6 ms·

"Here's a proposal. Mere possession should be legal, as Falkvinge argues. What should be illegal is purchasing child porn." Really? Why focus on purchase, when

"Here's a proposal. Mere possession should be legal, as Falkvinge argues. What should be illegal is purchasing child porn." Really? Why focus on purchase, when sharing is just as bad as far as incentivizing people producing new material to satisfy demand? People will scan and distribute books, or crack software and distribute it, purely for whuffie or reputation. They'll do the same with child porn.

icebraining 14y ago
Because, as TFA points out, it's very hard to distinguish the kinds of sharing. Sure, if you're seeding CP, that's clear cut, but sending erotic pictures to your girl/boyfriend is sharing too, and it's illegal if you're a minor.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  Sexual relationships for minors is also illegal in most jurisdictions. Why do you need to allow minors to send erotic images of themselves when they're not allowed by law to engage in physical sexual activity?
  - sellandb 14y ago
    That's kind of one of the three legs of the article, that it shouldn't be rape for two 17 year olds to have sex and similarly it should not be a sexual crime for them to send each other pictures of themselves. Both of these "crimes" are clearly not the targets of their respective laws, so why are we creating "sex offenders" out of these people?
    - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
      Neither is it rape nor is it necessarily a sexual crime for them to exchange sexual images of themselves in many jurisdictions, most I'd warrant. You need to specify the jurisdiction you're referring to.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Firstly, that's not exactly true. For example, the age of consent in 30 of the US states is 16 (as it is in many other countries), so many minors are in fact allowed to have sex (even with adults!) but still prohibited from sharing erotic pictures of themselves. Secondly, that argument poses a false dilemma; the other option would be to change both laws.
    - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
      Ah, your age of majority isn't 16? Re the false dilemma claim, I didn't present it as an only option; changing both laws is, like you say, consistent and was in mind when I made the argument I did. Whilst it would be consistent to change both laws that doesn't make it any the less inconsistent to specifically alter your laws to allow for relay of erotic images for those considered to be under the age of sexual maturity. Or do you disagree?
      - icebraining 14y ago
        Ah, your age of majority isn't 16? Only five countries in the world have the age of majority at 16. The vast majority set it at 18 or older. From a cursory look at the lists, most countries set their age of consent lower than their age of majority. Whilst it would be consistent to change both laws that doesn't make it any the less inconsistent to specifically alter your laws to allow for relay of erotic images for those considered to be under the age of sexual maturity. Or do you disagree? I think your framing of the question is misleading. Laws don't actually allow or disallow anything; they create incentives do perform certain behaviors. Since law or no law, kids will send pictures of themselves, I don't see exactly who are we helping by branding them as criminals. Furthermore, I find the very idea of criminalizing such behavior to be obscene, and an insult to free speech.
        corin_ 14y ago
        > Since law or no law, kids will send pictures of themselves, I don't see exactly who are we helping by branding them as criminals. Doesn't this line of logic extend to any law that gets broken on a regular basis, which includes rape, murder.. basically all laws? I've no idea if the law is effective at putting kids off taking pictures of themselves, but the fact that it isn't 100% effective doesn't mean it is 0%.
  - cabalamat 14y ago
    > Sexual relationships for minors is also illegal in most jurisdictions. Why do you need to allow minors to send erotic images of themselves when they're not allowed by law to engage in physical sexual activity? In Scotland, 16 year olds can legally get married (without their parents' consent), and thus have a state-approved sexual relationship. They can perfectly legally take photos of themselves having sex, but the moment they show these photos to anyone else, they are evil child pornographers who must be punished.
lmm 14y ago
>Why focus on purchase, when sharing is just as bad as far as incentivizing people producing new material to satisfy demand? Huh? Sharing increases supply and thus reduces demand. The more people are sharing existing child porn, the less profit there is to be made in producing new material.
- Nick_C 14y ago
  > ... increases supply and thus reduces demand. Rarely. Usually, increasing supply reduces prices which increases demand. The economic term is elasticity.
- jonhendry 14y ago
  "The more people are sharing existing child porn, the less profit there is to be made in producing new material." a) the producers aren't necessarily driven by a profit motive b) it's not like they spend a lot on sets and crew and equipment, so 'break-even' isn't even an issue. They'd be taking that trip to Thailand anyway. c) Porn customers value novelty, so there's pretty much always demand for new material, whether or not there's a viable business model.
  - lmm 14y ago
    >a) the producers aren't necessarily driven by a profit motive Sure, but I wasn't thinking just material profit; any kind of reputation or warm fuzzies or whatever they get from distributing would be diminished if there was a lot of it already out there. >b) it's not like they spend a lot on sets and crew and equipment, so 'break-even' isn't even an issue. They'd be taking that trip to Thailand anyway. Interesting thought. I have to admit I have basically no idea what motivates child porn producers/distributors, I just assume they must be gaining something from it. Otherwise, even assuming you did take the pictures/videos, why distribute them? >c) Porn customers value novelty, so there's pretty much always demand for new material, whether or not there's a viable business model. Not the impression I've got; I remember an interview with a "normal" porn producer where he said that 1) there is nothing new or original in (mainstream) porn; every single shot you can take has been done thousands of time before and 2) the widespread availability of free porn on the internet was driving a lot of porn producers out of business or at least into more specialized niches.

