Reddit: No More Suggestive Content Featuring Minors

First time accepted submitter say_hwat writes "Today Reddit announced that it has banned subreddits dedicated to posting sexualized imagery of people under the age of 18. Last year, the site came under fire for r/jailbait, a subreddit dedicated to posting images of people under 18. The subreddit was shut down, but many others, such as r/gaolbait and r/bustybait, continued existing or sprung up afterwards. The policy change today came hours after a thread on Something Awful called for a public campaign against Reddit's lax attitude towards the sexualization of children. The Something Awful thread creator claims that Reddit's administrators know about child pornography being traded, but refuse to act. Among others, the thread creator cites r/preteen_girls as being particularly egregious."

Comments

Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[bonch]

Probably a lot of normal people's reaction to Reddit's policy change is "You mean sexual imagery of children wasn't already against the rules? How is that not firmly established from day one?" Unfortumately, the Reddit admins' bizarre six-year acceptance of child porn on its site is reflective of an overall lax attitude in online geek communities. Rather than seeing themselves as what they actually are--just nerds running computers--they like to perceive themselves as freedom fighters battling all forms of censorship in the world. This lack of practically toward obviously illegal stuff leads to a lot of eye-opening attitudes toward issues of sex and gender. For crying out loud, Reddit's statement actually refers to this new rule as a "slippery slope," as if it's somehow more difficult for them not to censor legitimate information if they can't have a subreddit named /r/preeteen_girls devoted to underage photos submitted by creepy Facebook stalkers.

The lax attitude toward this sort of thing even comes from community leaders like Richard Stallman, who wrote on his blog that "[P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness." And he told an interviewer that people who redistribute child pornography are "not participating in the crime" and so shouldn't be censored. Hell, even bringing this up on Slashdot risks copious downmods from Stallman fans (it's happened in the past).

There has to be a line drawn between OMG-FREEDOM-AT-ALL-COSTS and posting sexual pictures of children. Living in a civil society requires some level of protection of the innocent. Reddit should shut the hell up about slippery slopes and do what it should have done six freaking years ago.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[MightyMartian]

Could you provide the Stallman's full quote?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Reddit has huge communities discussing illegal activities, such as piracy and drugs. I think that the main point is that Reddit is not taking a legal position (since I imagine that any actual illegal pornography is quickly removed) or a position on freedom of speech, but rather the community/company is taking a moral position. Creepy pictures of children is something that we can do without and I agree is something that should have been dealt with a long time ago, but I think that we should recognize this move for what it is.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't know what they mean by "Slippery Slope". The problem is when you start censoring stuff that isn't against the law technically, then you have people trying to do it more and more over stuff against their political, religious or moral codes irregardless of anyone else's. And from what I know (don't actually use Reddit but did RTFA from news.com) they already removed child porn when it popped up but only the stuff that actually could be classified as such, the problem is people kept trying to push the envelope as far as they could so they could post it and still keep it up. So they finally had to implement this to keep from having to dance that fine line over and over again and giving them headaches doing it and any legal risks that came with it.

There is a big difference between a 7 year old doing anal sex and a picture of Lisa and Bart Simpson having sex.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[jamstar7]

Depends on what you consider kiddie porn. Way the hell back when, the JC Penny & Montgomery Wards catalogs used to print pictures of child models wearing underwear and pajamas. When the laws in the US started getting weird, those pictures disappeared. Seems somebody convinced the marketting department that said pics of child models could be used by pedophiles as porn. Being wary of their potential liability, the ads died. To me, it's all in the eye of the beholder. If you're searching out porn with a vengance, you'll find porn in anything you look at.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[anonymov]

You mean Richard Stallman, who quoted on his blog and then proceeded with sarcasm:

Dubya has nominated another caveman for a federal appeals court. Refreshingly, the Democratic Party is organizing opposition.

The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.

Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today.

For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).

Please, troll harder.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[bonch]

I gave links to both. First he wrote on his blog in 2003:

Dubya has nominated another caveman for a federal appeals court. Refreshingly, the Democratic Party is organizing opposition.

The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.

He also said this in an interview:

DR: So is child pornography not a good enough reason to censor the Internet?

RS: Certainly not, certainly not a good enough reason. There are videos I’ve seen that shocked and disgusted me, but I don’t want to censor them. I do not advocate censorship just because I or you find them disgusting. ...

But those who simply redistribute [child pornography] are in the same position of people who redistribute the collateral murder video. They’re not participating in the crime and there are a lot of films that depict murders except nobody really got killed. And there are a lot of films that depict the harm of animals except none really got harmed so if somebody was really torturing an animal, we would stop it. But depicting that without actually doing it we consider okaybut there’s no need to censor depictions of that.

And finally, he wrote on his blog in 2006:

I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.

Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia."

To be honest, it's surprising that more people don't know about Stallman's positions on these issues. You'd think such controversial positions would be more widely reported.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Darkness404]

So, in other words we should ban things because you don't like them?

Your logic is no different than the logic used to ban all sorts of things.

Living in a civil society requires some level of protection of the innocent.

Protection from what? Protection against someone looking lustfully at a picture? A picture that, in most cases, you took and posted on the internet?

If you want to talk about slippery slopes look at what you are saying, that a PICTURE is the same thing as actual harm. Laws against such things border on the absurd, for example the man who was convicted of photoshopping "pornographic" pictures that looked underage. Where was the crime there?

There is a pretty huge difference between the rape of a child to suggestive pictures (most likely) posted by a minor.

Possession of a picture should not constitute a crime.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[wisnoskij]

If they banned all content that was illegal there would not be much/any left.
Of course it is a slippery slop. What happens when Muslims ask for all any anti Muslim content to be banned? What if Ireland asks for all any Christian content to be banned. What if China asks for all anti government content to be banned? What about gay porn?

And who defines child porn? Even the US states cannot agree on a single age of consent and an age limit is not universal.

"[P]rostitution, adultery"
Adultery obviously should be legal, why involve the government in the affairs of a marriage?
Prostitution is legal in most countries.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind differences in jurisdiction or implementations. Can someone please, in a logical way, explain to me why it should be illegal to distribute images of fantasy children participating in sex?

It's not that I'm particularly interested in such images. I'm interested in the fact that they are illegal.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[king neckbeard]

The attitude of 'online geek communities' is probably due to the fact that 'child pornography' laws are often quite ridiculous, especially given the degree that they conflict with age of consent laws and the behavior of minors. Teenagers now have easy access to cameras and the internet (often on the same device), and being packed with hormones, often share risque pictures of themselves, which likely makes up a significant amount of the content if not the overwhelming majority on this subreddit. In most of the western world, the age of consent is 16, so anybody above 16 and below 18 can engage in all kinds of crazy sexual acts with just about anybody else above 16, but if someone distributes a nude picture shot by the teen, it's possibly 'child pornography.'

Regarding Stallman's point, I'd say you pretty much have to be nuts to disagree. The question is that with necrophilia, bestiality, and underage sex, it is questionable whether or not one party is capable of truly giving consent, and if that is the case, then they would be considered coerced under all circumstances. Incest raises some questions regarding offspring, but I think Stallman was willing to have a condition that such couples must use birth control. Realistic studies of prostitution seem to suggest that at the very least, decriminalizing it leads to much better means of stopping sex slave trade and other abuse of prostitutes, because the victims are no longer criminals that take big risks in seeking help.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse

-Richard Stallman

Rule 34. Get on it, Internet.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[bonch]

I don't think you realize what was getting posted to these subreddits. The reason /r/jailbait was shut down last year was because someone posted sexually explicit pictures of a 14-year-old girl. That is most certainly "against the law technically." The admin of jailbait was Violentacrez, the Reddit poster with friendly ties to the admins of Reddit as detailed in the SomethingAwful post. There's been a lax attitude about this on Reddit for years.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[million_monkeys]

Probably a lot of normal people's reaction to Reddit's policy change is "You mean sexual imagery of children wasn't already against the rules? How is that not firmly established from day one?"

That was absolutely my first reaction.

Unfortumately, the Reddit admins' bizarre six-year acceptance of child porn on its site is reflective of an overall lax attitude in online geek communities. Rather than seeing themselves as what they actually are--just nerds running computers--they like to perceive themselves as freedom fighters battling all forms of censorship in the world.

I don't think I've ever seen "an overall lax attitude" towards child porn in the geek community. I think most geeks understand that opposing censorship doesn't require supporting child porn. The few who believe otherwise are typically already regarded nutjobs due to their various other opinions.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[MightyMartian]

It doesn't surprise me at all. Stallman is a fanatic, and fanatics tend to lack that element of pragmatism that shows where a philosophical position may have necessary limits. I'm certainly not one of his disciples, that's for sure.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[anonymov]

He has stated multiple times that he doesn't believe in censoring child pornography or preventing its distribution (see links here).

Yes, he also doesn't believe in censoring collateral murder videos and animal abuse videos in those same links. That surely makes him a latent pedophile, murderer and cat strangler.

Trying to dismiss his writing as sarcasm is absurd when he has repeated his views on so-called "voluntary pedophilia" and child porn elsewhere.

I thought "I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants)." is quite a giveaway. Your missing sense of humour aside, 'Richard Stallman, who wrote on his blog [stallman.org] that "[P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."' is quite a way to frame a quote, don't you think?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Nursie]

I don't usually agree with your posts, but I do here.

I've been shouted at here on /. before for voicing similar opinions, to the extent that I've been told that not only do I not believe in free speech, but I should have no right to vote in a democratic country because of my opinions.

My opinions in that post were about freenet (for those not familiar, a darknet that uses some of your bandwidth and disk space to move content around, encrypted in such a way that even you can't tell what it is). Specifically that freenet was a technically cool idea, but having had a look at it and seen the prevalence of child porn on the system, I didn't feel I could run a freenet node in good conscience - I wasn't going to give my resources to support that sort of thing.

The geek-rage was immense.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[sjwt]

There is a big difference between a 7 year old doing anal sex and a picture of Lisa and Bart Simpson having sex.

Not any more.. see "18 USC 1466A" , or what ever relevant country..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

And who defines child porn? Even the US states cannot agree on a single age of consent and an age limit is not universal.

Age of consent varies, but age for pornography performers is 18 across the US. Hence the occasional jabs at the absurdity of being legally allowed to perform sexual acts as long as they are not recorded. (Usually more along the lines of the age for sending naked photos of yourself being above the age for having sex.)

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[dbet]

Except there was no child pornography. I never heard of this subreddit before the controversy yesterday, so decided to check it out. It was pictures of fully clothed children. The threads had lewd comments (like "mmm yeah") which gives it a sexual context. But where's the line? Is discussing the sexualization of children a crime?

I'm on Reddit's side because as a web site operator, you can't afford to be in the gray area opening yourself up to costly legal battles over issues you might not even care strongly about. I just don't think the content was as objectionable as actual child pornography would be.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[black3d]

Your comments pretty much prove exactly why Reddit calls it a "slippery slope". You talk of a "six-year acceptance of child porn on its site", with the example given being "underage photos submitted by creepy Facebook stalkers."

The issue is the two are not the same, yet many people like to treat them as such. The slippery slope is that sooner or later nobody (not even parents) will be able to post pictures of their own children on the internet. At many public events parents are banned from taking photographs of their _own_ children. With posting, the problem that arises is "what constitutes a sexual picture of a child?"

To some, perhaps even yourself, merely the context of the individual posting the pictures deems the pictures to be "child porn". They believe if someone's posting in alt.preteen.hotties (not a real newsgroup), then its child porn, no matter the content.

Does any aspect of nudity make a picture pornographic, in which case are pictures of your kids playing in the pool topless, child porn? Or the many millions of parents who've taken pictures of their childs first bath - are they porn producers? If it's not porn, then someone gets that picture and posts it on alt.preteen.hotties, is it NOW porn all of a sudden?

Is it the pose? In which case, if a girl is posing on her back with her undergarments exposed, it's pornographic, but if there's a photo of a girl whos fallen over backwards and her undergarments are exposed, is it also pornographic?

As I explained before - the slippery slope is that soon nobody will be able to post any photo of a child on the internet, because of fear-mongering by think-of-the-children bleeding hearts who don't even understand their own position.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[JoshuaZ]

There's a decent argument for most (not all) of Stallman's position. The essential problem with pedophilia is that children can't consent in an informed fashion. But that's not much of an issue for most of the rest of that list. If someone states in their will that people can use their body for necrophilia, then why should society have a problem with it?

The issue of possession of child porn is a really interesting case. What actual benefit comes from having laws against possession of child pornography? One can argue that exposure to child porn will make people more likely to go out and molest children. That's an interesting argument, but there's nor real evidence that exposure does make it more likely. Moreover, one could easily make an argument in the other direction- that people with pedophilic tendencies will be less likely to act on them if they have outlets in the form of porn. There's some corroborating evidence- in general rape levels go down when internet access goes up- http://www.toddkendall.net/internetcrime.pdf. Now, you could argue that the continued distribution of child pornography will further traumatize the children who were abused to make it. But if one believes this argument, then one shouldn't have any problem with porn that has been digitally altered to look like it is child porn, something which is currently illegal. And one shouldn't have a problem with child porn when either the children are dead or as adults they've stated that the material's continued distribution doesn't bother them. Yet, again, the law doesn't allow this.

In the case of the subreddits this is particularly interesting in that according to the people who actually spend time in these subreddits, these pictures aren't taken in any coercive fashion but are often simply found on the internet, taken from Facebook profiles, or taken at public beaches and the like. There's no real difference then than creepy individuals watching teenagers in public locations. Creepy and disturbing but not illegal. Moreover, this sort of thing runs into serious issues of legality between countries. While pretty much everyone agrees that a 12 year old can't consent, the actual age of consent varies a lot from country to country, and many are much lower than those in the US. So using a standard of 18 years essentially forces the US standard on an international internet community. In any event, it is very difficult to argue that anyone is being actually harmed by this content.

The behavior in question is sick, disturbing and morally repugnant. But the actual measure of how much one really allows freedom of speech and tolerance is not what one allows that one doesn't mind, it is how much one allows that one does mind. In a similar fashion, one isn't demonstrating incredible tolerance when one supports gay marriage if one doesn't have a moral problem with gay marriage. The individual who has a moral problem with homosexual activity but still supports it being legal is exercising tolerance. The situation is similar in this case. The fact that we find these people to be sick and morally repugnant is all the more reason that we need to think very carefully before we say that this behavior isn't protected as free speech and basic autonomy.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet disgusting material like /r/picsofdeadkids is still up and running.

They are also banning drawings and text material, i.e., creative work that never actually happened in the real world. If anything this is the type of material that shouldn't be banned, since it might actually help satisfy the needs of the pedobears and prevent the real life offence.

The problem is not reddit or the internet community. The problem is the lack of a fair and concrete legislation towards children rights. When the law allows pics of dead children with their guts all over the street to be posted on the internet without the consent of the children or their relatives and hunts down people posting some sketches of sexual acts that never happened, I just can't take this law seriously.

Don't get me wrong, while I don't condone drawn porn, I totally disagree with Stallman's views on the criminal sex acts, including CP and pedophilia and I think this crap shouldn't be on the internet as much as it shouldn't be IRL (except for prostitution which, like the drug problem, I think should be legalized and regulated because I don't think it'll ever disappear and keeping it illegal will just make the problem bigger).

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Junta]

Reddit admins' bizarre six-year acceptance of child porn on its site

Now I don't go on reddit, but I am pretty confident this is exaggerating reality.

For website policies, this is a fairly safe thing to restrict that falls well within the site operators rights. What concerns me is when laws start getting passed that make everything a minefield.

Often it seems pretty blatant, but at other times the difference between an innocent and sexualized image is arbitrary and subjective. The more abitrary and subjective stuff codified into law, the more frightening it is to be a citizen. You are a doctor who pissed off someone important, can they classify some contents of anatomical texts as child pornography? On the other hand, you have someone enticing a minor into an extremely sexually suggestive pose, but leave the bikini on and magically it is ok? However remove the arbitrary 'nude/non-nude' criteria that is often applied to catch the binkini workaround, and then you have a new problem. if there are certain fetishist circles that ascribe a particularly sexual connotation to a scenario, if both photographer and subject are completely unaware of that and portray that scenario, should the photographer be in trouble if that picture starts making the rounds in that fetishist community?

This is a tough societal problem with a lot of room for gray areas. People who should get criminal charges who don't because they avoided overt nudity in images they took or was able to defend their content as art even though intent in some 'artistic nudes' is likely sexual. There may or may not be significant cases of undeserved criminal charges, but I'll at least wager that some custody battles have been lost over innocent pictures taken the wrong way.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[0100010001010011]

14+ is not pedophilia. Words have definitions.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[betterunixthanunix]

Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia."

Certainly at the extremes, but unfortunately there are places where an 18 year old can be accused of pedophilia because he (it is almost always males are the accused) has sex with a 17 year old. Nobody wants to see a grown man who raped a 6 year old walking free, but I think it is a stretch to say that someone is a pedophile if they had sex with someone who was only a few months younger. Unfortunately, attempts to add some sanity to these laws are politically difficult and open politicians up to accusations of not protecting children from pedophiles.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody call the Waaaambulance.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[wisnoskij]

"Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia.""

They can consent, it is just that they law does not care if they do, in this case.
And I disagree, "voluntary pedophilia" seems like a completely reasonable term.

Lets try to get this straight. It is not that a 17 year old is not able to make informed decisions, it is just that the law does not care about their opinions.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

So you categorically state that children (here assumed to be under the legal age) cannot legally (true in many countries) or emotionally (true in... wait, what???) consent to sex...

When did it become established beyond doubt that children can't consent to sex? What is this magical "switch" that gets flipped the day they turn 16 or 28 years old. Please provide some links to research that shows this change happening from one day to the next.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Possession of a picture should not constitute a crime.

I agree, and (most) drugs should be legal, birth control shouldn't be a subject of national debate, and creationism should be kept out of schools. But unfortunately, America is a democracy and the moral majority would rather focus political and judicial resources on issues that strike intelligent people as trivial.

Americans are charged with producing child pornography for taking bath-time pictures of their own children. Teenagers are charged for taking topless photos of themselves. So, given that absolute fucking insanity of these laws and the people who enforce them, I'm glad that reddit is taking a sensible approach by purging material that is of no interest to 99% of its users.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia."

As uncomfortable as this may make you feel, what you state is factually incorrect.

Legally, age of consent varies from roughly 13 to 18 around the world. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't consider someone 13 years old to be a child.

Emotionally, the average age of first sexual encounter, world-wide, is 14. Being the average, a significant number (probably somewhere near half) would be younger than that. For your statement ot be true, one would have to believe that half, or more, of the human beings that have had sex did so non-consentually. That kind of claim would require some seriously well-researched evidence.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[currently_awake]

The reason most often given for blocking child porn is it creates a market, leading to further assaults against children. Most people believe that reason, and therefore accept blocking child porn. The government frequently uses "think of the children" as justification for their latest nefarious act/censorship. You have to draw the line somewhere, we just can't seem to agree where.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[QuasiSteve]

Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia."

Setting aside the lack of distinction between pedophilia and pedosexual actions (hint: one is actually disgusting and illegal, the other is just incomprehensible (to me))...

While children can't legally consent to sex, at which point can't they emotionally consent to it?

Apparently children (and I'm using the legal definition of child here) can, in fact, emotionally consent to it - with other children. A lot of children do. Like it or not, statistically speaking, somewhere in that crowd of highschoolers in the school yard, is going to be at least one couple that has had sex with each other.
If they can consent to having sex with another child around their own age, then why not with an adult?

Similarly, some jurisdictions essentially say "the age of consent is 18" - leading to the oft-cited example of an 18-ear old having sex with their 17.997-year old SO potentially ending up being listed as a sex offender; of if only they had waited another day.. then that SO would have been capable of emotional consent, just like that, like magic.

Now don't get me wrong - I know a line has to be drawn somewhere and I certainly appreciate the fact that pedosexuals would use similar defenses and then try to extend them to suggest that having sex with a 6-year old is totally okay, too.

But just because the nuances are uncomfortable for us to even think about, doesn't mean they're not there.

Thus you can place Stallman's statements into a slightly less black-and-white context.
When he says that it shouldn't be illegal if nobody is coerced, take it exactly as such. Just because a child can 'voluntarily' have sex with an adult doesn't mean there wasn't coercion; they're just not mentally developed enough to recognize the coercion at play. In bestiality, the animal is practically always coerced. In necrophilic sex coercion is the default unless there was some manner of written contract that the deceased actually gave permission. In practice, Stallman is saying that in fact all of these things would still be illegal, except in those cases where it is demonstrably consensual. And in those cases, what would be the basis for it to be forbidden?

Similarly, child pornography is indeed not enough reason 'to censor the internet', as the question was. Keep in mind that in order to stop child pornography completely, you're looking at having to stop such things as TOR. This is actually a nice new hot topic in The Netherlands due to an investigative reporter going on TOR, finding plenty of child porn traders, and busting a guy who actively sought out children to pretty much abuse. So half the government cries foul and next thing you know it they'll be having a debate on whether or not TOR should be blocked - even though that very same thing is helping dissidents in IRAN to get around political censorship.

