3 ms·

The crux is in the distribution. Does distribution enter your scenarios? Imagining it? That can't be distributed, so no issue here. Describing it to friend? I

The crux is in the distribution. Does distribution enter your scenarios? Imagining it? That can't be distributed, so no issue here. Describing it to friend? I think it's no issue, as the setting is private, and words are ephemeral. Sketch it on tablet? As long as no one sees it, it's fine. Now, let's spice these up with distribution. What if you describe it not to a friend, but to an audience at a stand-up club? Or in a tweet? Or in a written publication? What if your sketch gets photographed, and put online? What if it's a semi-known person, and a tabloid gets ahold of the photo? I think the first and second scenarios differ a lot. And that while both can be likened to sexual violence, the second group is what does real damage.

golol 3y ago
I agree that distribution is the key. I am not really comfortable with creation or viewing of such content being illegal. It feels like thoughtcrimes. Distribution is where you are really being immoral. And if you create something in a form which makes it possible to distribute, and then someone just happens to get access and distributes it, is it not your fault too? Here it becomes unclear.
- npteljes 3y ago
  >I am not really comfortable with creation or viewing of such content being illegal. It feels like thoughtcrimes. That's because it largely is. It's also highly unenforceable, which raises the suspicion: how would a proponent intend to enforce it? By implementing surveillance? Or would this be just used to suppress political opponents for example? >if you create something in a form which makes it possible to distribute, and then someone just happens to get access and distributes it, is it not your fault too? Here it becomes unclear. I think if law would exist, then it would define these scenarios. I feel like there are a lot of already existing situations that are similar, and also legally defined. For example a legal firearm can be stolen from somebody, or accessed by a child, and some harm is done, then in some cases, the original owner is also implicated[0]. Or with drugs, possession and distribution are usually separated, even in the case of a completely banned substance, with distribution usually being a heavier category. [0] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/can-i-be-punished-if-someone-else-uses-my-firearm-com https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/can-i-be-pun...
  - golol 3y ago
    Similar question actually: If I fill my private notebook with hateful tirades against Johm Oliver, and someone finds my notebook and publishes the content online, am I liable for slander or insult?
    - npteljes 3y ago
      That's a very good question. I'm not experienced with law, but found an article, and they say that the in case of defamation, it's the publisher that's liable. https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/republishing-someone-else-s-comment-is-it-defamation-47402 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/republishing-someone-else-...
woleium 3y ago
Disagree. The line is with intent. What you intend to do with the creation is what usually dictates the legal ramifications. This is of course hard (or impossible) to prove, so demonstrating actions to distribute is a good proxy to intent.
- npteljes 3y ago
  Intent plays a part, but you can do no harm with a lot of intent, and also cause a lot of harm without any intent. >What you intend to do with the creation is what usually dictates the legal ramifications. Disagree. Legal stuff is first concerned with what happened, and just secondarily with the why. This separates murder and manslaughter for example in the US, but in either case, the main thing is that someone died because of another person. If it was only intent, and no harm done, not even an attempt, there wouldn't be a case in the first place. Now where the moral line is, that's another question, and intent indeed does play a huge part there. In Christianity for example, you can sin without even doing anything, as God is concerned not just with outside actions, but with a person's inner life too.
  - woleium 3y ago
    Valid points. > Legal stuff is first concerned with what happened, and just secondarily with the why. I guess it's more nuanced than we have space for here, lol. :) I was thinking of 'possession with intent to supply' for narcotics. The penalty is much greater for that than simple possession. I think you are correct though, I'm mixing up legal and moral concern.

golol 3y ago

I agree that distribution is the key. I am not really comfortable with creation or viewing of such content being illegal. It feels like thoughtcrimes. Distribution is where you are really being immoral. And if you create something in a form which makes it possible to distribute, and then someone just happens to get access and distributes it, is it not your fault too? Here it becomes unclear.

npteljes 3y ago
>I am not really comfortable with creation or viewing of such content being illegal. It feels like thoughtcrimes. That's because it largely is. It's also highly unenforceable, which raises the suspicion: how would a proponent intend to enforce it? By implementing surveillance? Or would this be just used to suppress political opponents for example? >if you create something in a form which makes it possible to distribute, and then someone just happens to get access and distributes it, is it not your fault too? Here it becomes unclear. I think if law would exist, then it would define these scenarios. I feel like there are a lot of already existing situations that are similar, and also legally defined. For example a legal firearm can be stolen from somebody, or accessed by a child, and some harm is done, then in some cases, the original owner is also implicated[0]. Or with drugs, possession and distribution are usually separated, even in the case of a completely banned substance, with distribution usually being a heavier category. [0] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/can-i-be-punished-if-someone-else-uses-my-firearm-com https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/can-i-be-pun...
- golol 3y ago
  Similar question actually: If I fill my private notebook with hateful tirades against Johm Oliver, and someone finds my notebook and publishes the content online, am I liable for slander or insult?
  - npteljes 3y ago
    That's a very good question. I'm not experienced with law, but found an article, and they say that the in case of defamation, it's the publisher that's liable. https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/republishing-someone-else-s-comment-is-it-defamation-47402 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/republishing-someone-else-...

woleium 3y ago

Disagree. The line is with intent. What you intend to do with the creation is what usually dictates the legal ramifications. This is of course hard (or impossible) to prove, so demonstrating actions to distribute is a good proxy to intent.

npteljes 3y ago
Intent plays a part, but you can do no harm with a lot of intent, and also cause a lot of harm without any intent. >What you intend to do with the creation is what usually dictates the legal ramifications. Disagree. Legal stuff is first concerned with what happened, and just secondarily with the why. This separates murder and manslaughter for example in the US, but in either case, the main thing is that someone died because of another person. If it was only intent, and no harm done, not even an attempt, there wouldn't be a case in the first place. Now where the moral line is, that's another question, and intent indeed does play a huge part there. In Christianity for example, you can sin without even doing anything, as God is concerned not just with outside actions, but with a person's inner life too.
- woleium 3y ago
  Valid points. > Legal stuff is first concerned with what happened, and just secondarily with the why. I guess it's more nuanced than we have space for here, lol. :) I was thinking of 'possession with intent to supply' for narcotics. The penalty is much greater for that than simple possession. I think you are correct though, I'm mixing up legal and moral concern.