornography that people are viewing then? That hardly makes a direct case for increasing the production of such images?
reaperman 3y ago
I respect your stance on this. What's your opinion on using BitTorrent to "look at it", while (without intention) leaving the default settings of BitTorrent where it usually also uploads for a bit while downloading, but then remembering to manually stop the torrent seeding sometime "shortly" after downloading when the user gets around to it (1 hour to 1 week).
- 1827163 3y ago
  It would come under distribution, because your computer is physically uploading this information to others. So it's being sent in the upstream channel of your Internet connection. And it was an event initiated by the user knowingly browsing such material, it did not happen on the behalf of another, as would be the case if he/she ran an anonymizing proxy service for others to use, e.g. a Tor exit node. So that qualifies as distribution to me. It depends if the quantity of data uploaded qualifies as an image of illegal abuse. If it contains fragments of the image, that do not represent such acts, then it's not illegal. The user was being negligent or reckless in not disabling the upload facility completely, it's his/her duty to do so in that case, to prevent further harm to the victim from occurring. And I think that is where we can draw the line and it becomes a crime? And sentencing will take into account the intent? Might not result in jail time if it was just one file?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pohl 3y ago

Suppliers are motivated by demand. Consumption of CP causes child exploitation.

deely3 3y ago
Also, attacks on "forbidden topic" consumers is always an easy win.
zirgs 3y ago
In case when someone deliberately seeks such material, purchases it on a darknet market or distributes it to others - I totally agree. But how does prosecuting someone for accidentally viewing it, because some sicko posted it on a public forum, helps exploited children?
- windexh8er 3y ago
  It doesn't. But it does help LE and our elected officials to stand behind these practices and legislation to prove that people are prosecuted for the heinous crime of being part of collateral damage. I've emailed my senators on the EARN IT Act here in the US. None of them have engaged in the conversation even after multiple times reaching out. What's really annoying to me is that they are elected and paid with my tax dollars, yet the best they can do is send me some precanned non-response and all of them hide behind form contact these days. There's no way to email them directly anymore because they don't want to have to deal with that open line of communication. While I understand that I'm sure there are a lot of horrible things that get sent to them - that's the job. And there's plenty of ways to filter abusers in 2023.
  - 1827163 3y ago
    They only serve us on paper, in reality they end up serving the oligarchs in big business and powerful lobbyists and pressure groups. Some of those pressure groups being front organizations for radical feminists and evangelical Christians, having hidden agendas. Who are big proponents of censorship in the name of supposedly protecting our morals. This has been going on for decades, since the 1970s at least. Some of these organizations have even renamed themselves to hide their religious origins, operating under the name of preventing human trafficking and sexual abuse. There's even a name for it: "femi-servatives", a portmantau of feminism and conservatives. Yes, an unusual alliance. Citation below, from a reliable source: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/gender/2013/11/21/rescuers-redeemers-evangelical-church-role-anti-trafficking-movement/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/gender/2013/11/21/rescuers-redeemers... " The focus on sex trafficking, therefore, becomes yet another channel through which Christian institutions are able to carry out their sex-negative agenda, particularly by casting themselves as Rescuer, Redeemer, and even the familiar role of Western male hero saving the passive and helpless female. " Another one below, less reliable though: https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-exodus-cry-the-shady-evangelical-group-with-trump-ties-waging-war-on-pornhub https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-exodus-cry-the-shady-ev... Finally, it's disturbing in how the two-way (transmit/receive) nature of the Internet as a medium, has virtually let all these "morality police" organizations into our homes, to watch over us, through their lobbying efforts to change the law. That wasn't possible with radio and satellite television, which were receive only. Where you could watch or listen to anything you wanted and explore freely, without ever having to worry about the thought police breaking your door down, should you happen to stumble over something deemed "inappropriate" by them. The difference between that and the Internet is stark and highlights the sheer madness and insanity of what the Internet has made possible. The Internet became like the telescreen in George Orwell's 1984 novel. You can never be sure if it's watching you or not. In the past, this was the stuff of nightmares, but it's here for real now in the 21st Century, because of widespread Internet usage in society. And your children are at risk from it, from sexting, from a teenage son coming across this material and viewing it, maybe even intentionally. Perhaps the risk of your children being prosecuted for breaking these laws is greater than the risk of them being physically abused by a pedophile? https://www.teenvogue.com/story/how-sex-offender-registries-impact-youth https://www.teenvogue.com/story/how-sex-offender-registries-... https://jlc.org/news/most-states-require-some-youth-be-sex-offender-registries https://jlc.org/news/most-states-require-some-youth-be-sex-o... https://magazine.jhsph.edu/2022/harms-placing-kids-sex-offender-registries https://magazine.jhsph.edu/2022/harms-placing-kids-sex-offen... https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/childrens-rights/articles/2022/summer2022-young-people-caught-in-the-net-of-sex-offender-registries/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/chi...
