6 ms·

There need to be prohibitions that don't discriminate on the basis of age. If someone's being abused, against their will, that's the same thing. It doesn't matt

There need to be prohibitions that don't discriminate on the basis of age. If someone's being abused, against their will, that's the same thing. It doesn't matter if they've crossed the magical line where they're an adult. If you're going to make a stand, at least make a principled one ("We're trying to prevent abuse") and not one on emotional basis ("Think of the children!")

doreo 13y ago
There is a bill to ban the possession of adult rape pornography currently being introduced into law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Courts_Bill_2013%E2%80%9314 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Courts_Bi...)
drdaeman 13y ago
It's age-based because it's defined that kids just can't (legally) consent, so lack of consent can be determined. You can't determine whenever characters on picture are consenting or not (or pretending they're not consenting but actually do). Especially if they're drawings that bear no resemblance to any real persons. So, while your suggestion is logically right by its nature, it just can't work in reality. Well, unless laws mandate that every porn-looking picture out there must be accompanied with a signed written consent proof. But that's not really possible, too.
- doreo 13y ago
  For adult porn the legal system doesn't really care if they are consenting or real. A special needs teacher called Jane Longhurst was murdered by a guy who enjoyed violent pornography, so now mere depictions of particularly dangerous (and soon non-consensual) sex are made illegal. You could literally have signed written consent proof but if it looks like rape then it lands you in legal trouble because it might turn you into a rapist murderer.
Crito 13y ago
In your mind, is this limited to sexual abuse without consent, or does bog-standard torture without consent count as well? In your mind, would this include images/videos of cartel beheadings? Killings by religious extremists? Killings by oppressive regimes? Images/videos of the results of war? Images/videos of the results of war that your particular government is responsible for?
- astrodust 13y ago
  I'm not saying that it should be blanket outlawed or it should be fully legal, but if you're going to take a position, take it on the magnitude of abuse and not the age of the person involved. Torture is torture. Abuse is abuse.
  - Crito 13y ago
    I think that any laws restricting the distribution or possession of evidence of torture or atrocities is an extremely dangerous infringement on the public's ability to monitor the actions of their governments. These laws have no place in democracies.^ I would not consider even laws with exceptions for evidence of government wrong-doing to be acceptable, as that would leave open the possibility that governments could restrict access to evidence of their wrong-doing by denying involvement in the crime, and therefore denying the public the right to distribute or possess that evidence. We are fortunate that existing laws concerning evidence of abuse of children seemingly have not undermined our system of government. However if these laws are expanded, they will do exactly that. ^ For example, what sort of democracy would we be if the public were not permitted to see or know about the photos of abuse and sexual humiliation at Abu Ghraib (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Abu_Ghraib_prison...)? If our democratic process is to be valued in the slightest, then the public must be allowed to see even the disturbing results of the policies of their nation.
    - astrodust 13y ago
      I completely agree. I can imagine there are those conducting research into politically sensitive subjects that could be caught up in more aggressive laws. For instance, is it illegal for police to hold images of child pornography as part of an investigation? Is it illegal for a child to have pornographic images of themselves? Abuse of any kind, adult, child, or animal, should be investigated and prosecuted as allowed by law. The products of these acts, which could be in the hands of innumerable people for various reasons, legitimate (investigators, vigilantes, etc.) or otherwise, is something that can't be un-done, not with how the internet works. Still, it should be important to differentiate between possession, distribution, and production in all of these cases. Any law that fails to tackle even this most fundamental concern is just plain broken, yet they get passed all the time on the emotional basis of "Think of the children!"

doreo 13y ago

There is a bill to ban the possession of adult rape pornography currently being introduced into law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Courts_Bill_2013%E2%80%9314 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Courts_Bi...)

drdaeman 13y ago

It's age-based because it's defined that kids just can't (legally) consent, so lack of consent can be determined. You can't determine whenever characters on picture are consenting or not (or pretending they're not consenting but actually do). Especially if they're drawings that bear no resemblance to any real persons. So, while your suggestion is logically right by its nature, it just can't work in reality. Well, unless laws mandate that every porn-looking picture out there must be accompanied with a signed written consent proof. But that's not really possible, too.

doreo 13y ago
For adult porn the legal system doesn't really care if they are consenting or real. A special needs teacher called Jane Longhurst was murdered by a guy who enjoyed violent pornography, so now mere depictions of particularly dangerous (and soon non-consensual) sex are made illegal. You could literally have signed written consent proof but if it looks like rape then it lands you in legal trouble because it might turn you into a rapist murderer.

Crito 13y ago

In your mind, is this limited to sexual abuse without consent, or does bog-standard torture without consent count as well? In your mind, would this include images/videos of cartel beheadings? Killings by religious extremists? Killings by oppressive regimes? Images/videos of the results of war? Images/videos of the results of war that your particular government is responsible for?

astrodust 13y ago
I'm not saying that it should be blanket outlawed or it should be fully legal, but if you're going to take a position, take it on the magnitude of abuse and not the age of the person involved. Torture is torture. Abuse is abuse.
- Crito 13y ago
  I think that any laws restricting the distribution or possession of evidence of torture or atrocities is an extremely dangerous infringement on the public's ability to monitor the actions of their governments. These laws have no place in democracies.^ I would not consider even laws with exceptions for evidence of government wrong-doing to be acceptable, as that would leave open the possibility that governments could restrict access to evidence of their wrong-doing by denying involvement in the crime, and therefore denying the public the right to distribute or possess that evidence. We are fortunate that existing laws concerning evidence of abuse of children seemingly have not undermined our system of government. However if these laws are expanded, they will do exactly that. ^ For example, what sort of democracy would we be if the public were not permitted to see or know about the photos of abuse and sexual humiliation at Abu Ghraib (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Abu_Ghraib_prison...)? If our democratic process is to be valued in the slightest, then the public must be allowed to see even the disturbing results of the policies of their nation.
  - astrodust 13y ago
    I completely agree. I can imagine there are those conducting research into politically sensitive subjects that could be caught up in more aggressive laws. For instance, is it illegal for police to hold images of child pornography as part of an investigation? Is it illegal for a child to have pornographic images of themselves? Abuse of any kind, adult, child, or animal, should be investigated and prosecuted as allowed by law. The products of these acts, which could be in the hands of innumerable people for various reasons, legitimate (investigators, vigilantes, etc.) or otherwise, is something that can't be un-done, not with how the internet works. Still, it should be important to differentiate between possession, distribution, and production in all of these cases. Any law that fails to tackle even this most fundamental concern is just plain broken, yet they get passed all the time on the emotional basis of "Think of the children!"