His statement regarding redistributing is another matter. Is the redistributing party aware of the content? If not (such as ISPs, TOR nodes, etc.) - how are they participating in the crime? If they are aware, however, then I very much believe they're participating in the crime by virtue of helping to sustain a market for the materials in question.

As for the lack of reporting.. not really - Stallman is a bit out there, after all. Remember him eating stuff off of his foot during a show? Yeah, the world doesn't generally pay attention when people like that make (seemingly) controversial statements. Outside of Slashdot and the IT world at large, I wouldn't imagine people to even know who he is.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

That's weird. For all the years growing up that we got those big fat Wards, Sears, and Penny's catalogs, I always skipped the underwear ads and went straight to the toy section !

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

There are places where you have to be 21 to purchase porn, which results in the absurdity that 18-year-olds who can legally perform for a sexually explicit video cannot buy it.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Colonel Korn]

Depends on what you consider kiddie porn. Way the hell back when, the JC Penny & Montgomery Wards catalogs used to print pictures of child models wearing underwear and pajamas. When the laws in the US started getting weird, those pictures disappeared. Seems somebody convinced the marketting department that said pics of child models could be used by pedophiles as porn. Being wary of their potential liability, the ads died. To me, it's all in the eye of the beholder. If you're searching out porn with a vengance, you'll find porn in anything you look at.

The western fashion and glamor industries have spent the last few decades building an female ideal based on looking like a child. Models strive to have essentially prepubescent bodies, and wrinkles, even normal facial features that normal teenagers have, must be blurred out with Photoshop or Botox. If Reddit is doing something that encourages illegal and unethical behavior, I'm glad they're changing that, but I highly doubt Reddit is a root cause. The causes are legal and backed by lobbying power, and every time people buy an issue of Cosmo or a "Barely Legal" DVD they're paying to spread the same unhealthy sexual views. Media targeting both men and women emphasize the sexiness of youth - when magazines are telling 23 year old women secrets to look 18 and movies are telling men that 18 is hotter than 19, it's no surprise that some people extrapolate and get the sense that 17 must be better yet.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[the eric conspiracy]

Federal law defines child porn in the US.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[nightfire-unique]

To be honest, it's surprising that more people don't know about Stallman's positions on these issues. You'd think such controversial positions would be more widely reported.

As you stated earlier in one of your posts, many of us are unusually logical/rational ("nerds"). Working with technical systems, day-in, and day-out, we tend to minimize the impact our emotions have on our thought processes.

As such, many of us, in fact, agree with him.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[0100010001010011]

Who said anything about beating off to pictures of 14 year olds? I said that 14+ is not a pedophilia. It's not. A person who abuses cocaine is not an alcoholic. Someone that builds houses isn't a cobbler. Slashdot erupts at people calling crackers/hackers. This is the same thing. It's not the definition of the word. It doesn't fit the definition of the word. It's not the word to use.

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The child must be at least five years younger than the adolescent (16 or older) to be termed pedophilia.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, I'm disappointed that the Something Awful campaign seems to be motivated by a desire to act as the moral police, rather than a desire to help victims.
What makes me say this is the fact they in their post, they made 2 lists of channels/boards/groups (whatevery they are), one for "borderline" content and one for "worse things". That last list included a reddit group dedicated to drawings of children.

Here's why I take issue with this: drawings are fictional. There's no actual victim. I have a problem with including this sort of content in the Something Awful campaign for two reasons:

First, we don't want a moral police. People should be free to enjoy the sex life of their choice, provided any real people involved are consenting adults. It's like free speech, if you want to be able to say acceptable things you like, you have to let people say bad things too. If you want the right to enjoy oral sex, well you have to let people have foot fetishes and even jack off to drawings of children.
Again, a drawing makes no victim, so it's hard to explain why it should be banned with anything else than "it's just wrong and disgusting". Yeah, I agree that it is, but that's arbitrary judgement. If I ban drawings because I find them disgusting, how do I know tomorrow somebody won't make oral sex illegal because they find it disgusting? At least "consenting adults" is a clear line and isn't so arbitrary.

Second, and I think this the most important reason why I don't like what they're doing: I've been a victim of a pedo. Not a day goes by that I don't think about it. I don't want to get all emotional and go into details, so I'll just say this: it's awful and hard to live with that.
And for this reason, I'm absolutely offended that drawings are considered as awful as actual rape and abuse of children on camera. The guy at Something Awful behind this campaign has really offended me there. I think what happened to me is a thousand times worse than any cartoon could ever be. Comparing the two and using real victims to try and fight cartoons is just wrong.
I think the people at Something Awful are just being self-righteous - they don't care about protecting anyone, they just want to look like they're better than everyone else because they fight against something terrible. As a victim, I don't want hypocrites like this trying to defend me, thank you very much. They're just using what people like me have been through to look like heroes and to push their moral agenda. Disgusting.
And don't tell me cartoons encourage pedos to attack children! The internet did not exist when I was assaulted, and I've never heard that any cartoons were found when the guy was arrested! I think maybe my life would be different if he actually had cartoons to jack off to. In my opinion, those who would argue otherwise are also guilty of trying to push a moral agenda instead of genuinely caring about victims.

Let's stop focusing on sexual morality when we bring up the topic of child abuse. Let's put aside the fact that it's disgusting and wrong. Instead, let's focus on the reasons why it's wrong and disgusting: the actual harm that is done to real children. Child porn needs to be banned because of the victims it creats, not because it's immoral or disturbing to most people.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[betterunixthanunix]

Possession of a picture should not constitute a crime.

Neither should possession of a plant, but we have a long history of imprisoning people and increasing the power of the police over plant possession. The possession of child sex abuse imagery crimes are partially an effort to catch the truly dangerous pedophiles (there are certainly cases where children have been rescued from abusive homes during child pornography raids), but mostly an effort to further increase the power of the police, especially signals intelligence and surveillance power. It is telling that the justice department is trying to distract the public from the question of whether or not the goal is actually the protection of children by pushing the claim that people who look at child abuse imagery are themselves abusing children (as if victims can sense every time someone views such an image).

I am all for catching people who sexually abuse children, but the police tend to go after the low-hanging fruit, the people who stupidly download child sex abuse imagery and who are the least likely to be producing that material or abusing children. There are people out there who have been abusing children for years, and posting images of that abuse, and they take a lot of precautions -- catching those people requires substantial investigative work, large budgets, and often results in small numbers of arrests (thus making it harder for the police to ask for more money and equipment). It is hard to keep the public afraid enough to allow budgets and powers to continue to grow when you take 5 years to arrest less than 100 pedophiles; thus possession has become "abuse," and people are guaranteed to meet at least one pedophile as their go about their daily business.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[betterunixthanunix]

Then I guess there are a lot of "fucking sick" people out there, because Hollywood loves dressing teenagers in provocative, sexual outfits. You have probably crossed paths with dozens of "fucking sick" people in the past week under your own definition of the term.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[phantomfive]

Hell, even bringing this up on Slashdot risks copious downmods from Stallman fans (it's happened in the past).

It happens to YOU because you bring it up at every moment, even at times that are completely unrelated. It's annoying, I wish you would stop it.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

In a momentary lapse of unreason, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition (2002) that the purpose of banning child pornography is to protect children, and therefore images which were created without involving actual minors were not automatically obscene, and are therefore protected (as much as anything is) by the First Amendment. Apparently imaginary children do not yet have human rights in the US.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Junta]

He provided a link, don't know how much more you want. With Stallman you never know if he is just being his usual fanatic self or if he was making a 'modest proposal' type jest. In that quote, the CP/Pedo part might have even been incidental, since he only explicitly speaks to incest, prostitution, and necrophilia. His point on prostitution seem practical enough even if intended in jest, though his incest example is highly impractical and the notion that next of kin can decide necrophilia in absence of a will one way or another is pretty insane.

In general, Stallman is not an infallible bastion of rightousness. One of his many zealous ideas was Libre software, but he can still be all sorts of crazy. Hell, even in his philosophy of Free software some things go so far as to be very impractical for the real world.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[king neckbeard]

It's sort of a gray area, and the PROTECT act depends upon the work being 'obscene', because the Child Pornography Prevention Act was found unconstitional. Really, we need to just get rid of that obscenity nonsense altogether.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[wisnoskij]

"The question is that with necrophilia, bestiality, and underage sex, it is questionable whether or not one party is capable of truly giving consent, and if that is the case, then they would be considered coerced under all circumstances."

Personally, I think that argument is only valid for pedo.
We already have systems in place to consent to things being done to bodies. You can donate your body to science (why not sell it to fetish sex company instead).
And for animals there are two main arguments.
1) Their are few laws against killing and torturing animals. Hell we have whole races bread into slavery and murder millions of animals every day for food and other uses. And of the species that we do not enslave, we hunt for sport or at the very least kill in large number as collateral damage. It seems pretty ridiculous to be able to do all that then then care if we rape them when genocide is commonplace.
2) While most animals to not have the IQ of an adult human they are more then able to communicate their desire to mate with there own species. Any human would be more then able to pick on their language and tell if an animal was willing.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[fahrbot-bot]

If they banned all content that was illegal there would not be much/any left.

From SCRUBS: Dr. Cox: I'm fairly sure that if they took all the porn off the Internet, there'd only be one website left and it would be called "Bring Back The Porn."

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Ethanol-fueled]

Exactly. And every legitimate porn site has a "teens" category, where the theme is young (or made to look young) women. Many of those clips involve the actresses holding teddy bears and hooking up with much older men.

And when most people hear the word, "teen," 18-19 are not the ages which first come to mind.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you are beating off to pictures of 14 year olds the definition is "fucking sick"

Uh.. what if you are 14?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Junta]

Clinical pedohplia can never talk about 17 year girls, or even most 14-year old girls. So yes, mutually voluntary pedophilic relations in a reasonable mindset doesn't exist. Though most 'jailbait' centent does not fall into that category anyway and child porn/statutary rape laws have pedophilic activity as a mere subset and the problem described is real, just technically pedophilia is not the correct term. However, I do think most places have windows to allow for some 17-18 year old situations, but 20 and 17 year old relationships are generally out of luck).

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Meditato]

I'm going to have to dispute this.

Let me establish a hint of credibility. I was the top-voted comment on the Reddit post announcing the ban of /r/jailbait. In that comment, I supported the ban decision. However, I think this situation is a bit different.

First of all, this set of bans wasn't handled well. It wasn't very accurate. Just a blanket ban based on the Something Awful list, without regard for the actual content or intent of the subreddit. They just didn't thoroughly verify the SA list.

Second of all, I dispute the premise that all of what was banned was Child Porn. According to the United States v. Knox decision, sexual behavior in photos can be construed as CP, in addition to images involving actual sex or nudity. With this expanded and legally accurate definition in mind, I went to google cache/imgur and checked out several subreddits on the ban list (those not blocked by the 18+ check in the cache, that is). There were lots of 15-19 year olds in bathing suits, but several subreddits failed to reveal any displays of sexual behavior. In fact, some subreddits weren't even of minors. Some of it was, and the bans in those cases were good. But very clearly not all of this was CP.

This also begs the question, "Is it pornography because someone masturbates to it? Or does the intent of the photo matter?" That wasn't clearly defined or discussed either.

Third, see this comment on SA's motivations. They weren't as pure as you would seem to portray them. We're just taking the accuracy and holiness of the Goons' crusade for granted here. That's a bit of a problem.

I was a big proponent of the ban of /r/jailbait after it became a CP hub. But I really don't think this current set of blanket bans was handled well. Bans must be accurate and well-executed, not badly executed and then bragged about by the admins afterward.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Junta]

deceased actually gave permission

He did also state that next of kin could make the call absent of an explicit statement one way or another. I would at least remove this possibility, though I could imagine the sort of awkward conversation to request permission to have sex with a dead relative....

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you are beating off to pictures of 14 year olds the definition is "fucking sick"

What if you're 14 yourself?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

>Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex
Maybe not, but an acquaintance tried to sell off suggestive photos of herself when she was younger. Although I haven't kept in touch, I gather it didn't really work due to lack of interest, but the point stands. Possession of child pornography itself should not be a crime since the possibility exists that a teenager takes some lewd photos, keeps them and then later distributes them after reaching adulthood.
(On the other hand, I would consider a peruser of pornography taken against the will of the subject an accessory, since they create the demand that caused the picture to be taken in the first place.)
And then of course there is the thing that nobody really knows what a child is. Go from one country to the next, and age of consent shifts. Where I grew up (village in western Europe) age of consent was 16, but most kids lost their virginity before age 13. And of course the ability to give informed consent to sex is different from the ability to judge the long term effect of circulating pornographic images of yourself.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Junta]

As such, many of us, in fact, agree with him.

Actually, I would say the vast majority either do not know him or vaguely know him as the father of the GPL and nothing else. Every last tech person I talk to who has gone into more depth than those facts into his stance has deemed him a nutjob. Though some comments in his defense put fourth the theory that there is an underlying valid point but that point is lost in poor communication choices.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is full of fanatics. The moderation going on in these comments is absolutely shocking. People supporting Reddit's decision are getting modded down, and people defending child porn as just a bunch of pictures that people don't like are getting +5 Insightful.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[microbox]

Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia."

Richard Dawkins was assaulted when he was a little kit, and has some interesting things to say about it, beyond the knee-jerk OMFG reactions.

But the question of censorship is separate to the real harm of pedophilia. Censoring the interent will not stop people being pedophiles, or seeking ways to produce and distribute materials. We need police work to catch people who commit crimes. Censorship does not help solve the problem, and probably makes the police work harder.

And then there is the question of censorship abuse, which does happen, and is pernicious.

It is really a no-brainer. Censoring the internet is an idiot-response that will solve no problems, and bring bad things.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Lehk228]

the other issue even outside grey area content, as an operator if your run a place that is "welcoming" and "accepting" of pedophiles they eventually run off all your decent customers and they will start swapping child porn links and images eventually.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[currently_awake]

So all Japanese anime is now classed as child porn? Cause I think all Japanese girls from 13 to 30 look the same, and those outfits they wear are indecent (yay!).

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

You DO realize you're on Slashdot, right? Can YOU name for me one halfway-decently-known, reputable poster here who even recognizes Federal law, let alone respects it?

And yes, smartasses, I do mean "whatever your country's national laws are".

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[axlr8or]

I had a buddy go to prison for this very act. She was 16 and he turned 18. 8 years in prison. Of course, his demeanor didn't help him in court. I liked him, but he was a mouthy bastard. Also what happens when you have a family that has cops as friends.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

"And if you are beating off to pictures of 14 year olds the definition is 'fucking sick'"

Not if you're in your teens, in which case I'd call it normal and healthy. In psychological terms pedophilia is sexual attraction by adults to those up to roughly 10 years of age, hebephilia for the 11-14 or so pubescents, and ephebophilia for late teens. That's a scale from abomination to legal but discouraged by society. I think we'd agree that when I was an 18 year old senior dating a 15 year old freshman that's one thing, but when the 70 year old former strip club owner I once had to work with drooled over the same that's another.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[artor3]

That's fine as a medical definition, but when people speak in the actual world, they use a different (usually broader) definition. If I say I'm going to eat pizza or Chinese for dinner, I don't mean there's a chance I'll eat both. If I say I'm feeling depressed, I probably don't mean clinically depressed. If some jackass tailgates me while blaring on his horn, I'll call him a psycho, even though he's probably not one. And if someone is sexually attracted to a fourteen year old, I (and most everyone else) will call them a pedophile, even if they're technically a ephebophile.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Difference between "pedophilia" and "statutory rape".

Romeo and Juliet laws are often passed to prevent that situation from becoming a major legal one.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[bonch]

The subreddit was called /r/preteen_girls.

If you think this wasn't an avenue for pedophilia, I leave you with this post from a self-admitted pedophile on Reddit, admitting that he masturbated to pictures on /r/jailbait and other "outlets" on Reddit that are now banned.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[cheekyjohnson]

What's with all the fascination towards children, anyway? "Censor this for the children! Censor that for the children! Censor everything for the children! What if someone could use that technology to distribute child porn? They can. Ban it! Normally we wouldn't ban something because someone could abuse it, but children are involved this time!"

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[artor3]

If you want to frame it that way, sure. We don't let children consent because they're stupid and have no real notion of the consequences of their actions. That's also why all civilized societies go easy on children who commit crimes. That's why children can't go out and get credit cards. It's why we don't let them buy drugs, as they might get addicted without understanding that risk. It's why parents are allowed to ground their kids.

I know that children hate to hear it -- I did too at that age -- but it's true.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[cheekyjohnson]

and they will start swapping child porn links and images eventually.

Ah, so they were planning to do it all along! Good job getting rid of that. After all, there may have been a point in the future where they distributed actual child porn. Who cares that it didn't happen now, just ban it entirely because it could happen. Children are involved, after all.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[cheekyjohnson]

How does it feel to know that you could, at some point in time, unknowingly support a criminal? You need to cease all activity at once so that that never happens.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Stormwatch]

If people are too stupid to use words correctly, whatever they say is irrelevant.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. Thank you. I didn't know that. In my country, it seems that politicians feel a certain need to protect imaginary children.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[cheekyjohnson]

Hey, man. Children are involved here. Therefore, all of your arguments are completely incorrect.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[fnj]

I guess you don't have a very impressive set of "tech persons" you talk to, in terms of intellect. They must be a pretty ignorant bunch if they are not pretty well informed on Stallman and his views. And if every last one of them who is not ignorant considers Stallman as nothing more than a nutjob, god save me from that set of ignoramuses.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[ThePeices]

Mod parent up!

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[cheekyjohnson]

People who should get criminal charges

Why should they get criminal charges? Because someone, somewhere is looking at a picture? Because someone, somewhere has sexual thoughts about the person in the picture?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Except there was no child pornography. I never heard of this subreddit before the controversy yesterday, so decided to check it out. It was pictures of fully clothed children.

It was a little bit more than that (but honestly only a little). The pictures were of young girls with cleavage shots. All fully clothed, but appearing in a sexual way (camera angles, etc).

It was certainly very creepy, but not what most people would think of as pornography.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[kyrio]

You sound like those people who rage against something, meanwhile, in private, they do the exact thing they rage about not doing.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[bky1701]

Then why do we let them join the military?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

You fail to grasp that's exactly what was going on.

As does all the Reddit apologists in this discussion.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh nonsense. I joined the US Army at 17, yes 17. It was perfectly legal to do it, all I had to have was my parents permission and they gave it. So don't give me this crap that we don't let children do things. We do. We let them do really important things. I had my learners permit at 15 and 6 months, and bought my own car. I had my first job at 12 delivering papers at 4am in the morning. I had my first employee, another person to help with my paper route because it was too big at 13. I went on my first search and rescue as part of the CAP at 15, and that's where I saw my first dead body.

Dear god, give off your high horse. We let "kids" do lots of things, they are not stupid, you're making them stupid by delaying the process of letting them grow up. Guess what, I had sex too before I was an adult! As often as I could, and I drank beer too, and even passed out at a college party on a school night! Whoopoode god damn do. And after I got out of the army I went to college, got a commission and went back in, got married, bought a house, retired from the army, started a business and turned out just fine.

News flash: kids do all sorts of things, and most of them are plenty smart. Sex is just one more part of life, people under 18 have sex, sometimes with older people and most of the time it's consensual. And it doesn't hurt them when its consensual either. And guess what, people under 18 can in fact consent to thing that are "adult". There's no magic age when someone becomes responsible, hell I know people that are in their 40s who aren't responsible.

But sure, stay up on your high horse, and pretend that people nder 18 are stupid and need to be protected from the world, pretend that people nder 18 are doing all the things that scare uptight people. the world is just fine without nannie state prudes. People under 18 are better off being allowed to grow up, treat them like kids and guess what they won't ever stop acting like kids.

Hope you like having your kids living in your basement when they are in their 30s.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[MightyMartian]

I know. This topic has turned into a disgrace.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[fyngyrz]

When the law allows pics of dead children with their guts all over the street to be posted on the internet without the consent of the children

And how would one get this consent? Via a medium, I presume? Dead humans are dead meat. No more, no less. No people. These dead bodies can't give consent, and the idea is ludicrous anyway -- they can't care. Because there is no "they."

I grant you that any specific interest in this is *quite* peculiar, but then again, it isn't the first time. There have been entire fads of drawing, painting, shooting, and collecting, pictures of dead humans. I refer you, regretfully, to memento mori (definition) and, even more regretfully, to the various flickr groups.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Nursie]

How does it feel to know that you could, at some point in time, unknowingly support a criminal? You need to cease all activity at once so that that never happens.

How does it feel not knowing the difference between actively giving resources to a network that you know is used in the main for something you find morally repugnant, and whatever the fuck point you're trying to make?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it interesting that America somehow makes children so stupid. For what other reason is it that a 14 year old Canadian would be permitted to volunteer to have sex, but if they are in the US, they are suddenly not capable of consenting anymore.

