4 ms·

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.

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.