icebraining 14y ago

Because, as TFA points out, it's very hard to distinguish the kinds of sharing. Sure, if you're seeding CP, that's clear cut, but sending erotic pictures to your girl/boyfriend is sharing too, and it's illegal if you're a minor.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago
Sexual relationships for minors is also illegal in most jurisdictions. Why do you need to allow minors to send erotic images of themselves when they're not allowed by law to engage in physical sexual activity?
- sellandb 14y ago
  That's kind of one of the three legs of the article, that it shouldn't be rape for two 17 year olds to have sex and similarly it should not be a sexual crime for them to send each other pictures of themselves. Both of these "crimes" are clearly not the targets of their respective laws, so why are we creating "sex offenders" out of these people?
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    Neither is it rape nor is it necessarily a sexual crime for them to exchange sexual images of themselves in many jurisdictions, most I'd warrant. You need to specify the jurisdiction you're referring to.
- icebraining 14y ago
  Firstly, that's not exactly true. For example, the age of consent in 30 of the US states is 16 (as it is in many other countries), so many minors are in fact allowed to have sex (even with adults!) but still prohibited from sharing erotic pictures of themselves. Secondly, that argument poses a false dilemma; the other option would be to change both laws.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    Ah, your age of majority isn't 16? Re the false dilemma claim, I didn't present it as an only option; changing both laws is, like you say, consistent and was in mind when I made the argument I did. Whilst it would be consistent to change both laws that doesn't make it any the less inconsistent to specifically alter your laws to allow for relay of erotic images for those considered to be under the age of sexual maturity. Or do you disagree?
    - icebraining 14y ago
      Ah, your age of majority isn't 16? Only five countries in the world have the age of majority at 16. The vast majority set it at 18 or older. From a cursory look at the lists, most countries set their age of consent lower than their age of majority. Whilst it would be consistent to change both laws that doesn't make it any the less inconsistent to specifically alter your laws to allow for relay of erotic images for those considered to be under the age of sexual maturity. Or do you disagree? I think your framing of the question is misleading. Laws don't actually allow or disallow anything; they create incentives do perform certain behaviors. Since law or no law, kids will send pictures of themselves, I don't see exactly who are we helping by branding them as criminals. Furthermore, I find the very idea of criminalizing such behavior to be obscene, and an insult to free speech.
      - corin_ 14y ago
        > Since law or no law, kids will send pictures of themselves, I don't see exactly who are we helping by branding them as criminals. Doesn't this line of logic extend to any law that gets broken on a regular basis, which includes rape, murder.. basically all laws? I've no idea if the law is effective at putting kids off taking pictures of themselves, but the fact that it isn't 100% effective doesn't mean it is 0%.
- cabalamat 14y ago
  > Sexual relationships for minors is also illegal in most jurisdictions. Why do you need to allow minors to send erotic images of themselves when they're not allowed by law to engage in physical sexual activity? In Scotland, 16 year olds can legally get married (without their parents' consent), and thus have a state-approved sexual relationship. They can perfectly legally take photos of themselves having sex, but the moment they show these photos to anyone else, they are evil child pornographers who must be punished.

lmm 14y ago

>Why focus on purchase, when sharing is just as bad as far as incentivizing people producing new material to satisfy demand? Huh? Sharing increases supply and thus reduces demand. The more people are sharing existing child porn, the less profit there is to be made in producing new material.

Nick_C 14y ago
> ... increases supply and thus reduces demand. Rarely. Usually, increasing supply reduces prices which increases demand. The economic term is elasticity.
jonhendry 14y ago
"The more people are sharing existing child porn, the less profit there is to be made in producing new material." a) the producers aren't necessarily driven by a profit motive b) it's not like they spend a lot on sets and crew and equipment, so 'break-even' isn't even an issue. They'd be taking that trip to Thailand anyway. c) Porn customers value novelty, so there's pretty much always demand for new material, whether or not there's a viable business model.
- lmm 14y ago
  >a) the producers aren't necessarily driven by a profit motive Sure, but I wasn't thinking just material profit; any kind of reputation or warm fuzzies or whatever they get from distributing would be diminished if there was a lot of it already out there. >b) it's not like they spend a lot on sets and crew and equipment, so 'break-even' isn't even an issue. They'd be taking that trip to Thailand anyway. Interesting thought. I have to admit I have basically no idea what motivates child porn producers/distributors, I just assume they must be gaining something from it. Otherwise, even assuming you did take the pictures/videos, why distribute them? >c) Porn customers value novelty, so there's pretty much always demand for new material, whether or not there's a viable business model. Not the impression I've got; I remember an interview with a "normal" porn producer where he said that 1) there is nothing new or original in (mainstream) porn; every single shot you can take has been done thousands of time before and 2) the widespread availability of free porn on the internet was driving a lot of porn producers out of business or at least into more specialized niches.