Is there something in the air over there or something? I don't get it.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

On Stallman's quote... I'm not sure, really. I kind of agree with him on that, to a point, particularly if you read the rest of it. A lot of sexually-related stuff is illegal mostly because it's taboo, or upsets some people, rather than having any rational reason for it. The guy Stallman was quoting was doing a slippery slope argument, and listing things that are obviously bad because they're just bad, without really giving any justification. Just quickly going down the list...

Prostitution - yes, should be legal. It's going to happen regardless and, provided there is no coercion whatsoever, it's sufficiently regulated and licensed, medical checkups and precautions are mandatory, and every effort is taken to keep organized crime out of it. A few countries have this kind of system - it seems to work for them, but they do still have illegal prostitution as well. Making prostitution illegal is basically just sticking your fingers in your ears and hoping that the problem will go away. It won't. It just makes it far, far more dangerous, particularly for prostitutes.

Adultery - I can not fathom why this would be illegal. It just makes no sense. If you take adultery to include pre-marital sex, it's completely insane. If you take adultery to only mean having sex with someone other than your spouse, it's just sticking the government's nose into other people's private lives. Some couples are absolutely fine with it, others aren't. Even if they aren't, people sometimes do stupid things. The only reason to make it illegal is because someone finds the idea offensive, or it violates some (usually religious) taboo that they want to impose on everybody else. Even if the goal were to reduce incidence of adultery, making it illegal isn't going to make any difference - it's still going to happen anyway.

Bestiality - I have no idea. On the one hand, I think it's pretty stupid to make that explicitly illegal. On the other hand, I kind of feel that it's a form of animal abuse, at the very least.

Possession of child pornography - I understand why this is illegal, but I don't think that the current laws work. They're basically zero tolerance for any reason, which is stupid. For example - a 17-year old girl takes a naked picture of herself, and sends it to her 17-year old boyfriend. She's now guilty of creating and distributing child pornography, and he's guilty of possessing it. This is insane.

Incest - assuming consenting adults, I think this comes under sticking your noses into other people's business.

Pedophilia - Depends on your definition. Say, a 40 year old, and an 8 year old - that'd be pretty clear cut. However, we don't necessarily have specific laws against pedophilia - we have laws mandating that the age of consent is a specific number (take 18 for example), and that it's illegal to have sex with anyone under that age. With a load of exceptions, of course. We don't prosecute two 17 year olds for having sex with each other, but you might once one of them hits their 18th birthday. Many places have exceptions for this, typically allowing it if the age gap is less than something like four years (and sometimes requiring that they're in a dating-type relationship). Those exceptions would, in principle, allow a 14 year-old to have sex with an 18 year-old, so we consider that a 14 year-old is able to give consent in this scenario. What if the older partner is 19 years old (or the age gap is 4 years and one day)? Why do we consider the 14 year-old able to give consent in one case, but not the other? What about if the younger one was 12, and the older one was 17? Is that different from the case where they're both 12? If you have a 12 year-old and a 17 year-old, and you allow that, why would you suddenly not allow it one year later when they're 13 and 18?

A more complicated issue is that, if we consider a 13 year-old to be able to consent in some situations, why would we consider that same 13 year-old unable to consent in other situations?

It's a really, really complicated issue. To be honest,

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[V-similitude]

Or worse. 15 years olds can be charged with a felony and forced to register as sex offenders for sexting naked pictures of themselves.

That's not to say I agree or disagree with reddit here (I have no idea what these subreddits actually consisted of), just agreeing that the reality is not always as black and white as the phrase "child pornography" evokes.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but in this context it generally means "younger than the age of consent" (in the majority of the US). So basically younger than 18.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Doctor_Jest]

Indeed, the real problem is the general lack of logical reactions. Closing the subreddits that were questionable was the correct thing. But you mention censorship abuse, and quite frankly, it's the logical "next step" in the "war on X" ("X" being your vice or illegal activity of choice.)

We've seen metric tons of examples of this happening with "Intellectual Property" protection. Companies sending out DMCA takedown notices for stuff they don't even own... and stomping fair-use because a baby is dancing to a few seconds of a song that some lawyer somewhere thinks needs a royalty payment...

It's maddening, and things like this are just catalysts for the busybodies to do "what's best for us"....

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C.S. Lewis

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Surt]

No, they literally can't consent. Consent requires a level of understanding their brains are literally physiologically incapable of, typically until they are ~15. The brain development just hasn't happened. This is the same reason minors are generally treated differently when they commit crimes as well as being the victim of them.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Dhalka226]

There has to be a line drawn between OMG-FREEDOM-AT-ALL-COSTS and posting sexual pictures of children.

Why? You have posted like 18 bajillion times in this thread (I may be exaggerating slightly) and not one of them has done anything other than beg the question.

So tell us what the harm is that we have to draw the line where you choose. How is a girl significantly harmed by posting a picture on Facebook with crappy privacy settings such that a "Facebook stalker"--your words--takes it and re-posts it to Reddit? Hell, take it a step further. Let's pretend this teen or pre-teen girl is super plugged-in and knows what the hell Reddit is, and about these subgroups or whatever the hell they are called, and checks every day to see if her photos are posted and thus actually knows, immediately and without doubt, that it has been done. Explain the harm.

There is some real, honest to god exploitation going on in the world. There are girls (and boys for that matter) who are kidnapped and forced to be prostitutes or pose for these kinds of pictures, and those people should be found and shot. These are not those. There are people who exploit their family members or neighbors. These are not those. Having a photo on a hard drive or a Reddit group that the "victims" probably never even kno about is not them. Pictures they take themselves and post with crappy privacy settings are not them.

You're right: A line needs to be drawn, but unless you can come up with something better than "it's creepy" for why it should be drawn not at the people actually exploiting the children but at people who like it, then I'm going to have to side with people like Stallman who have a logical position.

Yes, I find it creepy too. No, I am not interested in legislating my morality. I have no interest in the law getting involved unless somebody can show me real, unequivocal proof that somebody's behavior is a detriment to others. "I wank to a picture of you LULZ!" doesn't qualify in my mind.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[jdogalt]

If they can consent to having sex with another child around their own age, then why not with an adult?

In answer I'll give a thought from a 36 year old on the issue of prostitution that I didn't consider when I was 18. I think of all women(people really), if you polled their opinions at age 36, as to whether or not the average 18 year old is likely to be maturely educated enough to deal fairly intellegently, and with sufficient basis in knowledge and experience, of life and death issues (such as those with the possible undesired/unintended consequence of the creation of a new life), I'd guess many would say- you know, even 18 year olds it's pretty sketchy as to how wise it is to act as if their consent is the same as what we mean in the ideal when we say 'fully informed consent'. And the same goes with the angle of the serious financial transactions of one's life. I.e. I, and I don't think I'm that unusual in this regard, consider myself to have been extremely naive about the fabric of the global economy at even the age of 18. All I'm really saying with this long winded comment is to take the next steps of your hypothetical journey into kids(or even naive young 'adults') consenting when there is significant $$ changing hands during the same event.

In necrophilic sex coercion is the default unless there was some manner of written contract that the deceased actually gave permission.

This is the real reason I bothered to reply. Kudos for make me laugh, at a scenario that my hypothetical ex-libertarian but still philosophizing mind hadn't ever considered.

Keep in mind that in order to stop child pornography completely, you're looking at having to stop such things as TOR. This is actually a nice new hot topic in The Netherlands due to an investigative reporter going on TOR, finding plenty of child porn traders, and busting a guy who actively sought out children to pretty much abuse.

Good for that guy getting the bad guy, but seriously this is hardly a new topic. This is just the pedophilia/privacy/anonymouscommunication/terrorism debate that has been squarely on the table in clear current TOR-level terms for a decade. What happened was the governments and cultures have seemed to just ignore it, with things like warrantless data dragnets and the USA PATRIOT Act, de-facto stating the global unwritten rules of the game. I.e. governments don't believe in citizens right to secure communications with the internet. Or that's how I see it.

If they are aware, however, then I very much believe they're participating in the crime by virtue of helping to sustain a market for the materials in question.

And this pretty much has to be dictated by law, and it is another of these elephants in the room that have at the same time both been ignored and acknowledged in some inexplicably orwellian way. I.e. the expectation of culpability for running an open 802.11b router connected to your home ISP. I.e. clearly you are not culpable for the content, unless you monitor and become aware of it. But we see the slashdot trickle of laws trying to outlaw that. I'm torn between thinking it's the undecided issue of our age, or if the infrastructural power structures in place just decided it long ago, and any public democratic debate is so obviously unenforceable against the wishes of the elite establishment, that the mainstream hasn't bothered to have the debate. Eh... But I quoted your point because, if the public debate was to happen, and to matter, that is a core decision point (and yes, I know about common carrier laws in the US, but just like journalistic laws, we are in an undefined place where overnight, each individual on the planet has nearly been empowered to be both a journalist and a common carrier, and thwarting that causes a lot of people with a lot of power, to keep their power longer).

 

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Beelzebud]

I see the "Free Staters" are here modding up pro-child porn posts.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[EdIII]

The real problem is the battle between our biology and our society. It is not abnormal, for a male of any age, to be sexually attracted to a young girl who has already gone through puberty. If she has a decent rack, decent ass, etc. our dicks tell us to hit that shit hard. We can try and deny it all we want, but that is just bullshit, and we all know it.

Where it gets abnormal is being sexually attracted to children, aka preteens. The vast majority of men don't fall into this category.

Not every 14 year old girl looks like a child, and not every 20 year old woman looks like a woman either. I've seen some young girls with "developed" bodies to say the least and some porn stars (obviously filling a market) that look like children. It's not black and white.

I find it strange and counter productive to be labeling what is normal attraction as some sort of psychological disorder. Far from it.

None of this is an endorsement of sexual activity with young girls. There are damn good reasons why our society is out of step with our biology. You can go back to a point in time where average life span was much lower, standards of living were lower, education was less available, etc. Societies at that time were set up to allow much younger people to marry, or otherwise engage in some kind of relationship. It was not even abnormal for an older man (20-35) to take a younger wife (14 years old). We don't say that those men were sick perverts do we? Not to my knowledge. We evaluate that as part of our history and understand why society was set up that way to begin with.

At this point in time a young girl lacks the maturity, sophistication, resources to deal with the consequences of being sexually active. For shits sake, they have TV shows about really young and stupid people that drive that point home fairly well.

That pragmatism we all seem to be talking about boils down to the arguments we all have with our dicks about wanting to pile drive into some high school girl for an afternoon. The only thing our dicks understand is biology. The average man though has to consider a lot more about the consequences of those actions will be, which is largely driven by society and a mature understanding that it won't be beneficial for the young girl or himself either.

Yes, I can get horny looking at bunch of high school cheerleaders giggling and moving around. That's normal. What's also normal is that I have ability to control those impulses.

It does not help us to deny biology and try lumping in just about every man alive with somebody that is genuinely disturbed and attracted to a child.

Reddit is full of shit because there is no public interest served by allowing pictures of preteen girls to be shared on their site in a clearly sexual context. It's not censorship because they are not obligated to do anything. In fact, there is a valid public interest in not allowing that content to be shared.

Censorship is not black and white. There are some things we can come to an agreement on, and I am pretty sure this is one of them. Saying it is censorship and oppression is equating it to blasphemy under Islam like that poor dude that will most likely be put to death for his tweet about losing faith in the prophet. Hardly equal at all.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[cheekyjohnson]

So... ban the entire thing?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Lillesvin]

First of all (to make it completely clear), I'm absolutely fine with the removal of those subreddits. I never visited them, i.e. I'm not going to miss them either.

With that being said, I think the main concern among many redditors is that there was rarely anything that legally constituted CP posted in those subreddits (as far as I know, but IANAL). Some girl snaps a photo of herself in a bikini, uploads it to Facebook and makes it publicly accessible? That's not CP, right? No one would accuse the girl or Facebook of distributing CP. But apparently that very same picture, when reposted in one of the removed subreddits, becomes CP in some way. That's what I think is the slippery slope they're talking about, because the content is deemed "illegal" (or at least immoral) based mainly on context, while the content itself is --- strictly speaking --- not illegal.

I'm not trying to say what's right or wrong here, I'm just relaying my impression of what the fuzz is about.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[cheekyjohnson]

and whatever the fuck point you're trying to make?

I think it was fairly obvious. The technology can be used for more purposes than that, but you seemed to be afraid that someone could abuse it, and that you would be helping them do that. But that could apply anywhere.

But then again you didn't seem to be calling for a ban on the technology.

you know is used in the main

Is this true?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm disappointed that the Something Awful campaign seems to be motivated by a desire to act as the moral police

This is all SA does anymore. They are still pissed that 4chan stole their teenage-idiot demographic in 2006 and Lowtax can't keep banning people and forcing them to pay the $10 registration fee again. This is just them trying to fight their own irrelevancy.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[firefrei]

Agreed. I guess that's just the types we get around here.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Khashishi]

A teen sexting an image of emself to a partner is voluntary child pornography. There may not be legal consent, but there is emotional consent.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Nursie]

I think it was fairly obvious. The technology can be used for more purposes than that, but you seemed to be afraid that someone could abuse it, and that you would be helping them do that.

Not so sure about that. You seemed to be conflating the idea of someone being frightened of accidentally and unintentionally helping criminals, with me saying I'm not going to deliberately give my resources over to the use of something I find morally repugnant. There is a stark difference here.

I also want to be clear - it's not the criminal status I care about. The law is an ass in more ways than I can count.

you know is used in the main

Is this true?

So far as I coule tell last time I looked at the various index/aggregator pages on the network, yes, though that wa a few years ago now.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? Pedophilia is not a crime, nor should it be one. Sexually abusing kids (including taking pornographic photos) is wrong and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But people should be free to have whatever desires they like, so long as they don't improperly act upon them. And I wouldn't consider masturbating in the privacy of one's own home to be improper no matter who the object of your fantasy is.

I guess you think somebody ought to shut down YouTube, which is an "avenue for pedophilia" as well. Here's some people admitting they jack off to Chloe Grace Moretz.

[Smafti]

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[PPH]

Uh.. what if you are 14?

You're gonna go blind, kid.

I guess that explains why you're always on my lawn.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

They can when the 17 year old girl is the pedophile.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Deorus]

The attitude stems from the fact that such services act as mediums and should not be responsible for what their users post, much in the same way ISPs are not responsible for what users share online. If I ran a service, that would be my policy as well, and I'd only take action if a court demanded so, because the moment you start censoring content you make yourself responsible for everything posted to your site.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[FrangoAssado]

For crying out loud, Reddit's statement actually refers to this new rule as a "slippery slope," as if it's somehow more difficult for them not to censor legitimate information if they can't have a subreddit named /r/preeteen_girls devoted to underage photos submitted by creepy Facebook stalkers.

You got it backwards. The "slippery slope" bit is there to reassure everyone that this new rule does not make "more difficult for them not to censor legitimate information". The statement you quoted from goes on to say:

However, child pornography is a toxic and unique case for Internet communities [...] We remain committed to protecting reddit as an open platform. [my emphasis]

So, they're just telling people that Reddit is not going to start censoring based on perceived possible legal problems (e.g. copyright, which is a big issue right now).

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[JimBobJoe]

Rather than seeing themselves as what they actually are--just nerds running computers--they like to perceive themselves as freedom fighters battling all forms of censorship in the world.

That's an interesting sentence. The issue is that there is no way that they can just be "nerds running computers." Any position they take regarding the content on the servers means they are making a policy choice, regardless if that policy choice is passive or active (which is your preference.) If they are censoring content they take on a law enforcement like position, even if the content they are censoring is universally censored.

The truth is that they are policy makers, and in some way they are quite powerful in that position. I find your sentence here belittling to people whom you disagree with.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[repapetilto]

In answer I'll give a thought from a 36 year old on the issue of prostitution that I didn't consider when I was 18. I think of all women(people really), if you polled their opinions at age 36, as to whether or not the average 18 year old is likely to be maturely educated enough to deal fairly intellegently, and with sufficient basis in knowledge and experience, of life and death issues (such as those with the possible undesired/unintended consequence of the creation of a new life), I'd guess many would say- you know, even 18 year olds it's pretty sketchy as to how wise it is to act as if their consent is the same as what we mean in the ideal when we say 'fully informed consent'. And the same goes with the angle of the serious financial transactions of one's life. I.e. I, and I don't think I'm that unusual in this regard, consider myself to have been extremely naive about the fabric of the global economy at even the age of 18. All I'm really saying with this long winded comment is to take the next steps of your hypothetical journey into kids(or even naive young 'adults') consenting when there is significant $$ changing hands during the same event.

I think you are conflating age with experience. Also you never mention prostitution after the first sentence which is kinda weird.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[hb79]

Upvote this guy.

And here's the words you're looking for. From Wikipedia:

Ephebophilia is the sexual preference of adults for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.

Hebephilia refers to the sexual preference for individuals in the early years of puberty (generally ages 11–14, though onset of puberty may vary)

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations for completely missing the point!

RMS argues that if sharing kiddie porn pictures online makes people pedophiles, then sharing murder pictures online should make people murderers.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[artor3]

I'm on a high horse?? Listen to yourself.

Why did you wait until you were seventeen to join the military? Because society is smart enough to know that we shouldn't let thirteen year olds join up.

Why did you wait till 15 to learn to drive? Because at twelve you would have killed someone.

You did some underage drinking and turned out okay? Good for you. One of my sister's friends drank a liter soda bottle full of vodka on the school bus when she was fifteen and had to have her stomach pumped. Another kid I didn't really know died from choking on his own vomit after drinking at a party in tenth grade.

You had sex as a kid and turned out fine? Glad to hear it. I lost count of how many girls in my school dropped out after getting pregnant.

It is self-evident that infants shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want. It is equally self-evident that adults should be free to drink or drive or fuck or whatever. Therefore there is clearly some line in between at which it becomes okay. That line shifts from one person to another, and so society can never perfectly nail it down, but to say we shouldn't have lines at all, or that they should all be back around puberty, is fucking stupid.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[cheekyjohnson]

there is no public interest served by

I fail to see why something needs to serve the public interest.

pictures of preteen girls to be shared on their site in a clearly sexual context.

I don't understand. As far as I know, the pictures were of clothed people, were they not? Does the fact that someone, somewhere looks at the picture sexually change that? Does it even matter in the least?

In fact, there is a valid public interest in not allowing that content to be shared.

Such as...?

Saying it is censorship

I'd say it is censorship (even if you agree with it).

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[artor3]

It's not "incorrect". Words have different meanings depending on context. If you're claiming you've never used a word for something other than it's technical definition, then you're a goddamned liar.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[hb79]

Since the other half of the topic of the thread was Reddit...: You'll find that a lot of people frequenting there are not hackers, or not very much into computers at all. The ones that do know a bit of tech, mostly know how to download Windows and apply a crack.

I guess the best way forward is to continue to educate. Linking to RMS' essays, which are all relevant and catching. E.g. 'The right to read' is even more important to highlight now, with new walled gardens, locked devices, and rampant content control popping up everywhere. There's a lot of work to do in this area, and informing more people is a big part of it.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[cheekyjohnson]

the line for the sex a bit older, and the line for drinking older than that.

Most of the lines really don't make any sense to me.

What the hell is with all the people trying to rationalize pedophilia on this site?

What's with all the people trying to "rationalize" their anti-pedophile mentalities? Is trying to "rationalize" something bad?

Is pedophilia apologia a "thing" for libertarians or something?

Just libertarians? And I think they're simply extremely anti-censorship (whether or not they agree with the content) in most cases.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to miss the point. Just listen to yourself.

15 year olds can drive and handle the risk of vehicular manslaughter just okay (unlike 12 year olds), but can't be trusted with their own genitals.

17 year old is considered adult enough to grab a rifle and potentially end lives of some foreign dudes, but can't handle the risk of potentially making new lives.

Don't you find it strange?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[cheekyjohnson]

No, they literally can't consent.

Doesn't that depend on the person (even if it's unlikely)? Also, if all they have to do is agree to do something, then I'd say they can technically consent. I'd say the fact that they can't perfectly understand everything (it wouldn't surprise me if this applied to most of the population, just like making "poor" choices) doesn't mean they can't consent at all. They might be increasingly unlikely to be able to do so as the person's age goes down, however.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Gamer_2k4]

Of course this is posted the day after my mod points expire. Someone please mod parent up.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[cheekyjohnson]

(On the other hand, I would consider a peruser of pornography taken against the will of the subject an accessory, since they create the demand that caused the picture to be taken in the first place.)

But they haven't actually done anything with any measurable effect that I see. They simply look at images/videos. The fact that there actions might cause someone to want to make more is quite irrelevant to me.

I'd rather go after the people making it. And if they can't, too bad. I just think there's too much hysteria over images and such.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[rahvin112]

They aren't de-aging female models they are making them look like boys! The international fashion industry is dominated by gay males, a group that for whatever reason tries endlessly to make female fashion models look like boys. This is why hips and anything larger than an A cup gets you off the runway. It's why they are kept as thin as possible with body fat ratio's that are only achievable in a healthy way by men and boys. "Heroin chic" is nothing more than making a young woman look like a boy. That people follow and consume based on this is what's silly, it's the reason the average dress size in media has gone from 14 to 4 in the last 30 years and is the primary cause of the huge dieting fad.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[interval1066]

If you defend child porn possession [bit.ly], you get modded +5 Insightful.

