7 ms·

Agree completely, this jumped out and slapped me in the face. Even images of actual rape should not be illegal. For one thing, that would mean that, for instanc

by glesica 13y ago

Agree completely, this jumped out and slapped me in the face. Even images of actual rape should not be illegal. For one thing, that would mean that, for instance, documenting a rape-in-progress that you are unable to stop would be a crime. But even aside from that, why on earth should imagery of something be illegal? Producing rape images, sure, rape is already illegal (though sadly not always prosecuted as vigorously as it should be). But possessing an image of an illegal act is not the same as committing that act. Possessing images of a bank robbery, murder or other crime is not in any way akin to committing those crimes, and the Internet is full of videos of crimes being committed (many of which are hosted by large news organizations).

withad 13y ago
If you were a rape victim, how would you feel knowing that images of your rape were being distributed around the internet and used as porn? In a situation like that, there's a clear victim protection argument for making distribution of such images illegal. Now, that's a very different situation to either someone recording a crime for evidence which should obviously be legal (and I doubt anyone would want to hang on to the images/footage after providing it to the police anyway) or to actors enacting a fictional fantasy scene, which I feel should be legal with reasonable parental controls in place to stop minors accessing it. The law should be capable of differentiating between these situations, it doesn't have to be all or nothing.
- glesica 13y ago
  I agree that protecting victims is a noble goal, but I still don't think it is a criminal matter. If anything, victims should be able to sue people for distributing such materials, but even that brings up a troubling slippery slope. The problem is that you end up censoring material because it offends someone. Never mind that in this case the offense is truly terrible and unquestionably legitimate, the principle is still the same. And if we censor something because one person is offended, how can we really say "no" to the next, gravely offended person who comes along? Where will it end?
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    If it's not illegal to distribute them, there's more of a black market incentive to produce them. Also, your argument about a slippery slope with respect to limits on free speech is in the classical form of a "slippery slope fallacy" because you imply there is no reasonable middle ground without providing compelling evidence. Plenty of countries set limits on speech and function just fine - most or all of the G8 besides the US I believe. (And even the US in this instance.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
    - glesica 13y ago
      It's not a slippery slope to limit speech. It's a slippery slope to limit speech based on that speech being offensive to a person or group. There is plenty of evidence for this, just look at the Muslim world, or the world as hardline American Christians would like to see it. There are a million groups and individuals who are genuinely and actually offended by some bit of content that is currently legal. Open the floodgates just a little and they will all try to shove their way through.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        I know you meant limits on hateful or offensive speech. However, for your slippery slope argument not to be a fallacy, you have to demonstrate that there is no possibility of a middle ground. But such a middle ground already exists, in just about every western democracy besides the US.
        glesica 13y ago
        You can keep your footing on a slippery slope for awhile, but I personally believe that it is an unstable equilibrium in this case. I will admit, though, that in some sense all societies are just in temporary equilibrium, so maybe it's all a moot point. I still feel that it is better to remain firmly at the top of the hill rather than bet that you can keep your footing on the slope. As for examples, France is in the news for the ban on certain Muslim attire and Turkey is apparently sliding toward theocracy. The argument I'm making is similar to the argument against letting people have all the guns they want (which of course the US does, to terrifying effect): if you don't give people the tools to commit violent acts easily, they will commit fewer violent acts.
- hrktb 13y ago
  * If you were a rape victim* Porn is fiction and there's no victim. A depiction of a real illegal act is not what you would call porn, it's snuff video perhaps, and distributing it is already or should be prohibited under different laws.
  - withad 13y ago
    I know. I said that I didn't have an issue with porn, I was simply explaining to glesica the logic behind making actual rape films illegal.
    - hrktb 13y ago
