4 ms·

That's his point. Would criminalizing violent movies reduce chances of violence? Many think it would; so ban those movies? Video Games? Guns? Knives? Rice cooke

That's his point. Would criminalizing violent movies reduce chances of violence? Many think it would; so ban those movies? Video Games? Guns? Knives? Rice cookers?

jacquesm 13y ago
You're totally missing it. A CP image is a record of a crime, a violent movie is just a depiction of something that would be a crime except that it isn't real. So criminalizing child porn is of a different degree than criminalizing violent movies, the one is somewhat reasonable the other is ridiculous.
- lotharbot 13y ago
  In many countries, virtual CP is also illegal. US law specifically includes a clause regarding material that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A section (a)(6) .
- thezilch 13y ago
  So, are there markets for non-criminal recordings of "child" pornography? Can you tell the difference? I'm betting it exists, and "pedophiles" don't even know it. Are the laws the same against both mediums? And while we agree upon the differences between the child porn and violent movies, I really don't trust lawmakers on making rulings for the consuming side of the equation. I wouldn't give them an inch.
- thezilch 13y ago
  How about criminalizing viewers of a video depicting a kid in a bike helmet entering a closet to exchange the disk on his laptop hooked into MIT's network? A video on a PS3 running "unsigned" software? Racial violence? Religious violence? You might or might not know if performing these acts fall on either side of the law and probably less likely to know if you can legally enjoy the reproduction made available by video. How do you make yourself aware and keep track of what is consumable, distributable, or otherwise?
kefka 13y ago
Not only that, but my first comment was giving benefit of doubt about said images. If someone sent you the images unwillingly (coded into a browser as ads), how do you know until you downloaded it? And then, downloading then itself is illegal. You have to be a psychic to know if an image is indeed illegal. After all, what's the difference (in the US) between a 17 yr 364 day old and a 18 yr old? A felony.
rayiner 13y ago
All of those things have legitimate uses that must be weighed against the harm they can cause.
rmc 13y ago
The slipperly slope derailing tactic is silly. You could say that about any law. "Why have legal minimum wage? Eventually it'll be €1,000,000 per hour?", "Why allow people to kill in self defence? Surely eventually everyone'll be able claim anyone will be able to kill in self-defence and murder will be legal!!"
- thezilch 13y ago
  Definitely. So why have the law on "_consuming_" child pornography? I believe that is the top-most comment's concern. The law is so easily abused, subverted, or otherwise. It sets precedence for bad law or interpretation therein. It muddies society, where you can already be detained for god knows what -- probably even watching certain violent movies. What are those laws btw? Do I get a copy to sign away my livelihood? And if you want to talk about slopes, how about the one this Feldman is on? He has yet to be charged with a crime, and that's enough to hand over your privacy, livelihood, and future, completely. Even if he complies and found guilty of no crime, he is going to have a mark to carry through the rest of his life. Again, as the parent presents, we have this exact problem with images traded by 18 and 17.99 year olds.
  - lotharbot 13y ago
    AFAIK, there is no law regarding "consuming" CP. There are laws regarding distributing, possessing, acquiring, etc. But it's been a while since I've read http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A ; feel free to prove me wrong.
  - rmc 13y ago
    So why have the law on "_consuming_" child pornography? Yes. And I'm OK with that. And yes there are few cases where a very broad written law can be bad, like a teenager sending a naked picture of themselves. Laws should be written better to exclude that. There is a vast amount of "sexual pictures of children" however that is quite clear to define, and should be illegal.

That's his point. Would criminalizing violent movies reduce chances of violence? Many think it would; so ban those movies? Video Games? Guns? Knives? Rice cookers?

jacquesm 13y ago

You're totally missing it. A CP image is a record of a crime, a violent movie is just a depiction of something that would be a crime except that it isn't real. So criminalizing child porn is of a different degree than criminalizing violent movies, the one is somewhat reasonable the other is ridiculous.

lotharbot 13y ago
In many countries, virtual CP is also illegal. US law specifically includes a clause regarding material that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A section (a)(6) .
thezilch 13y ago
So, are there markets for non-criminal recordings of "child" pornography? Can you tell the difference? I'm betting it exists, and "pedophiles" don't even know it. Are the laws the same against both mediums? And while we agree upon the differences between the child porn and violent movies, I really don't trust lawmakers on making rulings for the consuming side of the equation. I wouldn't give them an inch.
thezilch 13y ago
How about criminalizing viewers of a video depicting a kid in a bike helmet entering a closet to exchange the disk on his laptop hooked into MIT's network? A video on a PS3 running "unsigned" software? Racial violence? Religious violence? You might or might not know if performing these acts fall on either side of the law and probably less likely to know if you can legally enjoy the reproduction made available by video. How do you make yourself aware and keep track of what is consumable, distributable, or otherwise?

kefka 13y ago

Not only that, but my first comment was giving benefit of doubt about said images. If someone sent you the images unwillingly (coded into a browser as ads), how do you know until you downloaded it? And then, downloading then itself is illegal. You have to be a psychic to know if an image is indeed illegal. After all, what's the difference (in the US) between a 17 yr 364 day old and a 18 yr old? A felony.

rayiner 13y ago

All of those things have legitimate uses that must be weighed against the harm they can cause.

rmc 13y ago

The slipperly slope derailing tactic is silly. You could say that about any law. "Why have legal minimum wage? Eventually it'll be €1,000,000 per hour?", "Why allow people to kill in self defence? Surely eventually everyone'll be able claim anyone will be able to kill in self-defence and murder will be legal!!"

thezilch 13y ago
Definitely. So why have the law on "_consuming_" child pornography? I believe that is the top-most comment's concern. The law is so easily abused, subverted, or otherwise. It sets precedence for bad law or interpretation therein. It muddies society, where you can already be detained for god knows what -- probably even watching certain violent movies. What are those laws btw? Do I get a copy to sign away my livelihood? And if you want to talk about slopes, how about the one this Feldman is on? He has yet to be charged with a crime, and that's enough to hand over your privacy, livelihood, and future, completely. Even if he complies and found guilty of no crime, he is going to have a mark to carry through the rest of his life. Again, as the parent presents, we have this exact problem with images traded by 18 and 17.99 year olds.
- lotharbot 13y ago
  AFAIK, there is no law regarding "consuming" CP. There are laws regarding distributing, possessing, acquiring, etc. But it's been a while since I've read http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A ; feel free to prove me wrong.
- rmc 13y ago
  So why have the law on "_consuming_" child pornography? Yes. And I'm OK with that. And yes there are few cases where a very broad written law can be bad, like a teenager sending a naked picture of themselves. Laws should be written better to exclude that. There is a vast amount of "sexual pictures of children" however that is quite clear to define, and should be illegal.