This is your sig? Proud of that, are you? I'm not defending child porn, but I am saying there is a point to the man's argument. I for one do not care to live in a society that demands anyone's door get broken down because that person has some pictures. After that how much more will it take to make it perfectly all right to bust down doors because of some written material some one has? Say, political material? Your types have already made it ok for them to hold US citizens indefinitely without being charged with any crime (NDAA 1031). Well, lets just do away with the house and senate and rubber stamp anything that Obama does now? Why not go full police state?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I slept with a 14 year old! Granted, I was 15 at the time! It's kind of weird for me to consider myself fondly thinking of my ex would sorta be pedophilic.

I wouldn't label anyone beating off to a 14 year old inherently sick as fuck. It simply depends on how willing they are to stick to the rules of society. 18 isn't some magical age where everything becomes magically okay and a person is magically a mature adult. We just have to draw a line somewhere. They're not even doing anything psychologically wrong. If we went back far enough, every dude would wanna bone down on 14-17 year olds. We're a better society for making sure that DOESN'T happen, but we can't sensibly act like getting a boner for a 14 year old is a disorder. As social creatures, what's a disorder is a willingness to act on these impulses.

Not to say the subreddits should have been left up or anything. Taking them down was almost definitely the best thing to do, but people need to be a little less insane about it.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people naturally lack the type of memory needed to remember specific words all the time, but can still express concepts, ideas, or philosophies. Don't close yourself off from someone just because he can't communicate "at your level."

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[artor3]

When it comes to sex, there are adults out there who want to manipulate children into having sex when they aren't ready. The law is there to protect the kids, not punish them. There are no adults who try to trick kids into being bad drivers, so we can draw the line at a younger age in that case.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Age of consent in the U.S. varies by state.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

I had my first job at 12 delivering papers at 4am in the morning. I had my first employee, another person to help with my paper route because it was too big at 13.

And if the wrong self-righteous bureaucrat had any idea that this was going on, well, it wouldn't continue to be going on for long.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Brain Damaged Bogan]

you make the leap from 'sexualised children' to 'child porn' pretty quick... a teen taking a photo of herself in the mirror looking slutty is sexualised and is all over facebook...

Reddit has and will always report child porn and content that they believe is illegal once the users have redflagged it with an admin...
this new policy is about the grey area in the middle, where it isn't porn, but the person is posing in a sexually suggestive manner

people submitting images/browsing /r/preteen_girls creep me out as much as the next guy... but it's not, strictly speaking, pornographic (and it certainly isn't child exploitation if people are simple reposting images that these minors were foolish enough to upload to the internet in the first place)

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole argument enrages the left over memories of my 15 year old self who would probably be cursing and screaming at the idea that he wasn't about to 'emotionally consent'.

And frankly, 15 years later, I'm pretty sure that YEAH, I could and DID emotionally consent. Not that I think it should be legal to sleep with someone under 17, but I'd like to think of it more as "A safe compromise" and not some magical line that divides 'normal human' from 'monster rapist'.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

And when it comes to war, there are adults out there who want to manipulate children into killing and dying for ideology when they aren't ready.

Either teenagers are already able to conciously manage risks - then why do they need protection against persuasion - or they are not - then why they are allowed to make decisions like getting driver's license or enlisting.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Lord_Jeremy]

You're totally missing the point. Police go after people possessing part of a dead plant to combat the production of said plant. Police go after possession of child pornography to combat the production of child pornography. Theoretically, by making the possession of child pornography more dangerous, they are reducing the value of it. Which in turn reduces the demand for production and thus the value inherent in producing it.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[bill_mcgonigle]

because Hollywood loves dressing teenagers in provocative, sexual outfits

I've read that a major children's entertainment company actually has logistical plans about how to maximize revenue by sexualizing each of their starlets as they age at the optimum rate.

Reddit is the low-hanging fruit. I wonder when Something Awful is going to call out the Lawyer Machine.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

"The lax attitude toward this sort of thing even comes from community leaders like [...]"

Not just community leaders... everybody.

Now I'm not talking to actual porn, as in showing kids engaged in actual sex acts or nude/partially nude positions. I'm referring to things such as TLC's series Toddlers and Tiaras which features kids as young as 5 whose mothers slather them in Hooker makeup, dress them up in outfits that would make a pimp blush, and then parade them around on a stage and broadcast it all over the nation. Some of these outfits and dance combinations would get a nightclub in trouble if they had adults doing them, yet these shows continue to draw large ratings numbers and have attracted the money of some pretty big Advertising brands.

That's just one example, go look at any teen or young teen "fashion" magazine, and you'll see what I'm talking about. And no, I'm not being a grumpy old man about this. When you put an 8 year old girl in a thong and a bikini top which only covers her chest because she doesn't have tits yet, and have her do a stretching, leg-lifting, crotch showing dance on a table in front of a million viewers.... that's about as close to porn as you can get without penetration. And those kids are being horribly exploited by their parents, the networks, and the advertisers no matter how you define "exploitation".

Living in a civil society requires some level of protection of the innocent.

Right, but when that society can't even define "protection" or hold to any kind of a sane and reasonable standard, you end up with a bad situation. Laws are often only applied to people who society views as "scummy"; if you show up in ratted jeans and looking poor they'll throw you in jail for being a pervert, but when you bring in your daughter to do a pole-dance and you're wearing an expensive suit they hand you a trophy. There needs to be some equity in the law, and lacking that I don't think anybody has much business bitching about a place like Reddit which is focused on hosting content as opposed to producing and marketing it.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[bill_mcgonigle]

Then why do we let them join the military

Because 25-year-olds rarely sign up to take bullets for some corrupt politician's psychopathic ambitions.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[lightknight]

Sadly, I find myself in agreement with you. I browse Reddit as often as Slashdot, and while I am not subscribed to the subreddit in question, posts from it do occasionally find their way to my front page (popularity / cross-posting, I guess?). Needless to say my eyebrows were raised the first time I ran across it, however, upon closer inspection, there does not appear to be any illegal / illicit content; perhaps there is some illegal content, but none that I am aware of (as a mod (albeit for a different subreddit), I'm fairly certain any user posting that kind of stuff would be nuked off the site immediately -> instant banning / vaping).

The problem, of course, is that once someone uses the sword / accusation / mention of CP, everyone dives out of the way to avoid being seen as anything other than "100% totally against, tear everything down, no appeals, no trials." Loads of fear around it, more so than being accused of murder, rape, or (since this is /.) copyright infringement; and to be honest, that fear is justified -> the mere accusation of sexual misconduct in today's society will end someone's career and have them shunned / shot at / killed, even if the charges are proven fraudulent (the townspeople didn't catch that newscast saying that the charges were dismissed? Too bad, they'll wake you up at 3 AM, to the smell of your house burning down, with you in it). And yes, I believe it does qualify as censorship (it's in the same territory as thought crimes): having done nothing illegal, there is no crime. We are dealing with a situation in which someone wants something outlawed because of what other people "might be doing in their own minds." And last I checked, your mind is a private, sacred place, where no one may intrude.

And yes, the "public interest / policy" can go visit r/spacedicks, for the one of two reasons, whichever one you think is more sound / pleasing: 1.) the US Constitution (that old rag of a document, that supposedly has some sort of inalienable rights etched onto it...freedom of speech / freedom of the press, all that jazz), or 2.) because in faraway but similar land, a certain group of people sewed yellow stars on their garments as it was in the "public interest" of the people, of that time, to identify and rid themselves of a less desirable group. - That has your set-in-stone supreme law of the land / living document open to repeated reinterpretation argument wrapped up cleanly.

On a final note, what is truly bothering to me, is how easy it is for everyone to support / defend popular speech, but how lacking that support / the defense is for unpopular speech. We're all like "Rah rah rah! Freedom of Speech! Greatest country on earth!" but when it comes time to test that belief, we're all like "Blasphemy! Burn the witch!"

TLDR; This place is silly.

 

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[rrohbeck]

I can only agree with RMS. Your standpoint is rooted in American puritanism plus "think about teh children!!!"
There are much worse things on the Net that you're not complaining about.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[rrohbeck]

Being attracted to 14 year olds is perfectly normal. Do some research.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[rrohbeck]

So you agree that it's a societal thing.
There is a reason why the age of consent is 13 or 14 in many countries.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[stephanruby]

the Reddit admins' bizarre six-year acceptance of child porn on its site is reflective of an overall lax attitude in online geek communities.

You seem to be already convinced child porn was indeed posted and remained on Reddit. Is that really true? Posting a suggestive mainstream picture of Britney Spears when she was seventeen years old, and calling her jailbait, or calling the picture itself child porn, is a criticism of the media establishment itself (or an indictment of the hypocrisy of our times). It's not an indictment that Reddit is trading in Child Porn itself, on the contrary.

If the pictures had really been child porn, the FBI would have been contacted and a very specific process would have been followed. If anything, those pictures were posted and tagged that way because they escaped the official classification of child porn, and yet, some people felt that they were wrong to have even been taken and productized in the first place.

And making all the geeks to be like Richard Stallman is sheer nonsense. By that logic, all republicans must love to have sex with underaged boys because Mark Folley loved underaged boys. And all married republicans, the males anyway, must want open marriages because Newt Gingrich wanted one. If you think about it, the republican party is patriarchal, so it makes complete sense for its male elders to think they're entitled to anything and everything they want. And of course, let's not forget Bill Clinton, an inspiration to all the male democrats, who thought that having sexual relations only meant sexual intercourse (and everything else must be free game and ok with a subordinate if you just label it something else).

And you Bonch, if you want to make a difference, a real difference, go after the places that originally published those pictures in the first place. Right now, you're doing the opposite of Richard Stallman, which in my opinion is just as crazy. You're indicting Reddit for something you call "child porn", and yet, you're censoring the debate by refusing to acknowledge the real producers of that very specific "child porn": the magazines, the parents, the photographers, and the mainstream media that purposefully produced and productized that borderline child pornography in the first place (not to mention the unsupervised teenagers that posted their own suggestive pictures online to productize themselves and/or to attract attention).

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[AK Marc]

What the hell is with all the people trying to rationalize pedophilia on this site?

I've seen nobody rationalizing child abuse. But the pedophilia response seems so insane that anyone logical and not overly emotional should be on the side of the pedos. Not that it's "right" but that laws against an image are silly. Lying and calling an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old "pedophilia" is stupid, and in accurate.

I'd say the "think of the children" pedophiliaphobists cause more harm to children than help. Throwing children in jail for taking pictures of themselves, and such. That does more to detract from those actually abusing children than help them. There's so much effort on targeting 17 year old "victims" who aren't victims any more than Tracy Lords who forged a passport to do porn (a passport so authentic that the US government accepted it as ID multiple times) that the innocent children harmed go uninvestigated.

It reminds me of MADD. At this point, MADD should just declare victory and disband. Instead, they focus on prohibition, rather than safe driving.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

...if they can't have a subreddit named /r/preeteen_girls devoted to underage photos submitted by creepy Facebook stalkers.... Reddit should shut the hell up about slippery slopes and do what it should have done six freaking years ago.

Just a thought here, that occurred as I read your post: why is OK for these underage photos to be on Facebook (where the creepy stalkers are apparently farming) but not on Reddit? That's a little like saying you can grow marijuana in your backyard and post a sign on your fence that says "Free marijuana here! Help yourself," but you can't store it in a baggie labelled "mary jane."

Perhaps the same standards should be applied to the source. Facebook should not allow these photos, and the kids who are uploading them should be given some lessons in self-respect.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[artor3]

And when it comes to war, there are adults out there who want to manipulate children into killing and dying for ideology when they aren't ready.

And that's a bad thing.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just put this here...
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/11/30/legalizing.child.pornography.linked.lower.rates.child.sex.abuse

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[mosb1000]

The problem is not a lack of understanding. People make decisions about things they don't understand every day, it's hardly unique to children. Should we prosecute a man for rape because a woman he had sex with did not understand that he would leave afterward and never talk to her again?

The problem is that children naturally assume, or are conditioned to assume that adults have authority over them. They believe that they have to do what an adult tells them. That means that even if they did understand, and did not what to go along with it, they would be compelled to comply anyway. That's the problem we're talking about.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

So was mohammed, he like to rape 8 or 9 year olds.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[umghhh]

this is one of the subjects where already analysis of the situation is difficult and may vary significantly between different human beings as they grow with different speeds and achieve different levels (if there can be) of enlightenment. So this is already difficult if we were all from one culture and subject of one law but we are as you pointed out not. The fact that definitions are so difficult allowed many criminals do unspeakable things and walk free to (mostly unwilling or unknowing) young people who did not know better at the time but felt terribly afterward. That is I think t he reason why law is written in relatively straight manner as to exclude a possibility that unspeakable acts that we as a society do not want to have around are and stay forbidden. This leaves of course the problem of punishing stated minors for e.g. sending revealing pictures of themselves trough public communication networks (as was the case in US some time ago) or people that did thing that were in no way wrong but fell under the detailed prescription of illegal act in these contexts with associated harsh punishment (protect the children!) and putting into registry of such deviants. In short the problem is that clear distinction is impossible in a situation when it is needed to make a decision with dire consequences. This shows the limits of letter of law and importance of intelligent people making law as well as as intelligent people interpreting law. The bad thing is that this already is a stretch and even if we had those intelligent and informed and enlightened individuals at indicated places (do we?) we would still have a public that in its majority is ignorant and negligent and at the same time vicious, merciless and reckless. The associated hysteria in media (how otherwise explain that a photo of bare chested father with a small kid on his arm is perceived a depiction of a pervert in US and UK and of a loving father by especially southern Europeans) is not helping either.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[ZeRu]

"[P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."

What about cannibalism? Is it truly any worse than anything of the above? Once I'm dead, I certainly couldn't care less whether my body gets eaten by worms or other humans. That makes cannibalism a victimless crime, also.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[crossmr]

It's the culture of fear.
It's hard for the media and other figures to justify their moral crusade if they can't use a scary word like "pedophilia" to refer to 25 year olds who are attracted to a 16 year old because she's built like a pin-up girl.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Henk Poley]

Western fashion? Look at Japan, South Korea, India.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Johann Lau]

well, you cannot separate "content" from context just like that. the context makes the content.

yes, in one case it's okay, in another the same thing is not so much okay. so? kinda like it's acceptable to show an image of the holocaust to educate about it, not so much subtitling it "let's do that again" etc. kinda like a butter knife is a-okay on the table, not so much when put into another person: the content is the same, but the context isn't. I don't see how that would confuse anyone.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia."

From my own experience during my own childhood I would take that one with a grain of salt. I enjoyed it back then and I don't regret a bit of it although I do agree that it's probably a rare thing.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

>Unfortumately, the Reddit admins' bizarre six-year acceptance of child porn

You made up the child porn part. It's about "sexualized imagery", i.e. pictures of 16 year old girls in bikini, that kind of stuff. It's a real nasty thing to call that child porn. You are a nasty, nasty person.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[sjames]

They can't give INFORMED consent. They can't give LEGAL consent. They can agree that the act is not against their will. That could very well make a huge difference in how the act plays out psychologically after the fact (much as it does in adults). To claim otherwise is to be willfully blind.

That doesn't mean it's OK for an adult to accept their diminished consent.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I don't think he's sarcastic. He's coming from a point-of-view of personal freedom, and his point is in the second paragraph: "They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness." Mentioning rhinophytonecrophilia was just something to lighten up the mood.

Captcha: petting. Should that be illegal, too? Or only with some age ranges of living and dead people?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

1) There are some perfectly normal, western countries where the age of consent is 16 or even 14.
2) I was abused. This made me bipolar. I was far younger than 14 though.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[sjames]

And so, the whole moral panic has lead to more adults having odd thoughts about children than ever existed before. At one time people thought nothing of those pictures because, in fact, there's nothing to think of those pictures. DA's offices must be packed with pervs.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[eggstasy]

You seem to think 18 year olds or 21 year olds or even 30 year olds are necessarily mature.
I think there's something wrong with your argument ;)
Idiots are everywhere and they exist in all ages.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[qbast]

China does not have to ask. China simply bans it.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Supply and demand FAIL.

By making CP harder to get, they are reducing the supply, INCREASING the value.

If they want to reduce the value, they should make it illegal to produce (it already is, but because the evidence is illegal, people avoid reporting the crime when they accidentally stumble upon evidence), make it illegal to pay for it (paying supports the production), illegal to swap (that's still a form of payment), but legal to distribute freely. If every pedocreep can get all the CP they want for free, very few are going to take the risk to actually pay for the stuff.

That would reduce the value. Unfortunately, we'd never get the "think of the children" crowd to accept that.

Now, whether or not it would actually reduce production is questionable. Normal people aren't going to produce the stuff, no matter how much they get paid, and the sick f*cks who do, aren't doing it for money in the first place.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Arancaytar]

I'm kind of confused by his use of the term "pedophilia", too, since he misuses the clinical term to describe an act. What is that act? Producing pornographic content of / engaging in sexual contact with prepubescent children? Because "voluntary" doesn't apply to that, and "maturing" by definition doesn't either, because by definition, "pedophilia" is the attraction to people who are not sexually mature.

It's possible he conflated this with sexual contact with underage physically mature people, which is an entirely different problem. The latter is completely a question of defining at what age a person is capable of informed consent, and of an imbalance of power, dependence and authority. That is the reason these laws vary by jurisdiction, and differentiate between two underage people versus an adult and a minor, or even relationships between an adult student and a teacher. That is an attempt at a simple solution for a vastly more complicated problem, because people don't magically become more responsible at eighteen, and can be just as vulnerable to abuse. The legislation is at best a stop-gap measure for something that can only be solved if society learns to understand and respect what "consent" actually means.

Fortunately, sexual activity involving minors before puberty is a vastly simpler problem because the solution is "DON'T" .

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Kjella]

But what exactly is the positive benefit to the producer that you're taking away? They say once it's out on the Internet, it's there forever and people are still sharing things made in the 70s but there's nobody collecting royalties on it. It's not like a producer can go to the courts and sue for copyright infringement either, it is essentially like a society with no copyright. Isn't it the artificial scarcity, the control of reproduction and distribution that gives it value? For the drug kingpin, ever drug user will trickle through a system of dealers into demand, the drugs can't just appear out of thin air. But another copy of the same pictures can appear out of thin air, every time it's shared around. What's the trickle-through effect? None.

Don't get me wrong, in small circles I see how producers can make money, but I don't see how driving them underground helps. Instead of one big P2P network you get hundreds or thousands of closed little circles, each producing their own material. Perhaps it's the theory that if was spread to more people, more people would get induced into doing something in real life. But for those looking to turn a profit, rarity is a help not a hindrance. It's pretty damn hard to make people pay for something you can download for free on the Internet, particularly when you know money is infinitely more traceable than bits and bytes.

It also doesn't help that parts of the US has completely lost perspective, I think the worst states are up to 10 years/count. So you could either download 10 pictures off the Internet, or you can go out and kidnap/rape/kill a kid. Either way you're spending the rest of your life in prison if you get caught, it might end up being somewhat shorter in a death penalty state but you've lost all incentive to just sit in front of your PC jacking off which is ultimately rather harmless. It's like pretending there would be no such thing as horny teenagers if Playboy didn't exist, you can take away the porn but it's not like people stop having sexual desires all the same.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[larppaxyz]

I never knew Stallman said something like that. Now i think he is sick fuck.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Arancaytar]

It's true, ordinary language evolves and differs between contexts, which is the reason people invent technical terms, which have exactly one definition. People who know what a technical term means should fight to defend that term from usurpation and ambiguity just as corporate lawyers fight to defend trademarks from being genericized. Cancer is an astrological sign as well as a metaphoric term, which is why doctors call it a "malignant neoplasm". If you call some other medical condition a malignant neoplasm, a doctor will tell you to STFU and adhere to the correct definition.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Auldclootie]

Nice attempt at character assassination, but shows little knowledge of real context. Stallman is not a pedophile, he is a freedom fighter, and fear of the 'pedophilia menace' in western society is akin to the fear of terrorism... both are false positives. This was summed up for me nicely when my 5 year old daughter went missing in a crowded Chinese shopping center. A local man saw my panic and was bemused. "What's the worst thing that can happen?" he said, "An adult will find and look after your daughter until you get her back" He was right of course... Pedophiles are a rare breed, we have just been conditioned to believe pedophiles and terrorists lurk everywhere. 18 year old boys and 17 old girls does not mean pedophilia - it means situation normal...

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it somehow okay if someone drinks a liter of vodka in their 20s and has to have their stomach pumped, as opposed to being a teenager?

People do stupid things at any age. With good parenting, hopefully you'll catch and stop a lot of the stupid things before they happen, and guide that child to doing smart, mature things sooner than they would otherwise.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[chekkerness]

There has to be a line drawn between OMG-FREEDOM-AT-ALL-COSTS and posting sexual pictures of children.

