3 ms·

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 a

by 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.

by rmc 13y ago

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.