3 ms·
I took an easy-A class on computer crime at school. I discovered that applying the fundamental principals of law unilaterally, even when it applies to child por
by snprbob86 13y ago
I took an easy-A class on computer crime at school. I discovered that applying the fundamental principals of law unilaterally, even when it applies to child porn, is a quick way to get people to label you a pedophile.. but here goes anyway:
> Does criminalizing the possesion of child porn reduce the chance of those original crimes from happening? I think it does, and I think that's a good reason to ban it.
"I think it does" is not a sufficient motivation for a federal law. Generally, evidence should be required to drive policy, but I'd settle for successful deployment to a small number of jurisdictions before scaled deployments.
> It's also a good way to discourage people who like child porn, to tell them that there is something wrong with them, and that they should not do it.
Oh yeah, because a good scolding works so well for addicts.
- rmc 13y agoOh yeah, because a good scolding works so well for addicts. Here's an example: Gay men. For decades they were shunned and told they were horrible. The act was illegal, and if a gay man flirted with someone, no-one'd look the other way if the fliter was assaulted, possibly killed. You could be fired for being gay, or kicked out of your home. As a result there were very few acts of gay sex and many gay men did not live as gay men, instead staying in the closet and living as if they were straight; wife, kids the lot. So yes, shunning and scolding people can work to reduce the rate of which the sex act is done. (How else can you explain how many gay men lived as straight men for so long?)
- drcube 13y agoJust being in the closet is not evidence that a person wasn't actively gay. What is your evidence that gay sex happened less frequently when homosexuality was forbidden?