This isn't an "OMG-FREEDOM-AT-ALL-COSTS" issue, it's a "posting sexual pictures of children isn't immoral" issue. I don't really see anything wrong with it, and I'm sure many people agree with me.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[soundguy]

Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia."

As uncomfortable as this may make you feel, what you state is factually incorrect.

Legally, age of consent varies from roughly 13 to 18 around the world. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't consider someone 13 years old to be a child.

Emotionally, the average age of first sexual encounter, world-wide, is 14. Being the average, a significant number (probably somewhere near half) would be younger than that. For your statement ot be true, one would have to believe that half, or more, of the human beings that have had sex did so non-consentually. That kind of claim would require some seriously well-researched evidence.

It's actually 12 in Vatican City, but judging by their track record, it probably doesn't involve any females

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[CTachyon]

... If they can consent to having sex with another child around their own age, then why not with an adult? ...

Two words: mind games. The drama in high school is all prep for the adult mating dance: "how do I get his/her attention without coming off as clingy/desperate?", "is he/she really interested in me or just planning to use me as a status symbol?", "but he/she isn't mature/hot enough, if I settle for him/her it means I'm less of a person because Hollywood tells me so". Adolescence is the phase where we take all the crap society has crammed into our skulls about love/sex/romance and sort out fact from fiction.

Adults already know and play the mind games; whether we treat them as friendly Canasta or as winner-take-all Russian Roulette, we DO play them, constantly. For example, info-dumping your life's backstory on the first date is (a) narcissistic, (b) clingy/desperate, and (c) ammunition for a poorly chosen partner to shove a knife in your heart and manipulate you like a puppet in your future relationship. Therefore even the kindest, most genuine form of the adult mating dance involves concealing information and strategically revealing your cards at the right time, to protect yourself from awful people if nothing else. But teenagers don't have any practice with this; not knowing any better, they think it's romantic to trust someone fully and unconditionally, which lasts until they put that in practice precisely enough times to get burned. During this phase, it's important that the participants in the mating game be at roughly the same skill level (viz. xkcd.com/314), as it limits the potential for damage. A teenager is wide open to the manipulation of information that adults do 100% automatically and subconsciously.

Oh, and then there's the whole "adults are the authority, you must obey them" thing. Even rebellious teenagers still recognize adults as authority figures — if the adults were seen as equals, they wouldn't be seen as authority figures to rebel against.

(It probably doesn't hurt to mention that I was molested by my stepfather from ages 16 to 18, so I've got a fair bit of firsthand personal experience on the matter. It took me years to spot the web of manipulation that he laid in my mind and unwind past his lies. What were his lies? That I chose it of my own free will; that I should feel guilty for "making" him cheat on my mother; that he was doing me a favor by giving me "pity sex" because I was too shy to get laid in high school. Nevermind that he pinned me in a corner, bullied me into coming out gay to him when I didn't trust him with that information, brought up the idea of sex with him and wouldn't drop it, and made me feel too physically and emotionally threatened to defy his rage-laden authority. For the next two years, he had me wrapped around his little finger until I left for college, and I blamed myself the whole way.)

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[N1AK]

For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms.

For a guy who thinks pedophilia should be legal it seems strange that he then thinks prostitutes should be licensed and must have regular check ups. Seems like an aweful lot of government enforced requirements.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[bky1701]

I believe the age to enter the military to active duty is 17. Essentially, you are allowed to sign up to be shot at before YOU believe you are able to make an informed decision on sense. That falls under my definition of insanity.

Also, I lean more socialist but tend to think of myself as Technocratic. That is, I think government policy should be based on rational arguments, statistics, necessity, and greater good; not on emotions, religions, or false morality. Guess which side you're on.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[makomk]

Hmmm. If they're banning drawings and text material, then based on previous sites that have done the same they're probably going to end up banning any discussion by Reddit users of their own sexual experiences which happened when they were under 18. Which is handy if if you want to pretend under-18 year olds aren't having all kinds of wild sex with each other I guess.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[chekkerness]

To claim otherwise is to be willfully blind.

Nice argument! Now if anyone disagrees with you, they're just willfully blind!

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[bky1701]

That would be sex, not sense. I should not post before going to bed.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem is the battle between our biology and our society. It is not abnormal, for a male of any age, to be sexually attracted to a young girl who has already gone through puberty. If she has a decent rack, decent ass, etc. our dicks tell us to hit that shit hard. We can try and deny it all we want, but that is just bullshit, and we all know it.

Exactly. A functioning society requires its participant (beneficiaries) to abide by some rules. I don't bash in someone's head although I often have this very strong urge to do so. I don't appropriate someone else's possessions although I would just love to have as much resources at my disposal as he has. I keep to the speed limit even though "the need for speed" makes accelerator foot control very difficult. Same goes for sexual relations.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Well this is what you get if you want a 100% free society, you will have to just shut up and deal with the things you don't like.
If you don't, go back to the real world.
You can't have absolute freedom with censorship, it doesn't work, period.
I don't care for those subjects, but I wouldn't censor them "just because" either. I'd rather educate than censor.

I mean, let's face it, most of the reason SA even done this was because they hate Reddit, plain and simple.
A lot of it from what I saw in my investigations was mostly silly little modelling websites and already slutty teens posting pictures of themselves.
These things are more a case of privacy theft than they are child porn.
And no, none of the sites I saw are even known for that "subtle child porn" sort of content you have heard about with relation to other dodgy websites that focuses on crotches and the like. Well, certainly not the ones that were posted in the first 10 pages that I had saw.
They were pretty much "cute girls doing cute things for money". CALL THE COPS. PEOPLE ARE BEING PAID TO BE CUTE.

Why is it that people bitch and moan about these sites, yet they are completely fine about this sort of thing happening in the real world with magazines?
Most of the pictures I saw there are pretty much exactly the sort of thing you'd see in any clothing magazine.
In fact, likely those sites are the ones helping said magazines find their next models as those serve as a globally accessible portfolio.
It's like saying DoSing tools are bad, period, when they can be used to test load balancing. Let's ban them all because it makes it too easy for people to attack others!
What makes you think getting rid of every single website ever is going to stop "that kind of person" from getting access to content?
I'd hardly be surprised if there are people out there with catalogs upon catalogs of stuff in some closet somewhere.
Seems more of a "the internet means it is worse" stupid attitude again. Let's just ban the internet, problem solved.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[10101001 10101001]

You did some underage drinking and turned out okay? Good for you. One of my sister's friends drank a liter soda bottle full of vodka on the school bus when she was fifteen and had to have her stomach pumped. Another kid I didn't really know died from choking on his own vomit after drinking at a party in tenth grade.

Well, your two anecdotes totally beat out his one...

It is equally self-evident that adults should be free to drink...

No. It's self-evident that adults, when barred from drinking, will do it anyways, often with guns and violence to get those drinks. It's also self-evident that most people don't feel like being their brother's keeper (which is fine and everything). It's also self-evident that a lot of the reason youths drink to excess is because society has made drinking an adult thing to do and heavy drinking a manly thing to do. In the end, it's a combination of whether children can and are responsible with things, including things like drinking and how adults who are irresponsible suffer the consequences of their actions, be it directly through their ill effects or indirectly through social sanctions.

Having said all that, yes, society tries to draw some lines on some things as it should and it's rarely clear exactly where those lines should be. Self-evidence, though, is rarely taken into account, otherwise we wouldn't treat marijuana and alcohol the way we do. Instead, a lot of it is cultural norms overlayed with some level of biology, political freedom considerations, religion, etc.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[icebraining]

? Does the fact that someone, somewhere looks at the picture sexually change that? Does it even matter in the least?

Legally, it does: one of the criteria for the Dost test is " whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer."

Which is awfully subjective, of course.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO, I think stallman's clame is a little out there, but I think it should be read with the context that "All censorship is wrong" not "Any shit I can take a picture of can be posted on the internet and not expect reprocussions from doing so."

To give a contextual example of what IS and IS NOT child porn, and what IS and IS NOT rape, look no further than porn comics. There is no victim, so how can it be a crime? But because of the way child porn laws are written, merely drawing a penis on a 14 year old (guy or a girl) fictional character suddenly takes it from embarassing story to sexualized children being abused.

No, we should NOT censor the internet for any reason. But stupid people shouldn't breed either, one person wanting to push the boundaries of what "Everyone else" is willing to accept should not be grounds for writing a law that affects everyone, because that one idiot wants to ruin things for everyone.

Remember the often quoted bible commandments about "do unto others?" They make perfect sense. If you are not willing to to have sex with someone, then you should not be forced to accept sex from someone, no matter what the age. We make rules about children because children don't understand until they are 12 what sex is... again caused by adults telling lies about where babies come from.

We do more harm than good by trying to protect "everyone else" from the behavior of idiots. Drunk drivers, Smokers, STD's, are all byproducts of how our culture has one set of rules for adults and another for children. For some reason it's seen as acceptable to drive drunk and kill people along the way, but if a child gets behind the wheel, drunk or not, it's suddenly a problem.

Good golly I think by 2070, sugar, HFCS, transfats, will all be outlawed for use as food additives for the same reason Smoking and Alcolhol is now. Gotta do something about those pudgy computer nerds who can't get laid now before they can't fit through the door.

And that's the context I take from it all. Is that we have people who don't see certain activities as evil (much like the "everything must be free" pirates) and rather see it as survival of the fittest people, businesses,laws and political agendas. By 2070, as long as the anchor babies keep flowing to the US, the US will be a country made from two generations of entitlement idiots until the 4th amendment is modified to not automatically grant citizenship without residence. If history is any predictor, the USA and Canada are heading for a USSR-like breakup into 3 counties, one which will consist of northern California to Washington state (Cascadia), one being Texico (pretty much the entire conservative biblebelt,) and the north eastern states will join Central Canada when western canada breaks off after having enough of Ottawa's Quebec pandering. Just draw the line at the bible belt, and then draw a line down the rocky mountains. Did I just spoil an upcoming movie?

It would make economic sense to just cut off the red states from the blue states ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states ), because what we have right now is political stalemates in both the US and Canada where conservative social agendas aren't accepted by the west or north east, but being pushed by the south. Economic conservatism is pushed by the north east and the south, but not the west. And environmentalism is pushed only by the western states that border the pacific. The west never agrees with the south on anything. But there is another way to frame this as well.

The "cities versus the countryside" was the WWIII predictor in the John Titor time travel. If you go by voting county in the US, and by electoral district in Canada, you see same exact damned thing, and I wouldn't be surprised if this shows up in Germany, Russia and the UK.

Anyhow. Anyone can spew out their crazy theories, and you're free to disagree with it. It's when we make laws that prohibit speech, we hit a slipperly slope of further and further censorship before the US ends up being Iran or China with their thought police.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[QuasiSteve]

I very much disagree with Stallman on that point. I guess this touches on what say family have over the physical remains of the deceased in general, though. This includes such things as deciding whether or not to donate body parts.
I'm a firm believer that, in lieu of a document saying "yes", the assumed stance should be "no". That's also why I'm a proponent of mandatory donor registration; yes or no, but make a choice. This also makes it a lot easier on the family.
But I wouldn't necessarily extend that to a mandatory necrophilia registration - I think assuming the default 'no' there is quite enough :)

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the redistributing party aware of the content? If not (such as ISPs, TOR nodes, etc.) - how are they participating in the crime? If they are aware, however, then I very much believe they're participating in the crime by virtue of helping to sustain a market for the materials in question.

The MPAA would say that redistributing content through Tor nodes actually _destroys_ the market for the materials in question.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[sjames]

You could always to attempt to argue that willful blindness isn't a necessary condition to claim otherwise....

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

It's depressing how something awful went from being an asshole magnet and lulz organiztion center to being bunch of white knights.All those geeks got old and went lame. How long until they join up with the million mom march?

Something awful needs to shut down. The party is over. They are just a few years away from sharing recipes and talking about their summer homes.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[QuasiSteve]

Your post is excellent (mods? c'mon!). However, I think most of your post can essentially be distilled into the following:

1. Some kids consent to sex with other kids due to (perceived) peer pressure.
2. Those same kids may consent under the distorted pressure exerted by adults.

I think you'll find that I mentioned that in my post; there's coercion at play here, the kids just aren't mentally aware of it happening or at least can't fully process it as such (pretty much the situation you describe from your own experience).
And yes, that includes kids having sex with kids - if that happens under a (perceived) peer pressure, I think that is also deplorable.
Not as deplorable as when an adult is involved, for many of the reasons you mentioned.

However, coercion is not always a factor and when it demonstrably isn't - again, as per my post - I so no reason for it to be forbidden.
Of course the question becomes "how can it be demonstrably un-coerced when a child, who most likely cannot identify the coercion, is involved?" And that's where the law steps in and has no choice but to draw arbitrary lines.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

The morally right thing to do in that situation is to fantasize about reverse pedophilia. You are only supposed to beat off to fantasies of legally acceptable and responsible adults, and fantasize about them throwing their life away to have a brief sexual encounter with you.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it has to do with a complete disconnect in reality when it comes to certain things.

"censorship is always bad, except when it involves pedophiles, then it's dandy, ahhh-ohkay!"

"The even application of justice is very important, but if I THIS happens, I'm in support of lynching"

"Ex-post-facto implementation of punishments is wrong... except sex offender registries, those can be implemented retroactively because they protect kids."

That's probably much related to the knee-jerk libertarian thing you see. Each of those three statements are not polemic, but are actual things that I have seen in large volume.

And yet when I look at my own life... my best friend was doing it with a 30 year old when he was 13 and tells me that although the guy did go to jail, he feels that the violent reaction of people around him was BY FAR the worst part of the experience and he actually looks on the act itself somewhat fondly, since he was a willing participant and there was no violence or obvious coercion, even while he agrees that it shouldn't be entirely legal.

So, it's hard for me, personally, to sit here and watch people freak out when my ONLY real world experience tells me "our violent reaction is a huge part of the problem, not a part of the solution."

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[nosferatu1001]

Incorrect, which is why age of consent varies so much - its down to each country / state to decide when they think people can consent. It s a matter of individual experience NOT development of their brain, which is mostly adult around age 8

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[selven]

You're totally missing the point. Police go after people possessing part of a dead plant to combat the production of said plant. Police go after possession of child pornography to combat the production of child pornography.

I think you're wrong here. With drugs, police go after production to combat possession (and use), which is what they ultimately want to reduce. With child pornography, police go after use and possession to combat production.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

You seriously believe that possession of weed is illegal IN order to COMBAT THE CULTIVATION of hemp? Really?

o.0

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Something Awful has a subtopic to discuss their pets now. Holy fuck. Talk about going soft.

Don't mess with something awful, man! they might organize a campaign to give you a hug or something!

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've seen nobody rationalizing child abuse" on a related note: physical punishment (oh alright, psychological as well) of children is abuse, still very few countries have signed the UN declaration of childrens rights. Now, if I were to say "all those sick fucks in America who hit their children (like a certain judge) should be sent to "ass-pound-prison" as people like to put it, to get a taste of their own medicine - then you'd see plenty of rationalization of child abuse.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

TLDR; This place is silly.

Welcome to Earth, you must be new here.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[furbyhater]

His positions may be controversial, but it's intellectually dishonest to reject them without even thinking about it.
While I might not agree with everything he said, this is a very difficult issue and I personally don't know if he is right or wrong.
Stallman doesn't claim that "voluntary" pedophilia doesn't harm children with certainty, but just that he is skeptical of the harm done.
I personally believe that the reaction of society might have just as big or even a bigger negative impact on the mental development of the person concerned than the act itself.

Anyway, let's try to bring forth honest arguments for our viewpoints instead of rejecting opposing views outright.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[furbyhater]

Ad hominem? On Slashdot? Noooo! ;-)
Jokes aside, are you mentally retarded?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

AMEN BROTHER!

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a line drawn. Anyone with kids out there( quite a majority %) has it built in to them by evolution of countless generations before them. Promote the success of your offspring at the sacrifice of any predators. You couldn't show me an investigation that is taken more seriously than a doughnut and a glance when it involves the accidental death/brutal homicide of known pedophiles/molesters. If there is an rigorous enforcement of that law, the police involved are probably pedophiles, not unheard of.
          Unfortunately, society isn't hip enough to allow trophy hunting of those sexually attracted to children, but the day will come. Then we can post shots of our handiwork on "faces of death" and hunting sites. "Lookit this one horn buck, I caught pullin my daughters britches down in our garden shed. We mounted him with sunglasses because one of his eyes popped out from the impact pressure of the bullet."
        The world is a changing place. R.S. should take his opinions to a state and neighborhood where they don't mind living next to someone who thinks using children as sex objects is acceptable to battle censorship with. I look around everyday and over coffee I see parents reading news about this pedo or that, muttering about the tortures they would offer before finally letting the chicken-poacher expire. I would suggest that the populace, regardless of "politically correct studies" do not find that pedophiles and many other sexual offenders have met the criteria to be considered human. Therefore exterminating them from society like a parasitic disease is just around the corner.( with the lawyer they rode in on)

Circus Maximus,Let the games begin!

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

"There are no adults who try to trick kids into being bad drivers..."

Sure there are, they are called mechanics.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

You had sex as a kid and turned out fine? Glad to hear it. I lost count of how many girls in my school dropped out after getting pregnant.
that has something to do with a education which is non better then that in Muslim countries which learns that sex is evil and nothing about safe sex

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Antique Geekmeister]

It's defined harshly, but not well. A copy is at http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1476. It has significant problems with eroitic, rather than pornographic, imagery of children. A great deal of anime focuses on young, Western looking girls with surprisingly large busts and hips being accidentally squeezed or grabbed in the course of their adventures. Is that art, or pornography?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

WP excerpt:

"In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at 10-12, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only 7. A New York Times article states that it was still aged 7 in Delaware in 1895.[7] Female reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raised the age of consent to 16-18 by 1920.[8][9]"

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[TFAFalcon]

And it's the government doing the persuading. Why not raise the age when people can enlist to 30+, when they no longer feel they are immortal?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[qu33ksilver]

Its californication dude! What else can you say ??

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[FireFury03]

And if someone is sexually attracted to a fourteen year old, I (and most everyone else) will call them a pedophile

A 15 year old (or a 13 year old for that matter) with a 14 year old girlfriend is a peadophile?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Junta]

Because the photographer or in the case of self-taken shots someone soliciting the person is abusing the child. I'm not saying this is the case for all 'questionable' content, but there is least some content where imagery does suggest abuse but does not fall under the umbrella of child porn per se and is insufficient for anyone to take action on behalf of the subject. Note that I specifically referred to the people taking the pictures and not consumers of the pictures. People looking at the pictures may be extraordinarily creepy, but I see all sorts of room for problems trying to regulate that and think it really doesn't help too much (in fact I think it harms as it pushes the circles that consume these into secrecy and evidence of child abuse that might otherwise easily be discovered by police is hidden out of their view as much as possible).

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia."

Are you sure ? To me it depends on the definition of "children" and "pedophilia".

Currently there have been cases where consenting teenagers have been marked/marred for life because someone thought it wise to classify their experimenting with love between them as unlawfull and got a brain-dead judge to agree with them.

If you want to take a stance, than please look at it from all sides. If you don't you'll be bound to hurt innocents -- even the very ones you are supposidly trying to protect.

Oh, by the way: How many mistakes have you made in life when growing up ? Do you really think that if every of those mistakes would have resulted in you appearing before a judge and suffering whatever punishment he deemed to be fit for you (jailtime, being made an outcast) it would have allowed to become the person you now are ? I don't think so.

Think about that before you support more overly-broad brain-dead laws suppressing normal human behaviour like experimenting and making mistakes.

And no, I do not condone adults abusing kids, sexually or otherwise.

P.s.
The minimum age in the US for entry into the army is 17. Those "kids" are not allowed to engage into sexual relations (because either or both of them could be judged pedophiles), but they can die to defend your rights. Go figure.

P.p.s.
If you have problems with objectifying young people and the damage it could do to them than take a look at allmost any clothes-show where they are used as dummies to hang the rags on.

Kids, most always of the female gender, with a severe underweight being rejected as being "too heavy". Ofcourse, if those kids than starve themselves to death that is OK, because its their own choice. Or is it ....

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[AmiMoJo]

Actually it originated in the UK as a way to prevent parents forcing their daughters into prostitution. That is why it only used to apply to men having sex with underage girls. They thought that by age 16 a girl could defy her parents or decide willingly to do that sort of thing (and be arrested/imprisoned for it of course).

The simple fact is that the age at which a person is ready to have sex varies a great deal from individual to individual so trying to set a fixed limit for everyone is never going to work very well.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[FireFury03]

? Does the fact that someone, somewhere looks at the picture sexually change that? Does it even matter in the least?

Legally, it does: one of the criteria for the Dost test is " whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer."

Which is awfully subjective, of course.

"intended or designed" implies to me that it is based on what the photographer was doing. If the photographer takes a completely innocent picture, then it wasn't *not* "intended or designed" to elicit a sexual response, whether or not it actually does for a vanishingly tiny number of people.

