4 ms·
But he isn't enabling any of that. You're spinning a narrative that is fundamentally untrue.
by bringen 2y ago
But he isn't enabling any of that. You're spinning a narrative that is fundamentally untrue.
- jdiez17 2y agoPlease read this[1] while keeping in mind that a 14 year old does not fit into Stallman's definition of "child": > I don't think it is wrong to distribute "child porn" images, even when they [depict] children rather than adolescents. However, making them is wrong if it involves real sex with a child. For the sake of opposing sexual abuse of real children, I suggest that you boycott the images that involve real children. Imaginary children can't be hurt by drawing them. In other words: pornography involving 14, 15, 16 year olds is all good according to Stallman. He is enabling all of the above by changing the definition of what child pornography is, responding to someone who emailed him asking for advice, and then posting about it publicly. [1]https://www.stallman.org/articles/witch-hunt.html https://www.stallman.org/articles/witch-hunt.html
- asrt 2y agoThat's not what it says at all. In that quote Stallman makes a distinction between pornography that depicts real children and drawings, which he claims hurt no one. This distinction is also made by the law in the USA, so this quote merely reflects USA law. You can disagree with this quote and even find it gross, but to claim this quote aims to normalize CSAM is a blatant lie.