4 ms·

No laws whatsoever? So someone can buy childporn.com and charge people for access? I know issues like child safety are often used for over-reaching legislation

by corin_ 13y ago

No laws whatsoever? So someone can buy childporn.com and charge people for access? I know issues like child safety are often used for over-reaching legislation that's bad for everybody, but that doesn't mean there aren't also valid reasons for governments to be involved here. Just because the current implementation is often shitty, it doesn't mean we should go the exact opposite way. The same way that disliking things like anti-terrorism legislation don't make most of us think "we need to get rid of all laws".

crististm 13y ago
Think of the children man... I wondered how long until I see this argument
- corin_ 13y ago
  In some limited cases it's a perfectly valid argument. I'm against most of the current internet legislation, and hate seeing children used as a reason for it, but that doesn't mean there aren't any good laws. Take my specific example. If someone hosts a childporn.com that is exactly like any legal porn website but with children, should that be legal or illegal?
  - freehunter 13y ago
    It should be illegal. And it is illegal. The point is that there doesn't need to be laws specifically designed for "... but on the Internet", because those laws already apply. The person putting content on that site is already breaking the law in his country, and if he's not breaking the law in his country then he's just not breaking the law. "... but on the Internet" is becoming a digital version of the USA's "interstate commerce" clause [1]. Yes, the Internet crosses national borders, but as we see from Megaupload, it can be used by one nation to enforce their laws in another nation that may not have the same laws. Just because activity X is illegal in the US but legal in Germany does not mean there should be a law banning activity X ... but on the Internet. In areas where this should be enforcable, it's already illegal. [1] Generally the Interstate Commerce Clause is used to regulate economic activity that affects trade between US states. Trade that stays in one US state is regulated at the state level, not the national level. Sometimes this clause can be used/abused to enforce laws the federal government wants enacted just by the government going out of their way to find a reason that an activity is affecting interstate commerce, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
  - crististm 13y ago
    It's a perfectly valid argument. However it is being abused to the point where it is considered the root for every explanation. Yes, our children is the very first thing that we should protect but if you want it as a good argument, "think of the children" should start the discussion not end it. For example, you want to tape everybody and then explain this away with "think of the children: we can catch child molesters this way". This argumentation works only for those who don't know any better. You take them for fools and thus you are not a good partner: you must have some ulterior motives.
malandrew 13y ago
Yes. No laws whatsoever online. Let it remain out in the open on the internet. A site like that has content that much be illegally made in real life. Real life is where the police should be enforcing the laws. Letting it exist out in the open would probably make their job of finding the people exploiting kids to create such content that much easier. Those sites aren't the real crime, they are the documentation of the crime. Allowing these the consumption to be out in the open, would probably reduce the stigmatization of such content to fall to the level where those doing the consuming can feel comfortable seeking help and therapy to overcome their vice. Hiding things away and criminalization of consumption just leads people to go longer and longer down their own dark personal rabbit hole without getting help. If such sites existed, you could probably, at the country level, inject ads for free state-sponsored psychiatric therapy services for users. AFAICT any thing that is illegal on the internet is usually also illegal in real life. Things that cause no real life damages have no reason to be illegal.
Karunamon 13y ago
Child porn is already against the law. We don't need legislation that takes existing legislation and adds "..but on the internet" as it's generally ill-thought-out, "feel good" ineffective garbage. As the cookie law shows us.

by corin_ 13y ago

crististm 13y ago

Think of the children man... I wondered how long until I see this argument

corin_ 13y ago
In some limited cases it's a perfectly valid argument. I'm against most of the current internet legislation, and hate seeing children used as a reason for it, but that doesn't mean there aren't any good laws. Take my specific example. If someone hosts a childporn.com that is exactly like any legal porn website but with children, should that be legal or illegal?
- freehunter 13y ago
  It should be illegal. And it is illegal. The point is that there doesn't need to be laws specifically designed for "... but on the Internet", because those laws already apply. The person putting content on that site is already breaking the law in his country, and if he's not breaking the law in his country then he's just not breaking the law. "... but on the Internet" is becoming a digital version of the USA's "interstate commerce" clause [1]. Yes, the Internet crosses national borders, but as we see from Megaupload, it can be used by one nation to enforce their laws in another nation that may not have the same laws. Just because activity X is illegal in the US but legal in Germany does not mean there should be a law banning activity X ... but on the Internet. In areas where this should be enforcable, it's already illegal. [1] Generally the Interstate Commerce Clause is used to regulate economic activity that affects trade between US states. Trade that stays in one US state is regulated at the state level, not the national level. Sometimes this clause can be used/abused to enforce laws the federal government wants enacted just by the government going out of their way to find a reason that an activity is affecting interstate commerce, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- crististm 13y ago
  It's a perfectly valid argument. However it is being abused to the point where it is considered the root for every explanation. Yes, our children is the very first thing that we should protect but if you want it as a good argument, "think of the children" should start the discussion not end it. For example, you want to tape everybody and then explain this away with "think of the children: we can catch child molesters this way". This argumentation works only for those who don't know any better. You take them for fools and thus you are not a good partner: you must have some ulterior motives.

malandrew 13y ago

Yes. No laws whatsoever online. Let it remain out in the open on the internet. A site like that has content that much be illegally made in real life. Real life is where the police should be enforcing the laws. Letting it exist out in the open would probably make their job of finding the people exploiting kids to create such content that much easier. Those sites aren't the real crime, they are the documentation of the crime. Allowing these the consumption to be out in the open, would probably reduce the stigmatization of such content to fall to the level where those doing the consuming can feel comfortable seeking help and therapy to overcome their vice. Hiding things away and criminalization of consumption just leads people to go longer and longer down their own dark personal rabbit hole without getting help. If such sites existed, you could probably, at the country level, inject ads for free state-sponsored psychiatric therapy services for users. AFAICT any thing that is illegal on the internet is usually also illegal in real life. Things that cause no real life damages have no reason to be illegal.

Karunamon 13y ago

Child porn is already against the law. We don't need legislation that takes existing legislation and adds "..but on the internet" as it's generally ill-thought-out, "feel good" ineffective garbage. As the cookie law shows us.