I struggle to believe that anyone is harmed by these pictures, and to my mind it falls into the same category as banning cartoons of underage acts - no children were harmed in the process of producing an animation, so what possible justification is there for banning it? If someone wants to get off to this stuff then I'd rather they do that than go find actual kids to molest...

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

To be Honest. I think I would prefer the guys taking the Pictures be the ones to be harmed and get in trouble. I would rather have some perv control him impulses by jerking it to photos as opposed to being forced to live out his fantasies on an actual living child because there is no other alternative to get his fix. I believe they should all be locked up. They need help. But all too often our control tends to make matters worse.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not that other guy...

Why did you wait until you were seventeen to join the military? Because society is smart enough to know that we shouldn't let thirteen year olds join up. -- fair point. however, if someone is desperate enough they will employ child soldiers. War is good at changing morals.

Why did you wait till 15 to learn to drive? Because at twelve you would have killed someone. -- I learnt to drive at 10. It wasn't legal, I didn't kill anybody...

You did some underage drinking and turned out okay? Good for you. One of my sister's friends drank a liter soda bottle full of vodka on the school bus when she was fifteen and had to have her stomach pumped. Another kid I didn't really know died from choking on his own vomit after drinking at a party in tenth grade. -- I have seen much older people do the same thing. That is a problem with alcohol, not age (per se)

You had sex as a kid and turned out fine? Glad to hear it. I lost count of how many girls in my school dropped out after getting pregnant. -- proper sex education would fix this, there are plenty of promiscuous adults who don't have a house full of kids.

It is self-evident that infants shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want. It is equally self-evident that adults should be free to drink or drive or fuck or whatever. Therefore there is clearly some line in between at which it becomes okay. That line shifts from one person to another, and so society can never perfectly nail it down, but to say we shouldn't have lines at all, or that they should all be back around puberty, is fucking stupid. -- so you are saying I should be allowed to drink and drive, just because I'm an adult?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Imaginary Consent

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Hydian]

Yes, you can enlist in the military in the US at 17 with parental consent.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Hydian]

I'm Why did you wait until you were seventeen to join the military?

Because the average 13 year old is too short to reach the pedals of a tank.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[data2]

"the 2005 Durex Global sex survey found that people worldwide are having sex for the first time at an average age of 17.3, ranging from 15.6 in Iceland to 19.8 in India."

  My sources say something completely different than your sources. Sorry... Median would be far more interesting anyway.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[DerekLyons]

Probably a lot of normal people's reaction to Reddit's policy change is "You mean sexual imagery of children wasn't already against the rules? How is that not firmly established from day one?"

Sexual imagery of children has been banned since day one. What they banned yesterday was pictures of girls that were everything from fully (if revealingly) dressed to in bikini's. Pictures that are (as the saying goes) "as legal as church on Sunday".

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[hitmark]

Hell, the requirements for ass and rack are not even universal.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[FireFury03]

So half the government cries foul and next thing you know it they'll be having a debate on whether or not TOR should be blocked - even though that very same thing is helping dissidents in IRAN to get around political censorship.

I've always found it interesting how foreign governments censoring is a Bad Thing (and condemned by domestic governments), but domestic governments censoring is somehow all fine and dandy.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[maple_shaft]

On one note I understand why sexual misconduct with minors is treated the way it is in our legal system, because of the gravity of the case, the confusing and conflicting testimonies, the heavy reliance upon testimony by minors, and the fact that the vast majority of these cases were without direct witness, just the accuser and the accused.

If one were to conduct such a case with the same stringent guidelines as one would a murder trial, then virutally nobody would ever be convicted for such crimes, and you run the risk of justice not being served.

On the other hand, it is a very slippery slope and can be used as a VERY dangerous weapon to ruin somebodies life, like what happened to my brother for instance. I am not him, and I can't say for sure what had REALLY happened between him and the 14 year old girl, but I do know the father wasn't sure either, he had completely unrelated issues with him regarding money that he despised him for, he was close friends with both the head of the police department and magistrate where his pre-trial began, and the only evidence was the constantly changing stories of the older sister which I highly suspected she was being coerced into saying by the father. Everything eventually worked itself out but only after the finanical ruin of court costs and a GOOD lawyer (a good lawyer is so critically important). He is not a registered sex offender and he had to do some community service which he took to be a positive experience.

When people discuss the punishment of conviction they almost always seem to forget the financial and emotional punishment that comes simply with being accused, and how those who wrongfully accuse rarely get punished. The police invested a hell of a lot of time in bringing the case to trial, so even if they know they don't have a case, they will try their hardest to get some kind of punishment to the defendant. As someone who lived through this witch hunt before I can say that it falters your faith in the legal system and this country.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[hitmark]

Never mind casting 20-somethings in the role of high school students to get around work time limitations.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[camperdave]

In some countries it is perfectly acceptable for a 14 year old to join the military, and it has been for large swaths of history. In the past they were squires, cabin boys, drummer boys, etc. They acted as spies and couriers. In modern days, they perform many of the same functions, but are also trained as combatants. They are used as propaganda, and human shields. Some are even used to clear mine fields, the hard way. In fact, the youngest detainee in Gitmo was 13.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't go to reddit, but I'd bet some portion of the pictures are illegal due to copyright infringement. Of course, it's impossible to know which ones unless they receive DMCA take down requests.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[hitmark]

Insightful, really /.?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[hitmark]

Crazy thing is, they do not suddenly wake up one day and go "hey, i can manage risk". The balance the good and the bad, one need to experience (or at least be familiar with) both. But certain parts of the world seems hung up on keeping their kids pristine and innocent forever.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[hitmark]

Dude, walk away from the game theory articles and the Rand books. Thanks.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[crawling_chaos]

Thus you can place Stallman's statements into a slightly less black-and-white context.

Considering Mr. Stallman's history of placing nothing in anything less than a black and white context, why should we be extending him the courtesy?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[hitmark]

I would replace illegal with objectional, as laws are not ordained from on high. Laws are human constructs and so are bound to be flawed and needs constant reevaluation with changing circumstances.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[hitmark]

I recall bumping into a german advert image for orange juice some years back. If it had not been framed by the poster the way it was, i would not have thought about it much. The image was two pre-teen girls in leotards, clearly members of some gymnast club, demonstrating their skills. The idea was to make a link between active/healthy living and orange juice.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[geminidomino]

The law is there to protect the kids, not punish them.

Maybe that was the rationale of their inception, but this is Clearly not the case today.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[hitmark]

Never mind the continual selling of "ganstas and hos" as some kind of ideal. Btw, anyone recall the uproar when a stripper pole made it into the kiddie toys section of some store?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[morgauxo]

Really? Then why is the original parent of this thread currently a +5 as I write this?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[August_zero]

Well childporn is natural because of genes and stuff, and BIOTRUTH!!! Victimless crime! They take Bitcoins! If pedos can't have porn they will make it! Im not a pedo, I'm an ephebophile!

If you haven't noticed the decline in the quality of this site in the last couple years, and haven't noticed just how odious and disgusting a lot of the people commenting on it have gotten, you might not have been paying attention.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Scrameustache]

obviously illegal stuff leads to a lot of eye-opening attitudes toward issues of sex and gender. For crying out loud, Reddit's statement actually refers to this new rule as a "slippery slope," as if it's somehow more difficult for them not to censor legitimate information if they can't have a subreddit named /r/preeteen_girls devoted to underage photos submitted by creepy Facebook stalkers.

You're riding a crazy carpet all the way down the slippery slope: You KNOW that they're pictures taken from facebook, but you jump to the conclusion that they're "obviously illegal" child pornography!

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mind the "teen" sections but I skip over the less than 1% of photosets with those types of photos.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Hatta]

And he told an interviewer that people who redistribute child pornography are "not participating in the crime" and so shouldn't be censored.

How exactly is that incorrect?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia."

To be honest, it's surprising that more people don't know about Stallman's positions on these issues. You'd think such controversial positions would be more widely reported.

Oh no... someone has opinions that are not in line with the official LINE we're all ordered to believe is acceptable... nooooo...

Oh, BTW... Children can't EMOTIONALLY consent to sex? So the moment a child turns 18, something magical happens biologically? Chemically? NO. This is an arbitrary dividing line drawn by society. It is drawn in different places in different parts of the world, for human beings who are all members of the same species. This is purely a product of religio-stupidity that insists sex is bad, and humans are evil and need to be "saved".

I'll agree no one should be screwing little kids, for biological reasons. However, the idea that someone who is 17 years, 11 months, 31 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes old is somehow a defenseless child who CAN'T make his or her own decisions, but that one second later he/she is suddenly able to, as an adult is INSANE. Legally this is the case, because our society insists on a thin-bright-line being drawn, and based on time... but biologically? In any way that actually matters in fact? The idea is silly. Why not make adulthood contingent on completing secondary education? That way we wouldn't have uneducated people having responsibilities they haven't yet proven they're ready for.

If we did that then adulthood would be conferred based on something that actually reflected the individual, rather than something arbitrary. Or, by "children", when you wrote that crap about children not being able to consent, did you mean LITTLE CHILDREN? As in aged 0 to say... 12 inclusive? If so, well, you're going to run into the same problem that I think caused the people who wrote these rules to pick 18 years in the first place. If you're going to use a time, a number of years to draw the dividing line between childhood and adulthood, you're almost inevitably going to have some people falling on the wrong side of it... people who are over the age delineated, who aren't biologically or emotionally ready, but who are legally, just as you have plenty who are biologically and emotionally ready, but not LEGALLY, that is, under 18.

You know what happens, given this situation? Lots of people go to jail or are otherwise punished for no good goddamned reason, and we STILL fail to protect those who genuinely need it. How is that a good thing either way?

IF you tied it, as I suggested, to individual maturity, you'd at least have a better shot at protecting those who need it, while granting liberty to those who can handle it.

As for Stallman... perhaps he too realizes that biological reality, ACTUAL reality, and legal "reality" are often not even located in the same zip code.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Vegemeister]

Many places have exceptions for this, typically allowing it if the age gap is less than something like four years (and sometimes requiring that they're in a dating-type relationship). Those exceptions would, in principle, allow a 14 year-old to have sex with an 18 year-old, so we consider that a 14 year-old is able to give consent in this scenario. What if the older partner is 19 years old (or the age gap is 4 years and one day)? Why do we consider the 14 year-old able to give consent in one case, but not the other? What about if the younger one was 12, and the older one was 17? Is that different from the case where they're both 12? If you have a 12 year-old and a 17 year-old, and you allow that, why would you suddenly not allow it one year later when they're 13 and 18?

Given some distribution of ages at which people become capable of giving meaningful consent, we have legislated a particular age because it is often infeasible to determine if a person was capable of meaningful consent at the time of the act. The age of the other party has no bearing on a person's ability to give meaningful consent to an act.

We also decided that it is unfair to prosecute a person for (arguably) consensual acts with persons in their peer group. These exceptions are the result. It seems to me that given total knowledge, we should choose whether or not to prosecute based on whether each party could reasonably have determined whether the other party was capable of meaningful consent. This would depend on appearance, behavior, intoxication, and yes, the psychological maturity of the more mature party.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Lehk228]

people are posting pictures of little kids in swimsuits and shit, and talking about them sexually. even 4chan won't put up with that shit

in order to maintain a healthy community you have to drive out undesirables who will eventually drive out the majority of your membership.

would YOU frequent a website that might end up getting child porn in your browser history / cache ?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[maple_shaft]

And that is the heart of the problem. Something similar happened to my brother, the dad of the girl was close friends with the police and the magistrate and my brother mouthed off to the policeman who was very aggressively interrogating the girl and her sister without parental supervision. THANK GOD he had a good lawyer that got him out of that mess (eventually) but the judge took a misdemeanor allegation of inappropriate contact with a minor (kissing) and gave him the hammer for it and brought forth baseless felony charges as a punishment.

The laws, interpretations and punishments for these types of crimes have holes in them so big that you can drive a bus through it, or a vengeful policeman and a judge that abuses her power is able to really put the screws to somebody just because they don't like how they carry themselves in court, or how they dress, or some other completely irrelevant detail that has nothing to do with the allegations and the evidence.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[GameboyRMH]

Legally it is, right or wrong. As far as the law is concerned below the age of consent, whatever that is in your jurisdiction (in most places it's 16 or 18), is pedophilia.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[compro01]

Ah, but in this context it generally means "younger than the age of consent" (in the majority of the US). So basically younger than 18.

I think you mean 16 then. That's the age of consent in 31 states.

Only 11 set it at 18.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

because Hollywood loves dressing teenagers in provocative, sexual outfits

I've read that a major children's entertainment company actually has logistical plans about how to maximize revenue by sexualizing each of their starlets as they age at the optimum rate.

Reddit is the low-hanging fruit. I wonder when Something Awful is going to call out the Lawyer Machine.

To get +5 informative, please spill which entertainment company that would be ... I want to buy their stock ... that is an amazing plan!

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Ihmhi]

"Manipulating people into sex" is how the club scene works out 9 times out of 10...

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[GameboyRMH]

There has to be a line drawn between OMG-FREEDOM-AT-ALL-COSTS and posting sexual pictures of children.

And you try to present a false dichotomy where we either have to live in the curated, controlled, freedomless future you love, or allow child porn.

It's false because you can't stop child porn either way. I agree that reasonable efforts should be taken and Reddit was playing with fire for a while now, but your controlled future will not stop child porn, not as long as people have access to cryptography and darknets. The genie's out of the bottle and you can't put it back by creating a locked-down genie-free zone. You'll just make it worse for people inside the zone while the same activity flourishes outside of it.

Right now, as we speak, a shit-ton of child porn is being traded openly on darknets, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. That won't change if almost everyone is using an Apple-controlled iOS device and Apple is controlling what everybody sees. As long as it is legally, or at the very least physically possible to run an open computer that will continue. Even in the dystopian world of RMS' Right to Read which you jack off to every night, 100% lockdown didn't exist.

You can't control everything, good-faith efforts are the best we can do. Deal with it.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Infernal Device]

There has to be a line drawn between OMG-FREEDOM-AT-ALL-COSTS and posting sexual pictures of children. Living in a civil society requires some level of protection of the innocent. Reddit should shut the hell up about slippery slopes and do what it should have done six freaking years ago.

And where is that line? Obviously, someone younger than 18 is off-limits, except in countries where they're not ... persons 18 or older are legal, even if they appear younger, by US law (you can't make having a certain appearance illegal) ... from the age of 15 onwards, it's nearly impossible to judge actual age from appearance because it can vary wildly (the I-thought-she-was-18) ...

I'm not seeing any bright lines in there.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[GameboyRMH]

I personally disagree that children (as in pre-pubescent, do not have their own sexual desires) can consent but let's ignore that for a moment. Legally, children are almost property, how can you be sure that consent is not coercion? I bet all of Warren Jeffs' child brides would tell you that they consented.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Dare nMc]

your talking about different things, your talking about sex acts, and assuming many additional factors on age of participants... What that subredit was, is 99%+ clothed pictures of boys/girls that age. Granted the popular ones were very suggestive, but most were dressed how you could find them dressed at malls... And many are disgusted by it then as well, but don't do anything to stop it in our malls, but are stopping it online.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[TFAFalcon]

Aren't they going possessing parts of a dead plant to stop them from 'abusing' it? After all what is the problem with people growing plants? The law is meant to prevent drug USE. Preventing drug production is just a convenient way of doing that.

In child porn the situation is reversed. They want to prevent children from being photographed/filmed in inappropriate situations, so they go after anyone in possession of those photos/films, since they are the ones that 'support' the industry by paying for the products.

The strange thing with child porn is that people who do NOT pay for CP but just pirate it are also being prosecuted, while with most other forms of PI, they are seen as the ones destroying the industry.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Surt]

Sure, it depends on whether you mean 'can they say the word yes'. If that's all you mean, a two year old can consent to sex. But that's not what most of us are looking for. We're looking for a capability of understanding the consequences of saying yes. Prior to about 15 (and sure, there is some variation in the brain development, a tiny few might have it as early as 14, but that's 3rd standard deviation), they simply don't have it. Similarly, there are some, like the retarded, who don't ever develop it. Again, that's usually out in the 3rd standard deviation of the population.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

There has to be a line drawn between OMG-FREEDOM-AT-ALL-COSTS and posting sexual pictures of children.

The problem isn't that I want people to be free to post "sexual" pictures of children, but that the definition of "sexual pictures" is very much open to interpretation. What is your definition of a "sexual picture"? Is it the picture of my 5 year-old naked in the bathtub? Not sexual for you, but what if some weirdo on the Internet masturbates to it. Now I can't share that picture with online buddies because that's child pornography? What about a picture of my 13 year-old at the beach with her friends? I'm a pedophile for sharing?

My real issue with banning anything other images of clear sexual abuse is that "sexual" means different things to different people. Society really wants to ban people from being sexually aroused by children, but they are frustrated at the impossible futility of such a thing and they lash out in every way possible that isn't really constructive.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Surt]

Both are problems, but I agree that the authority problem is also at issue.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Surt]

Sure. If all you want is the capacity to agree, a 2 year old can clearly consent. But that's clearly not what anyone is talking about, so why bother arguing it?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Surt]

Nope. Go read the brain development literature. The brain is not physiologically capable of making these kinds of decisions in the way we'd expect til much later.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[wisnoskij]

You cannot. You cannot at any age.
And children are more likely then any other group to be "tricked" into something. I am not saying that there are no good reasons for paedophilia laws or that they should not exist in some form.
But even cockroaches can make decisions and consent to mating.

And we are not even really talking about consenting to sex, a lot of kiddie porn is made of children old enough to legally consent to sex with similar aged children, and child porn does not have to include sex.
This is consent to be photographed/video taped. Not that they cannot be coerced into that as well.

Going off on a tangent. The logical direction of both of our opinions would be: children should need the consent of their legal guardians. Which seems like a decent idea in theory to me.

About pre-pubescent sexuality, well it does exist, if in a different from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexuality#Early_childhood).

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

If the law is there to protect the kids, why is the Catholic church still getting tax breaks?

Fuck Reddit, we subsidize actual kid fucking and covering it up, so let's get some perspective.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

I meet a lot of geeks in my job, and most appear to be, at best, medium to high functioning autistics. None of what you stated is any sort of mystery. These are people who will judge the entirety of your life and existence based on the cell phone you buy or how many video games you play. They are pampered Western filth wallowing in their own base intellectual feces.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[tophermeyer]

When did it become established beyond doubt that children can't consent to sex?

Certainly a three year old can't consent to sex. Young children cannot grasp the full nature of the act to make a fully informed decision to consent. No way, no how.

You're right in that there is no magic switch. No discrete event happens that makes it suddenly ok for a person to consent. But a practical reality is that we cannot make individual determinations about age of consent. Unless you would seriously propose that we create some kind of external authority to which minors apply and are granted the ability to consent to sex.

We have to draw a line somewhere. Maybe 18 isn't the right place to draw that line. But the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia."

You're conflating legal consent and actual consent. Certainly children under 18 can consent. Consent requires cognizance, and different children will reach that mental and emotional maturity at different ages. Stallman's position is that a sexual act that was not performed against a child's will is certainly less psychologically harmful than one which is performed against their will. I think you are having trouble separating your emotional disgust from your ability to rationally examine the facts. Barring psychological abuse or physical injury, there is nothing inherently injurious about a sexual act with children. It is only when the child is inculcated with society's disdain that they "realize" they were wronged.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[betterunixthanunix]

Theoretically, by making the possession of child pornography more dangerous, they are reducing the value of it

If that is indeed the strategy -- and I seriously doubt that it is -- then it is a pretty poor strategy. It is becoming increasingly rare for people to pay for child sex abuse imagery*, because of the danger of being tracked should the seller be captured by police. People who produce child sex abuse imagery are increasingly engaging in barter, demanding tit-for-tat exchanges of images and video to reduce the risk that they will be caught, often refusing to accept imagery that they have seen before -- they are actually encouraging the abuse of more children. Thankfully, such people are being caught, but not by the local or state cops with their surveillance vans; they are being caught by international teams of investigators, who are putting in months and even years of work to track down the offenders (see: Dreamboard bust, but even that failed to catch all of the people involved).

There is, of course, a hidden agenda behind the vast overstatement of the number of pedophiles out there. No politician could vote against a bill that promises to enable law enforcement to catch more pedophiles. That has become an excuse for increasing police power again and again, giving the police more and more reasons to arrest people, giving them larger budgets, giving them more equipment, and of course, increasing the prison population. We see paramilitary police units being deployed to arrest people who are suspected of download child sex abuse videos, even when there is no reason to believe that the person is armed (a pattern we see with drug raids). Local police forces are starting to get roving signals intelligence vans, allowing them to sidestep wiretapping requirements (while at the same time pushing for lower barriers to wiretapping). We are drifting away from the goal of catching dangerous pedophiles who abuse children, and towards a very different goal of increasing the power of the police.