      Even focusing on real rape only it's a delicate question. Perhaps the focus on movie recordings is misleading. It's the same issue as photography, and on the still image side it has been and still is discussed to death: should image of victims be banned ? What can be broadcasted and what can not ? Shouldn't a rape victim's identity be always protected ? Or is it OK if he/she agrees with the publication of convicting pieces ? Or what if he/she kills the assaulter afterwards ? Is it OK to have private shots of events other people don't want published ? There's hundred of questions we could think of in the lapse of a conversation, just making 'films' illegal won't answer them all. Edit: skipped a word in last sentence
  - JabavuAdams 13y ago
    > Porn is fiction and there's no victim. This is an unreasonably strong statement, and very likely untrue. There is no way for end-users of porn to reliably verify that performers in a specific video aren't under duress, aren't being trafficked, etc. Yes, if one knew that a crime was being committed, one could call it a crime, but this is effectively impossible for the vast majority of porn. At best one can hope that no one was harmed.
    - Eliezer 13y ago
      How do you know that Paul Graham isn't using slave programmers in his basement to run Hacker News?
hahainternet 13y ago
> Agree completely, this jumped out and slapped me in the face. Even images of actual rape should not be illegal. For one thing, that would mean that, for instance, documenting a rape-in-progress that you are unable to stop would be a crime. Oh come on. Punching someone in the face is also a crime but I can happily punch a rapist committing the act. The law is not black and white and this sort of thinking only damages discourse.
- glesica 13y ago
  So pointing out that an ill-conceived law can be abused damages discourse? That thinking probably helped give us the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act...
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    No, acting as if a law which is currently not even in draft form will stop rapes being reported due to some minor technicality is a ridiculous assumption. For a start, even if this was the case, the CPS could not possibly bring forward a prosecution in the public interest. It's absurd on its face. Black and white thinking is usually fallacious and especially so here.
    - glesica 13y ago
      I wasn't speculating that rapes would go unreported. I was pointing out that laws often have unintended consequences. I would be much more worried about innocent or incidental witnesses being prosecuted over-zealously or maliciously. For instance, until recently it was illegal to make an audio recording of another person without his or her express permission. These laws were put in place to prevent criminal "wiretaps" (for purposes of blackmail and the like). Of course every parent who recorded his daughter's dance recital was also committing a felony, but since no one was ever charged for that, nobody complained. But then the police realized that if they wanted to prevent someone from recording their illegal or embarrassing activities they could arrest the person for illegally wiretapping them. This led to a string of arrests and prosecutions for doing nothing more than documenting police brutality, incompetence or corruption. The point here is that laws have a way of being misused and some laws are easier to misuse than others. Censorship laws are in this category, so special consideration should always be given to the possible unintended consequences when such laws are considered. Perhaps over-zealous or malicious prosecution doesn't happen in the UK, this seems a bit far-fetched to me, but maybe it's true. It certainly happens in the US.
shubb 13y ago
The narrative in the UK is that some recent official reports, following some specific nasty crimes, established that the offenders used 'extreme pornography', and went from mild criminal records to quite extreme acts. I'm not going to support or detract from those conclusions, there is an argument to have there in both directions. But at core, that's the reasoning that is being used to push anti porn laws here much stronger than say a year ago. The opt-out blocking, which is related, is apparently to an extent driven by mumsnet, the Anonymous of the middle aged. Personally, I see the whole thing as a way of getting the UK's favorite defense contractor's IP filtering/logging equipment into local telephone exchanges. The story is [see el reg] - UK.gov wanted centralized logging/filtering, but that wouldn't get through parliament, so instead they are putting laws in place to make ISPs fit them. The ISPs are getting paid to do this, but need to be made to for the sake of public relations. But making it about porn rather than enacting EU mandated data retention, and putting government specced DPI equipment in every exchange is much more palatable. But I'm reading a lot between the lines here.