- qingcharles 3y ago
  I would hope most jurisdictions allow for accidental viewing to not be a criminal act. In my jurisdiction, firstly it requires knowing possession (i.e. if it was just in your web cache because it was downloaded in a hidden img tag) and you didn't know it was there, then you would technically not be guilty. My jurisdiction also has a safety valve that allows you to immediately delete the image after viewing it and realizing the nature of the content. As long as the deletion happens within a reasonable time, there is no crime. The problem with this is that it is an affirmative defense, which means you have to prove your innocence, you are assumed guilty. (There are many crimes where you are legally assumed guilty rather than innocent)
mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
I never quite bought this. It is known that this is even done live, on request. And in those cases, yes, the viewer who made requests or payments to make it happen is definitely complicit. Where the argument loses me is that I simply don't believe that the demand in any way causes people to become rapists just to produce content. They were gonna become rapists anyway. The better argument that seeking it out at all should be illegal is that it's a (very severe) privacy violation. And I would agree with that. But it is hard to get away from the fact that part of this really is thought crime. In some countries, even things like loli manga are illegal even though no children were harmed making them. And speaking of demand and exploitation of children, should we prosecute people who bought clothes made with child labour? Their demand also caused child exploitation in some sense. Serious question, because I think prosecuting based on vague economic theories of "motivating suppliers" sets an interesting precedent for all sorts of different behaviours normally thought of as perfectly legal.
- 1827163 3y ago
  Yes, as a thought experiment, maybe we should prosecute those who purchase eggs, even free range ones, from so called 'ethical' farms, for animal abuse? Each hen lays 600 eggs in its lifespan [1]. For every hen there was a male chick that was shredded alive in a macerator in the hatchery [2,3]. The link between abuse and consumption is concrete in this case. Buying more eggs requires the farm to raise more hens, which causes more male chicks to be shredded. There is a direct supplier and customer here, and money is clearly transferred. So the average person consumes 277 eggs per year [4], that means approximately every 2 years, we all shred a male chick alive, by proxy. And by using the same argument as for the illegal pornography, we should be going to jail for animal abuse? 1. https://backyardpoultry.iamcountryside.com/chickens-101/how-long-do-chickens-lay-eggs-breeds-that-go-the-extra-mile/ https://backyardpoultry.iamcountryside.com/chickens-101/how-... 2. https://thehumaneleague.org.uk/article/what-happens-to-male-chicks-in-the-egg-industry https://thehumaneleague.org.uk/article/what-happens-to-male-... 3. https://demeter.net/chick-culling/ https://demeter.net/chick-culling/ 4. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183678/per-capita-consumption-of-eggs-in-the-us-since-2000/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183678/per-capita-consum... With illegal pornography, which is information, and can be copied effortlessly at zero cost, and when no money is transferred, the link between consumption and abuse is much less clear. In fact most of those images are distributed for free, so I guess it's pirated illegal pornography that people are viewing then? That hardly makes a direct case for increasing the production of such images?

reaperman 3y ago

I respect your stance on this. What's your opinion on using BitTorrent to "look at it", while (without intention) leaving the default settings of BitTorrent where it usually also uploads for a bit while downloading, but then remembering to manually stop the torrent seeding sometime "shortly" after downloading when the user gets around to it (1 hour to 1 week).

1827163 3y ago
It would come under distribution, because your computer is physically uploading this information to others. So it's being sent in the upstream channel of your Internet connection. And it was an event initiated by the user knowingly browsing such material, it did not happen on the behalf of another, as would be the case if he/she ran an anonymizing proxy service for others to use, e.g. a Tor exit node. So that qualifies as distribution to me. It depends if the quantity of data uploaded qualifies as an image of illegal abuse. If it contains fragments of the image, that do not represent such acts, then it's not illegal. The user was being negligent or reckless in not disabling the upload facility completely, it's his/her duty to do so in that case, to prevent further harm to the victim from occurring. And I think that is where we can draw the line and it becomes a crime? And sentencing will take into account the intent? Might not result in jail time if it was just one file?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]