As for the war on drugs, it is incredibly naive to think that the police actually want to combat the production of drugs. From the very beginning, the war on drugs was about increasing the power of the police and of course, demonizing black men. The early days of the drug war involved reports of "cocaine niggers," white women wanting to have sex with black men after smoking marijuana, and police departments needing to increase the caliber of their handguns to combat drug-crazed black men. In the late 50s, hippies were added to the list of people that the police could use drug offenses to harass, and by the 80s the drug war was used as a pretext to create paramilitary police forces at every level -- local, state, and federal, as well as to give the police permission to seize assets during drug raids and recycle the proceeds into their own budgets. Laws like the Posse Comitatus Act, which was meant to protect Americans from tyranny, have fallen by the wayside in the name of the war on drugs. Even cops who appear to be dedicated to preventing people from using drugs do not really want the war to be won -- it would be them out of a job.

* If you wonder why I use this term, and not "child pornography," it is because "child pornography" is a poor description of these videos and images. These are images of real children being abused, and we should be very clear about that -- this is not pornography, this is evidence of a crime.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Reducing the value of it? Last I checked drugs are cheaper in countries where they are legal not the other way around.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[jamstar7]

Prob is, porn is in the eye of the beholder. If somebody needs to escape to the john for a quick tug after seeing a pic of some snapdragons, yeah, they're severely twisted people, but for them, those pics are porn.

The 9 Braindead Guys handed down a ruling on porn back in the 60's IIRC (hey, I'm getting old!) that porn has to pass a 'community standard' test. Basically, they said 'We don't know exactly what porn is, but we know it when we see it!'. Under that ruling, all somebody has to do is accuse me of being a pedophile, and instantly those pics of my granddaughter and nieces & nephews become porn in the eyes of a hardcore evangelical DA. Pack the jury with like-minded braindead evangelicals, and they have an instant conviction for kiddie porn.

The 'Community Standard' ruling is what allowed pics of Betty Page to be declared legal in the 'liberal North' while being classed as porn Down South. The legal implications are still haunting our society.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[insertwackynamehere]

I agree in spirit but you don't have to worry because a lot of places account for how someone in their late teens/early 20s may date someone who is not yet 18. I believe PA has a 3 or 4 year buffer, for example.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

TL;DR: You're going to keep whacking it to 11 year olds because nobody has bothered to put in writing, including all exceptions and corner cases, what is bad and what is not.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Hollywood is fairly tame with how they dress under 18s compared with how they themselves like to dress. To give an example, can you imagine them dressing Ariel Winter on Modern Family like how she dressed herself? (age 12 in that picture).

Sarah Hyland could convincingly play a 15 year old despite being 20, whereas Ariel Winter could pass for 18 at 13.

Calender age, mental maturity and physical maturity do not advance in consistent lockstep. Using one factor to make excessive, ridged prejudgments about the other(s) will only result in individuals being inappropriately.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[jittles]

I'm

Why did you wait till 15 to learn to drive? Because at twelve you would have killed someone.

Hmmm... I started driving when I was 10, and I have yet to be in an accident, let alone kill anyone. And I'm not talking about sitting on daddy's lap while I use the wheel. I was behind the wheel by myself, with 100% control of the vehicle. I think the AC was trying to say that we try to create concrete lines as to when things are appropriate for people. I know plenty of twenty somethings that shouldn't be driving. People even older than that, that definitely shouldn't be driving. They don't know how to merge, check their mirrors, or whatever. It's not safe. But we let them anyway. Some people are ready for life much earlier than their peers. Its hard to gauge when a person is ready for a given activity, however. So that's not to say that hard set ages isn't acceptable. But a magic number doesn't make a person any more or less responsible.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

that "[P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced.

I don't think there is much coercion going on with necrophilia..

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that the editors of Reddit (or most people in this discussion) are saying that fully-clothed pics = CP. What we're saying is that Reddit, being a non-governmental organization gets to determine what kind of content is available on it's site. They have chosen to remove content that many people deem inappropriate because the focus is children. Children make bad decisions, we know this, but that doesn't mean that Reddit has any kind of obligation to create a forum for people to exploit the bad decisions made by stupid kids (and stupid parents). It's not censorship. It's not necessarily a condemnation of what goes on in /r/whatever. It's Reddit saying "you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here."

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Meeni]

I struggle to believe that anyone is harmed by these pictures, and to my mind it falls into the same category as banning cartoons of underage acts - no children were harmed in the process of producing an animation,

While I tend to agree with that statement, that as long as no child is harmed during the making, the picture/depiction itself should not unleash law furor, these kids are real kids. Being seen on a website for the obvious purpose of being jerking on material may have very real consequences to them, their life, or psychological balance; even though nobody harmed them during the making of the pictures. Children have stricter control on their image than adults, for good reasons. Pedophilia or not, it is fair that these children and their tutors retain control of the way their image is used, and I guess nobody agreed to be a porn material on reddit.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[AK Marc]

Libertarians, (of which Slashdot is full of) believe the Constitution (or treaties or other laws) shouldn't apply on your private property. Libertarians are believers in the feudal system where the landed gentry has all the power, and those without land have fewer rights. In their framework, there should be no law to tell them what they can and can't do with their property (children) on their property at all. So yes, I'd expect to see rationalization of child abuse from the perspective that it's no different to a slashdot libertarian than wacking a dog with a newspaper when he craps in the house. And someone would make that analogy, and anyone who objected to hitting dogs would be ridiculed as a "liberal" who is out of touch with the real world and wants to let all the violent criminals out of prisons.

But back to the topic, the best you can do is make up "I think there would be in this completely different an unrelated topic." That sounds like an admission that nobody is rationalizing or defending in any way the abuse of children (at this time in relation to this topic).

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, looks good to me! I had no idea someone else shared this enlightened view with me. Go Stallman!

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[sjames]

It is probably psychologically relevant to the child. I would assume that helping a child get over the negative effects of abuse (and not causing more harm in the process) would be considered worthwhile.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[FireFury03]

Being seen on a website for the obvious purpose of being jerking on material may have very real consequences to them, their life, or psychological balance; even though nobody harmed them during the making of the pictures. Children have stricter control on their image than adults, for good reasons.

Firstly, the person depicted in a photo (child or not) are probably never going to find out about it, so arguably no harm has been done to them.

Secondly, even if the subject of the photo does find out about it, I'm not convinced that whether or not they are a child has much bearing on the psychological impact. If anything, a child may well be _less_ traumatised than an adult since they probably won't understand the implications of having their photo posted around the place.

Whilst I'm vary much against people being harmed, I'm also tired of the "for the children" line being trotted out every time some liberties are restricted. As soon as you start censoring and cracking down on "distasteful" behaviour, you're going to restrict the freedoms of innocent individuals as collateral damage - if "cracking down" is going to protect no victims then that collateral damage is too great and itself falls under "people being harmed".

Pedophilia or not, it is fair that these children and their tutors retain control of the way their image is used, and I guess nobody agreed to be a porn material on reddit.

As soon as you release information to the public, you largely lose control of that information. You get some protection from copyright law, but if you don't like the loss of control then you simply shouldn't release the information to the public. This applies to any information, not just photos of kids: when you release information you must be aware of what may happen to it and weigh up the cost of this against the advantages of releasing it.

However, I think that the kiddy-fiddling boogeyman has been blown way out of proportion - For example, there have been plenty of incidents of schools refusing to allow parents to take photos of their own kids at school events in case other people's kids are caught in the photo and used as jerking material. This is ridiculous - there is a vanishingly small risk that a particular photo is going to be used in that way, an even smaller risk that people featured in the photo are ever going to find out about it if it does happen (and therefore be harmed). People just have to accept that this absolutely tiny risk is there and learn to live with it, just the same as the (much bigger) risks of the kids getting injured in an accident on the playground, or while crossing the road. Preventing people from doing completely innocent and normal things just in case an extremely remotely unlikely thing happens is crazy.

Whilst you may say that these groups were intended to be used for distasteful purposes, taking them down doesn't seem to be that helpful. As far as I'm aware, none of the images were illegal in any way, they were perfectly normal photos of fully clothed kids. The only thing that made them seem distasteful was that they had been collected together for a seemingly obvious purpose - a quick google images search would turn up similar images spread across thousands of perfectly legitimate websites, so are we going to start demanding that those images are taken down for the same reasons?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[celle]

"...protection of the innocent..."

    If you're born in this country, you're guilty. Next fucking case. -- pseudo George Carlin

    Children abuse and kill each other, where's the innocent part?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Children can't legally consent to sex, but there's such thing as "voluntary pedophilia."

Children of 12 years of age (and younger) do have voluntary sex among themselves, which you would know if you weren't a perverse prudish sockpuppet of the censorship lobby.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Oh, yes, that altered quote above - I fixed it to correct the lie the idiot who wrote it tried to push down everyone's throats.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[cheekyjohnson]

But that's not what most of us are looking for.

Alright, but you merely said the word "content," not "informed consent."

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[cheekyjohnson]

people are posting pictures of little kids in swimsuits and shit, and talking about them sexually.

So? The pictures themselves weren't illegal (I'm pretty sure most of them weren't illegal and that ones that were would be removed). Why would I care if someone is masturbating to a picture?

even 4chan won't put up with that shit

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

would YOU frequent a website that might end up getting child porn in your browser history / cache ?

"might"? Any website I visit "might" end up with child porn on it. What I wouldn't do is go to one whose main theme is distributing child porn (simply not interested). Someone could even post some here on Slashdot. As for your question, I think it's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[cheekyjohnson]

Note that I specifically referred to the people taking the pictures and not consumers of the pictures.

I see. If they're abusing the children, then I would agree.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[QuasiSteve]

Because we may strive to do better?
Because we don't want to sink to his level (and yes, he has awful lows in addition to his great highs)?
Because... why shouldn't we?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[AK Marc]

I'd guess many would say- you know, even 18 year olds it's pretty sketchy as to how wise it is to act as if their consent is the same as what we mean in the ideal when we say 'fully informed consent'. And the same goes with the angle of the serious financial transactions of one's life. I.e. I, and I don't think I'm that unusual in this regard, consider myself to have been extremely naive about the fabric of the global economy at even the age of 18. All I'm really saying with this long winded comment is to take the next steps of your hypothetical journey into kids(or even naive young 'adults') consenting when there is significant $$ changing hands during the same event.

The real problem being that memory is faulty. You've heard the statement "if you aren't a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you aren't a conservative at 50, you have no head" (or any of the variations thereof)? People's opinions change over time, and they'll rectify that retroactively in their heads, remembering things when they are older differently than they happened (all the jokes about "uphill both ways" aren't based on old people hyperbolizing, but remembering it as different than it is now). So yeah, looking back on their lives, some would regret a tattoo at 18 or a job (Sex worker or McDonald's), but that doesn't mean they'd do anything differently if old them went back in time and talked to them.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[AK Marc]

I think he's presenting the opinion that many here have. Go after those abusing children and producing such items. But to wait until it's a string of 1's and 0's and go after information as being "bad" seems like the wrong way to go about it. In fact, studies done to prove child porn causes abuse have *all* found that child porn decreases abuse (as it gives potential abusers outlets for their desires that don't cause harm to anyone). Getting rid of the paid market and targeting abusers would be better for the children than the laws that make their self-taken picks land them in jail with a felony conviction for the rest of their lives.

Apparently, I'm the only one that sees the irony in trying self-abusers as adults (they are a "child" when they take the picture of themselves and send it, but an adult when the authorities prosecute them for it).

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

>In necrophilic sex coercion is the default unless there was some manner of written contract that the deceased actually gave permission.

I just thought I'd point out that there can be no coercion in necrophilic sex, because there is only one person involved. You cannot coerce an inanimate object. If you want to ban necrophilia, you'll have to come up with some other rationale.

NOTE: I am not a proponent of necrophilia (I never thought I'd have cause to say that on Slashdot)

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[AK Marc]

Wasn't there a guy convicted of it because his lawyer said the prosecution was planning on playing his tentacle porn until someone on the jury threw up. It didn't matter that he had millions of minutes of video and only 1% or less was the tentacle porn stuff (incidental to the avid collector). So yes, he was essentially convicted of child porn (or indecency or something lower) for Japanese cartoons.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[shiftless]

But if things were just the opposite, I'm sure you'd be QUITE happy to see that the slashdot moderation system is working just fine. Right?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[WilCompute]

I beg to differ, there are street racers that actively encourage kids to street race,which I classify as bad driving. However, they ussually end up being able to handle cars better than I. Wait, who are we protecting again?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[shiftless]

So you're arguing that looking lustfully at a picture of a young, fully clothed girl, is the exact same thing as a) bashing someone's head in, b) stealing their money/possessions, then c) speeding away?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[misexistentialist]

Objectively, women peak physically during their late teens. I'm sure all the worn-out female athletes approaching 30 would like them declared too "childish" to compete, just like the pre-menopausal hags want to say they are too young to breed with, but reality favors the young.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[WilCompute]

is that why we are trying 8 year olds as adults for murder?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[WilCompute]

So we just need to "condition" kids to think for themselves, and they will be able to give informed consent?

The horror!

We might lose control.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[AmberBlackCat]

When you said creationism should be kept out of schools, you contradicted the point that we shouldn't have censorship. At that point, you were just listing things you don't like.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[mosb1000]

I'm not sure one way or another if that's possible. It does seem that very young children are likely to do what they're told, but I don't know whether that is a conditioned response. But it does seem like when a child is two or three they will often try to assert their own authority. And perhaps when that happens, if you let the child understand that you respect their boundaries and their ability to make choices for themselves, without simply giving in to whatever they want, perhaps you can teach them that it's ok not to do something if they're not comfortable with it. That would certainly go a long way to preventing abuse, since a child being abused would react very strongly since they are used to having their personal boundaries respected.

Another aspect of it is language. Im many cases, it seems like children would be incapable of reporting abuse because they don't really know what it is or how to describe it. Rather than shielding them from sexual language, it might make more sense to explain sexual concepts to them in simple language that is easy for them to understand. That way you can explain to them that it's bad for an adult to do certain things to them, and if something happens you will know about it and be able to do something about it.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason I can see for sex being treated differently than the military is because it is fairly easy to understand you could die in a war. But, if you never had any sexual education by either parents or school a teen might not be able to understand how likely they are to get an STD or Pregnant. Unfortunately people in that position probably won't be better off after 18 without doing research on their own so they only thing it might do is delay the inevitable.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

>This lack of practically toward obviously illegal stuff leads to a lot of eye-opening attitudes toward issues of sex and gender.
> Reddit's statement actually refers to this new rule as a "slippery slope," ***as if it's somehow more difficult for them not to censor legitimate information ***

That's exactly the point, once they have any censorship rule, it is in fact more difficult for them not to censor legitimate information.

Someone has to be hired to look through all the pictures that are posted in order to find out whether they should be censored or not. Now this person obviously can censor whatever the heck he wants - after all, it's gone afterwards, who's to say it actually was what he said what it was - before he deleted it?

(Even if he wouldn't have ulterior motives - and he would have - or others would have -, he would delete images "just in case" if they are just at the limit. Over time the limit would change.)

Who watches the watchers?

>The lax attitude toward this sort of thing even comes from community leaders like Richard Stallman

He's right (if politically incorrect - and he's falling into the trap of specifically naming stuff that has emotional baggage associated with it - just search-replace the words by something the government would love to suppress to the detriment of the people - and you'll see just how right he is).

An image is a number of bits, without any value judgement. If the uploader uploads it and he has the copyright, nobody else should ethically have a say in removing it again (if it's someone else's server, the server owner can do whatever he wants with the storage - he can just turn it off and go home so all bets are off. But I mean "concerned citizens" HAVE NO SAY).

You as the visitor have the choice not to look at it, if you so choose.

I don't know why it's so hard to understand just how slippery slope that would get otherwise (especially since it already happened more than once). Maybe you haven't been to East Germany back then and haven't been in history lessons, haven't seen how bad it would get otherwise (note: their official excuse was "public decency". Sound familiar yet?)

You know what a censor would say if you asked him whether he deleted only images that were against the officially stated censorship rules? "OF COURSE the deleted image was a bad image, I would never delete others."

Riiight. In the extreme (and stupid of him) case, you can't post any images of anything at all anymore and everytime he was asked, he would say: "All deleted images were bad images as per the published rules, I would never delete others." - and for some reason you'd never hear anyone calling him out. Mysterious, that.

>There has to be a line drawn between OMG-FREEDOM-AT-ALL-COSTS and posting sexual pictures of children.

No.

Reddit is of couse allowed to delete posts (they can replace the frontpage with a picture of a cat if they want or whatever). However, if they had common carrier status, they now lost it since obviously they are moderating it to say what they want it to say.

>Living in a civil society requires some level of protection of the innocent.

It does require that. Note that images are not people. Corporations are people now, and you want to make images people, too? When will it stop? When all atoms are people?

Just use old-fashioned police detective work, sting operations etc, you know, protecting the actual persons. It's harder to do that than to get a kick hitting delete on stranger's posts, but it's the right thing to do.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Surt]

It's the reason why anyone whose response is based on science instead of hysteria knows that that is wrong.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Surt]

Informed is implied by the context. Because again, no one cares that a two year old can say yes.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you are beating off to pictures of 14 year olds the definition is "fucking sick"
I totally agree. It's beyond sick. 12-year-olds I would understand, but 14 is simply past the limit.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people consider John Draper a nutjob, but he's the genius responsible for most of the phone phreaking craze of the 1970s and designing the modem that changed the way computers communicated. I found him a bit odd, but no more so than many of the other geniuses I've been fortunate enough to meet in my lifetime. Believe me, spend some time with RMS and he'll use logic to convince you that you are wrong about pretty much everything you thought you knew.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Lashat]

It is absolutely astonishing that some /.ers are decrying this act as internet censorship.

If someone lives by the "Do what thou wilt." credo. It requires an understanding of cause and effect. That relation seems lost on some of these supposed anarchists and "internet freedom at all costs" soldiers.

With that in mind, if I catch you with pictures of my kids (or ANY kids) that are even mildly suggestive prepare for the effect that you caused.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

>by making the possession of X more dangerous, they are reducing the value of it

Oh, what economic theory is that? By it being more dangerous to possess and thus presumably rarer, it's worth *less*?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Fned]

There are no adults who try to trick kids into being bad drivers, so we can draw the line at a younger age in that case.

An excellent point. It makes me wonder, though... ...If there were adults who try to trick kids into being bad drivers, how would we be able to tell?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[celle]

"Police go after people possessing part of a dead plant to combat the production of said plant. Police go after possession of child pornography to combat the production of child pornography. "

Except it doesn't stop production of said plant or porn. Police are just harassing the consumers. If you want to stop production get it at the source, otherwise it's just a power game. The fact is it's just a way to single out and control a group of people you can't directly stop(unless you want a general uprising to happen). Just take a group of people and target them with labels that they are porn users or druggies and the public ignores them and the police can harass them any way they want. Divide and conquer. Keep adding people to the list and asking for more money and before long everyone is divided and controlled. A slippery slope it is and an open door for the corrupt.
Remember just because you don't like it, whether you understand it or not, doesn't mean it's wrong. We all have our own views on how life should be lived. It's not your right to trample on some else's life if it's not harming you. That freedom of speech/religion/privacy/gun thing. Even government is limited, limits they are trying and succeeding to roll back everyday, and if what is being done by individuals is not hurting anyone else than so be it.

Let he who has the perfect existence cast the first stone. (none of us do have a perfect existence)

"Theoretically, by making the possession of child pornography more dangerous, they are reducing the value of it. Which in turn reduces the demand for production and thus the value inherent in producing it."

Theoretically, but in reality making child porn illegal does just what it did for drugs. It increases the value via scarcity and damages society by increased abuse of the public by power hungry people using/abusing often outdated or overreaching laws. Thereby criminalizing a good sized chunk of the public doing something that is non-violent, fun, and often harmless except to those with agendas. Demand never went down and actually has gone up as it's now forbidden fruit. The laws only drove the real child porn production underground, just like drugs. Child porn has only been illegal since 1976 and those laws were passed to prevent excessive child neglect via business profiteering due to the cost of creation not to go after individuals who view it/use it. When kids can create their porn and send it to their friends for nothing the law has been made completely irrelevant. And children do have rights of choice even if as adults we don't like to admit it. I haven't been seeing anything in the news in awhile about prosecutors going after kids, guess they realized pissing off their voter parents by severely abusing measures wasn't such a good idea. Never mind what those kids learned and with how they'll think and act when they grow up. I won't even comment on prosecutions of 18 year old boys/men screwing their 16 year old girlfriends.
Talk to your parents, the USA was doing just fine before these idiotic laws were passed. Besides we're all child molesters when were young. What do you think all that sexual shit we go through as children, teenagers, and twenty-somethings is about. Somehow I don't think decade old laws and hundred year old cultural views will ever override million year old hormonal and sexual drives.
Speaking of drugs I see cigarettes and alcohol is still legal given the expense of production as much of it's subsidized, and the huge body of evidence of addiction and abuse by producers and users. While a useful, free growing weed, marijuana(hemp) that is cheap to produce, available everywhere, and is not addictive, is illegal.
Somehow forbidding a private citizen from possessing anything, that's not actively hurting someone else, in a supposedly free country seems kind of wrong.
Since we're going after everyone else. Why are those private fusion/chemical/biologi

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[CTachyon]

... However, coercion is not always a factor and when it demonstrably isn't - again, as per my post - I so no reason for it to be forbidden. ...