by glesica 13y ago

withad 13y ago

If you were a rape victim, how would you feel knowing that images of your rape were being distributed around the internet and used as porn? In a situation like that, there's a clear victim protection argument for making distribution of such images illegal. Now, that's a very different situation to either someone recording a crime for evidence which should obviously be legal (and I doubt anyone would want to hang on to the images/footage after providing it to the police anyway) or to actors enacting a fictional fantasy scene, which I feel should be legal with reasonable parental controls in place to stop minors accessing it. The law should be capable of differentiating between these situations, it doesn't have to be all or nothing.

glesica 13y ago
I agree that protecting victims is a noble goal, but I still don't think it is a criminal matter. If anything, victims should be able to sue people for distributing such materials, but even that brings up a troubling slippery slope. The problem is that you end up censoring material because it offends someone. Never mind that in this case the offense is truly terrible and unquestionably legitimate, the principle is still the same. And if we censor something because one person is offended, how can we really say "no" to the next, gravely offended person who comes along? Where will it end?
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  If it's not illegal to distribute them, there's more of a black market incentive to produce them. Also, your argument about a slippery slope with respect to limits on free speech is in the classical form of a "slippery slope fallacy" because you imply there is no reasonable middle ground without providing compelling evidence. Plenty of countries set limits on speech and function just fine - most or all of the G8 besides the US I believe. (And even the US in this instance.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
  - glesica 13y ago
    It's not a slippery slope to limit speech. It's a slippery slope to limit speech based on that speech being offensive to a person or group. There is plenty of evidence for this, just look at the Muslim world, or the world as hardline American Christians would like to see it. There are a million groups and individuals who are genuinely and actually offended by some bit of content that is currently legal. Open the floodgates just a little and they will all try to shove their way through.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      I know you meant limits on hateful or offensive speech. However, for your slippery slope argument not to be a fallacy, you have to demonstrate that there is no possibility of a middle ground. But such a middle ground already exists, in just about every western democracy besides the US.
      - glesica 13y ago
        You can keep your footing on a slippery slope for awhile, but I personally believe that it is an unstable equilibrium in this case. I will admit, though, that in some sense all societies are just in temporary equilibrium, so maybe it's all a moot point. I still feel that it is better to remain firmly at the top of the hill rather than bet that you can keep your footing on the slope. As for examples, France is in the news for the ban on certain Muslim attire and Turkey is apparently sliding toward theocracy. The argument I'm making is similar to the argument against letting people have all the guns they want (which of course the US does, to terrifying effect): if you don't give people the tools to commit violent acts easily, they will commit fewer violent acts.
hrktb 13y ago
* If you were a rape victim* Porn is fiction and there's no victim. A depiction of a real illegal act is not what you would call porn, it's snuff video perhaps, and distributing it is already or should be prohibited under different laws.
- withad 13y ago
  I know. I said that I didn't have an issue with porn, I was simply explaining to glesica the logic behind making actual rape films illegal.
  - hrktb 13y ago
    Even focusing on real rape only it's a delicate question. Perhaps the focus on movie recordings is misleading. It's the same issue as photography, and on the still image side it has been and still is discussed to death: should image of victims be banned ? What can be broadcasted and what can not ? Shouldn't a rape victim's identity be always protected ? Or is it OK if he/she agrees with the publication of convicting pieces ? Or what if he/she kills the assaulter afterwards ? Is it OK to have private shots of events other people don't want published ? There's hundred of questions we could think of in the lapse of a conversation, just making 'films' illegal won't answer them all. Edit: skipped a word in last sentence
- JabavuAdams 13y ago
  > Porn is fiction and there's no victim. This is an unreasonably strong statement, and very likely untrue. There is no way for end-users of porn to reliably verify that performers in a specific video aren't under duress, aren't being trafficked, etc. Yes, if one knew that a crime was being committed, one could call it a crime, but this is effectively impossible for the vast majority of porn. At best one can hope that no one was harmed.
  - Eliezer 13y ago
    How do you know that Paul Graham isn't using slave programmers in his basement to run Hacker News?

hahainternet 13y ago

> Agree completely, this jumped out and slapped me in the face. Even images of actual rape should not be illegal. For one thing, that would mean that, for instance, documenting a rape-in-progress that you are unable to stop would be a crime. Oh come on. Punching someone in the face is also a crime but I can happily punch a rapist committing the act. The law is not black and white and this sort of thinking only damages discourse.

glesica 13y ago
So pointing out that an ill-conceived law can be abused damages discourse? That thinking probably helped give us the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act...
- hahainternet 13y ago
  No, acting as if a law which is currently not even in draft form will stop rapes being reported due to some minor technicality is a ridiculous assumption. For a start, even if this was the case, the CPS could not possibly bring forward a prosecution in the public interest. It's absurd on its face. Black and white thinking is usually fallacious and especially so here.
  - glesica 13y ago
    I wasn't speculating that rapes would go unreported. I was pointing out that laws often have unintended consequences. I would be much more worried about innocent or incidental witnesses being prosecuted over-zealously or maliciously. For instance, until recently it was illegal to make an audio recording of another person without his or her express permission. These laws were put in place to prevent criminal "wiretaps" (for purposes of blackmail and the like). Of course every parent who recorded his daughter's dance recital was also committing a felony, but since no one was ever charged for that, nobody complained. But then the police realized that if they wanted to prevent someone from recording their illegal or embarrassing activities they could arrest the person for illegally wiretapping them. This led to a string of arrests and prosecutions for doing nothing more than documenting police brutality, incompetence or corruption. The point here is that laws have a way of being misused and some laws are easier to misuse than others. Censorship laws are in this category, so special consideration should always be given to the possible unintended consequences when such laws are considered. Perhaps over-zealous or malicious prosecution doesn't happen in the UK, this seems a bit far-fetched to me, but maybe it's true. It certainly happens in the US.

shubb 13y ago

The narrative in the UK is that some recent official reports, following some specific nasty crimes, established that the offenders used 'extreme pornography', and went from mild criminal records to quite extreme acts. I'm not going to support or detract from those conclusions, there is an argument to have there in both directions. But at core, that's the reasoning that is being used to push anti porn laws here much stronger than say a year ago. The opt-out blocking, which is related, is apparently to an extent driven by mumsnet, the Anonymous of the middle aged. Personally, I see the whole thing as a way of getting the UK's favorite defense contractor's IP filtering/logging equipment into local telephone exchanges. The story is [see el reg] - UK.gov wanted centralized logging/filtering, but that wouldn't get through parliament, so instead they are putting laws in place to make ISPs fit them. The ISPs are getting paid to do this, but need to be made to for the sake of public relations. But making it about porn rather than enacting EU mandated data retention, and putting government specced DPI equipment in every exchange is much more palatable. But I'm reading a lot between the lines here.