In spherical cow land, sure, but my argument is that an adult/teenager relationship (with a sufficiently wide age difference) is always coercive because the adult has more experience than the teen. The very nature of expertise is to train our minds to automatically jump to the right answer without any conscious thought (cf. Daniel Kahneman), which means that the more-experienced adult will take advantage of the situation, bending it to his/her will even without intending to. The difference in dating experience creates a power imbalance, and power imbalances are inherently coercive (pretty much by definition of "power" in the social sense).

Pretty much the only situation I can see where it might work out OK is if the adult has never dated, not in high school and not since then. But in that case the adult is likely to have other issues, in which case the "don't date anyone who obviously needs more therapy than you do" rule might kick in for the teenager (though sadly odds are good no one told the teenager about that one).

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[celle]

"The essential problem with pedophilia is that children can't consent in an informed fashion."

    How do you know children can't consent in an informed fashion? If they are educated first isn't that informed consent? Even uneducated and just by instinct they understand better than distracted teens and twentysomethings. Your statement assumes the children haven't already learned/experienced on their own exploration from/with their friends/media/enemies etc.

    How can you give informed consent when you don't know about it yet? Even adults can't give informed consent if they haven't learned or experienced the subject yet.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[CTachyon]

Dude, walk away from the game theory articles and the Rand books. Thanks.

You can criticize me for drinking the Overcoming Bias / Less Wrong kool-aid, but I am NOT a Rand fan and never have been. (I'm a leftist for one.)

Besides, Rand's fiction was totally in favor of coercive relationships, right up to the edge of rape. How much was Rand's principles and how much was Rand getting her jollies and forgetting the rule "don't publish your Mary Sue wankfic", who knows...

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think it should be illegal to lie to the police in the course of, say, a murder investigation? Because if you do, then you support limits to freedom of expression. And if you don't, you're just a crackpot. Guess what: freedom of expression has NEVER been an absolute right in the US, or anywhere else. There are dozens and dozens of limits placed on freedom of expression in the name of "the public interest." And your attempt to link any action ever taken in the public interest to the fucking Holocaust is incredibly weak.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and not only are you completely wrong in your analysis of what "freedom of expression" means, it's also completely irrelevant to this issue. The government isn't doing anything here. Reddit is simply deciding that they don't want to facilitate a bunch of creeps being fucking creeps. It has literally nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just sad. We've passed the boarder from criminalizing actions into criminalizing thought. Even if no one is hurt by your actions, you're still a criminal for being such a sick person.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we don't? Must be at least 16 to join, and below the age of 18 you must have parental consent. Not all the common to see under 18 in the military.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that in the UK the age of criminal responsibility is 13? - And there have been arguments lately to redefine it to 8.

Let that sink in for a while - the same people who think children as young as 8 can be responsible for the consequences of their actions - to the point of jailing them (or whatever verb is used for putting them in Secure Unit) - also think that they shouldn't be able to have sex until they're 16 because they don't understand the consequences of their actions....

Now think about that in US terms - no 'child' under 18 could be held liable for their criminal actions? Seems stupid right?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[shiftless]

Why did you wait until you were seventeen to join the military? Because society is smart enough to know that we shouldn't let thirteen year olds join up. ... Why did you wait till 15 to learn to drive? Because at twelve you would have killed someone.

And yet there are societies on this earth who DO allow such things. Why are our arbitrary age limits morally superior to other countries' arbitrary age limits (or lack thereof)?

You did some underage drinking and turned out okay? Good for you. One of my sister's friends drank a liter soda bottle full of vodka on the school bus when she was fifteen and had to have her stomach pumped. Another kid I didn't really know died from choking on his own vomit after drinking at a party in tenth grade.

And the laws against underage drinking protected these people, did it?

You had sex as a kid and turned out fine? Glad to hear it. I lost count of how many girls in my school dropped out after getting pregnant.

The solution is putting the father in prison?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[celle]

"entertainment company that would be ..."

    My bets he's talking about Disney except they've been doing it for 70 years with the mickey mouse club already.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Yunzil]

We let "kids" do lots of things, they are not stupid

As a rule, yes, they are.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[shiftless]

(It probably doesn't hurt to mention that I was molested by my stepfather from ages 16 to 18, so I've got a fair bit of firsthand personal experience on the matter.

Actually it does hurt, since it completely destroys the argument you are trying to support. In your situation, how did the law (that your stepfather violated) help you? What do you think would have happened, had you reported this situation to the police? Do you think their involvement would have improved the situation?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Even for 50 year old adults there are rules like sexual harassment in recognition of how bosses at work have a special relationship to employees that should not be misused sexually. Yet that doesn't make sex between a boss and an employee illegal on its own, that would be insane - it is only misuse of the position of authority that is illegal. Obviously a stepparent has much more of an obligation not to misuse that position in relation to stepchildren, and in general people who are specially charged with taking care of, say, a 16 year old have an obligation not to misuse that position. That doesn't mean that every sexual relation that a 16 year old has with someone older is abusive, and indeed in many places the age of consent is 16 or lower. Clearly there needs to be limitations, the problem is that it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion about the subject in public because the crazies come out of the woodwork immediately.

Anyway, if you have to worry about your partner manipulating you like a puppet, then your problem is not giving off too much information. Telling your life's story in detail on a first date might be bad because it's likely going to bore whoever you are with after a while, but if the basic issue you are worried about is being manipulated based on that information, then you've got deeper issues and are not really engaging at an adult level. You don't prevent people from having the opportunity to manipulate you (completely impossible), you notice when people are doing it and call it out and probably cut those people out of your life if they won't (or can't!) be real with you to the degree that you need them to be. The alternative is living your life in fear when you don't have to, which is not a mature choice. I suppose by your argument it should then be illegal for anyone to have sex with you, but at the same time you would violently object to anyone trying to tell you that you do not get to make that choice for yourself because you are being immature in their eyes. See the point?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Yunzil]

What happens when Muslims ask for all any anti Muslim content to be banned?

In the US? Nothing. Do you seriously need someone to explain to you the difference between this and child pornography?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[jdogalt]

I think you've reduced your end of this nuanced important discussion of ethics to useless oversimplification. But hey, we were modded the same. The world we live in I guess.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[celle]

"We're a better society for making sure that DOESN'T happen,"

    Are we, just ask that guy who's on a sex-crime list for just having consentual sex with a girl of 16 when he was 18. Is his life better? And what about the others affected by this artificial legal stupidity. The more affected, the more society is affected.

"what's a disorder is a willingness to act on these impulses."

      Just because you disagree doesn't make it a disorder. Maybe the law or your views are the disorder. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" isn't always right, hence "If someone jumps off a bridge, should you?"
Life is action, everything else is talking out your ass. Law is often wrong, the reason we have court battles.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[jdogalt]

The real problem being that memory is faulty. You've heard the statement "if you aren't a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you aren't a conservative at 50, you have no head" (or any of the variations thereof)? People's opinions change over time, and they'll rectify that retroactively in their heads

Thanks for reminding me of the quote, but I don't think it significantly applies to my thinking in this case (though I certainly considered it for a minute). To the extent there is wisdom in that quote, I would say that it shines a light on our societies failure to produce a crop of 18 year olds that are capable of what 36 year olds (like myself) would consider 'fully informed consent'. And while at 36, I consider myself to have a significant respect for conservatives and conservatism (in the mainstream, actual reality, not idealist sense), for precisely the reason your quote has wisdom in it. But at the same time, I blame that traditional mainstream conservatism in healthy part (always keeping in mind myself and the others have more than enough remove for self-improvement)- for this global cultural failure in producing 18 year olds that in my mind are fully capable of giving 'fully informed consent' for sex/prostitution/pornography/new-car/student-loan/etc serious life decisions.

I guess one way to sum it up for me, is that 18 years ago when I was 18, I think I bought into that "The US does not torture" political BS line. 18 years later, after seeing just how much of our global socioeconomic infrastructure is still entrenched with the realities highlighted by the final debate scene in 'the great debaters', and how those themes of dominance and exploitation trickles down into even the typical mundane arena of ordinary mainstream sexual socialization... Well, I don't think my position (not that I've really expressed a clear one) on this issue boils down to the proverb you quoted. I guess I'll throw this old russian one back at you- "Everything our leaders told us about communism was a lie. Everything they told us about capitalism was the truth."

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[repapetilto]

I just meant there is clearly a correlation between age and experience. Obviously adults have both more experience and more "developed" brains than adolescents. Also, it is obvious that some people develop biologically faster than others, some never really get to the point of having "adult" thought processes, and that the rate of this development can be affected by experience.

I don't think it is out of the question that some 16 year olds may be as mature as some 40 year olds. I was trying to raise the question of: How much of a role does experience have on the rate of brain development. If the same level of responsibility was expected of a 16 year old that we currently associate with a 40 year old, would they be more or less mature at 20 years old than now. Things like that...

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[wisnoskij]

Yes, I do.
Enlighten me.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[acheron12]

Adults already know and play the mind games

Some adults do. I was bullied in elementary school, my parents' relationship seemed barely functional, and I'm pretty nerdy - I basically distrusted most humans until college (at which point my atrophied social skills had me believing I was autistic for a while) and I only started dating in grad school. I think I've made pretty rapid progress since, but needless to say I've made tons of rookie mistakes in the process.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[The Snowman]

If you think this wasn't an avenue for pedophilia, I leave you with this post from a self-admitted pedophile on Reddit, admitting that he masturbated to pictures on /r/jailbait and other "outlets" on Reddit that are now banned.

The guy seems honest enough. I think he needs help. I may not be a physician but everything I've read points to sexual deviance being hardwired in the brain. He needs to seek out a good psychiatrist who can help him suppress those feelings.

The reason is that while he may be claiming not to harm children, he is viewing material where children were (psychologically) harmed during the production of the material. Maybe he's not raping little girls, but he is providing demand, and the suppliers are harming children.

That right there is the core reason why possession of child pornography is illegal in the United States. It supports a despicable industry.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[CTachyon]

(It probably doesn't hurt to mention that I was molested by my stepfather from ages 16 to 18, so I've got a fair bit of firsthand personal experience on the matter.

Actually it does hurt, since it completely destroys the argument you are trying to support. In your situation, how did the law (that your stepfather violated) help you? What do you think would have happened, had you reported this situation to the police? Do you think their involvement would have improved the situation?

The law keeps it rare by scaring people away from doing it, and also prevents the people who do it anyway from bragging about it and normalizing it. Do you really think that repealing the law would have zero effect on the rate of, say, stepfather/stepdaughter molestation?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Surt]

Troll? These are facts backed by years of medical research on the brain.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[euroq]

In terms of intellect, being ignorant of some nobody's views has nothing to do with intellect. The fact that you think that indicates your lack of intellect.

Oh, and you're a douche.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[psiclops]

Shouldn't they just remove the posts that were illegal then?

why shut down the whole subreddit?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[psiclops]

Different countries find them illegal - DUH!

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[firefrei]

Try to ignore some of the negative responses you get for this post. I agree with you - Stallman is extremely bad at communicating his position sometimes and lacks the necessary 'tact' which geeks can sometimes deal with but most others can't. The whole business of him saying how he was glad Steve Jobs was gone went down in flames, because no matter what underlying message he was trying to present, the lack of understand of how people interpret his words meant most people's reactions to his comment were "that dude's fucked in the head."

Even trying to make a discussion in public about "voluntary pedophilia" is guaranteed to cause immense problems for the speaker, and it's not worth the repercussions by even bringing it up. Stallman has no fear because he's already considered a stubborn idiot by most, which is why he types what he does. But no-one in power or who's in a position to make change is going to be influenced by him.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[lightknight]

It's not illegal to lie to the police, murder investigation or otherwise; however, lying may be construed as an "obstruction of justice," thus the penalty (if any) varies. It is illegal to lie in court (perjury), but then that's part of the reason we have the 5th Amendment (the right not to incriminate oneself). The nuances of the American legal system are great.

"Because if you do, then you support limits to freedom of expression. And if you don't, you're just a crackpot."

Perhaps I am a crackpot. However, waving your hand and dismissing my argument as such does not make it any less valid.

"Guess what: freedom of expression has NEVER been an absolute right in the US, or anywhere else."

Freedom of speech is, pardon, was an absolute right; however, as an absolute right, it requires the people who formulated and supported that right to continue to support and defend it, even and especially in times of confusion / adversity. It is comparable to the idea of private property, where your rights to your body and your belongings may be guaranteed only so long as others agree that you have any rights to them. Once people begin to have the idea that your property is their property, and that they can decide what you can / will do with your body...it becomes excessively difficult to defend them, to the point that a generation may pass without ever knowing that they were once absolute.

"There are dozens and dozens of limits placed on freedom of expression in the name of "the public interest.""

And not one of them is valid / not in conflict with the supreme law of this land. You might as well argue that because I stole your bike, thievery has placed limits on your rights to your property. That my friends and I agree that your rights to your bike are superseded by thievery does not mean that your rights are non-absolute.

"And your attempt to link any action ever taken in the public interest to the fucking Holocaust is incredibly weak."

Prove it. Prove that the link is weak. Any disenfranchisement of the whole for the sake of a minority or a majority will inevitably lead to a dictatorship. There is no time limit of the effects of horrible laws, and they continue to ripple throughout our society without contest.

 

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[lightknight]

Reddit, while privately owned, enjoys its popularity (and cash flow) due to its relatively open policies regarding speech. It's an online discussion site: that's what people do on there, they post some content, and they discuss it. The mods are tasked with keeping spam at a minimum / ensuring that each subreddit contains material actually on topic or in the spirit of things.

When it begins deciding what stays and what goes, not on the basis legal / illegal, but on the basis of what people might be doing / thinking, it sends a cold wind throughout the site. Today this issue (which everyone will nod their heads, and say is an awesome idea), tomorrow it will be NSFW posts (which everyone will nod their heads, and say is an awesome idea), then it will be the Ponies subreddit (because grown men interested in that kind of stuff is weird...probably thinking about raping a child / pulling off a bank heist / terrorism or something), then it will be the Science / Pics / Economics / Star Wars subreddits (because pictures might not be safe for some of Reddit's viewers, and the others because who has time to read that kind of stuff? The science thing because they might have some information on how to build a bomb, the Star Wars because it promotes violence, and Economics because it promotes unrest with information about the health of our fair country), and so on.

Some people see it as bringing "morality" to the site, others see it as a prelude to a new Dark Age / witch-hunts. Guess which group is typically right? That's correct, the pessimists (studies have shown they live longer).

But more importantly, it'll eventually kill Reddit. As /. & Kuro5hin have experienced, when enough of their user-base gets pissed about constantly being trolled / down-voted / not being able to discuss topics, however weird or irrelevant, an exodus is in the making. A few at first, a few more later, then suddenly the traffic is dropping by several percent a month, and in a few years, the site is all but dead. Disagree with me as you like, (and I may be down-voted for saying this) but /. has been hurting in terms of the quality of its comments and the quantity of its readership. There was a time when duplicated postings got 400 remarks about the mods being asleep; even accounting for their new tag system, you don't really see that anymore. http://www.google.com/trends/?q=slashdot.org

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

reddit never said the pictures were illegal, they don't want their site to be a pedo hangout because it attracts unwanted attention (from SA, etc.). it's easier to keep undesirables out then it is to discourage undesirable behavior, how would you like it if a section 8 complex, check cashing joint, and popeyes opened near your home.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[almechist]

A good case can be made that drug prohibition has actually increased the availability and use of drugs, so probably this is not the best comparison you could make. Also, one could easily argue that making CP illegal increases its scarcity and thus the value actually goes up, not down, to those who really want it. Just because we find something unwholesome, that does not automatically mean that making it illegal is the right policy. It's pretty clear that there are often major unintended consequences of legally prohibiting stuff - whatever it may be - that a significant percentage of the population truly desires to have.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[cheekyjohnson]

I never said much about reddit.

I'm simply replying to people who seem to be on pedophile witch hunts because some people are looking at images.

they don't want their site to be a pedo hangout

Then people shouldn't visit that portion of the website (not to mention the fact that there probably aren't that many pedophiles anyway).

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[cheekyjohnson]

The reason is that while he may be claiming not to harm children, he is viewing material where children were (psychologically) harmed during the production of the material. Maybe he's not raping little girls, but he is providing demand, and the suppliers are harming children.

I'd say that's the fault of the suppliers (the people I think we should go after).

In any case, did he actually view material where children were being psychologically harmed? It looked like he just frequented the subreddits that were banned (and those didn't contain actual illegal child porn).

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[cheekyjohnson]

The fact that you think that indicates your lack of intellect.

The fact that you think that indicates your lack of intellect. Aha!

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[AK Marc]

Believing that you look at things differently when older is true. However, because of how human nature works, you are always right. So if 36 year old you and 18 year old you disagree, if you are 18, the 18 year old you is right. If you are 36, then your 36 year old you is right. As you are 36, you are no longer able to judge your 18 year old self. It's a failing of the human psyche. Self delusion is hard-wired into people.

I'm a die-hard liberal. Why? Because everyone in power is all wrong, so change has to be better than what we have now. Unfortunately, in the US, "liberal" = conservative socialist.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[CTachyon]

Adults already know and play the mind games

Some adults do. I was bullied in elementary school, my parents' relationship seemed barely functional, and I'm pretty nerdy - I basically distrusted most humans until college (at which point my atrophied social skills had me believing I was autistic for a while) and I only started dating in grad school. I think I've made pretty rapid progress since, but needless to say I've made tons of rookie mistakes in the process.

This is a good point, one that I nearly brought up in my original post. I was in a similar boat, due to Asperger's as much as to the obvious reason.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

You both need to come down from your now dead horses. We need to beat those a bit more.

Maybe people should give children / young adults responsibilities that they can handle. As in, you as the adult/parent make a call on what you think your child can handle.

Parenting its called I think. As in, raise your own bloody kids stop asking the government to do so. This might mean a few more dead kids as some parents a bastards, some kids are *really* fucking stupid and some are unlucky.

Darwin would of been proud...

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C.S. Lewis

The correct way to punctuate a sentence that states: "Of course it is none of my business, but -- " is to place a period after the word "but." Don't use excessive force in supplying such a moron with a period. Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about. Robert A. Heinlein

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[pantaril]

"You mean sexual imagery of children wasn't already against the rules?

I realy doubt there were images of actual children having actual sex on site like reddit even before the change. Does someone have a sample of such "sexualized child" image?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

I was into hard porn at age 9 - only going heavier for a number of years, I had several (though not very violent) rape attempts, drug, alcohol assisted, blatant and shameless trickery (and only 2 years age difference for that last one). Note: I was the aggressor. Over a decade of not fighting back when hit - even to this day. But in a sexual context I was ready to tear apart anyone who didn't have the good sense to GTFO. And why, you ask? Well, it's reasonable that a 9y.o. wouldn't get much luck with the ladies - but years of forced abstinence and bit of eager hormones turned me into a sexual predator before I actually had any experience. My point is, some of us mature early, and need a normal environment for sexual development - these "protect teh children" laws turn a small but significant percentage of these children into cold blooded predators. I know it because I can still feel that predatorial need, throwing itself at the cage bars.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[badkarmadayaccount]

Some aren't. Some over 18 as well. Darn it this thread is making me depressed in the most humiliating way.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[crawling_chaos]

As long as you recognize that those lows utterly erase the highs. Stallman represents the very example of Churchill's definition of a fanatic: someone who can't change their mind and won't change the subject.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[ethan0]

holy shit.

this might be the first time on the internet anybody has used the term "beg the question" correctly.

I'm a week late, but I witnessed it.

Jeans

[erick99]

Now, if we could get the folks who market jeans and other clothing to teens to stop using sexually suggestive images of people under 18 . . .

Re:Jeans

[MightyMartian]

And the major TV networks...

Re:Jeans

[elfprince13]

If I had mod points, you would be modded up right now. Also the first post.

Re:Jeans

[OzPeter]

Now, if we could get the folks who market everything to anyone to stop using sexually suggestive images . . .

Sadly I have to go with FTFY

Re:Jeans

[dgatwood]

Now, if we could get the folks who market jeans and other clothing to teens to stop using sexually suggestive images of people under 18 . . .

...or get the parents to stop letting their kids dress that way. We're not talking about kiddie porn here where someone is being abused. We're talking about idiot teens dressing like hookers by choice, posting pics of it, and then everybody getting all up in arms because those pics get spread around. Don't want those sorts of pics to be so common? Try telling your kids "no" once in a while. Just saying.

Treating the symptom doesn't cure the disease. The pictures are the symptom.

Re:Jeans

[killmenow]

*cough*Disney*cough*

Re:Jeans

[gmhowell]

Wasn't the "nothing gets between me and my Calvins" chick a bit younger than 18 in Blue Lagoon?

Re:Jeans

[mcrbids]

Oh, wouldn't it be nice if all those loving parents just put the smack down on their obviously under-disciplined children? You haven't parented children. Come back with an informed opinion when you have.

Now speaking to the problems...

1) The term "pedophile" in a medical sense actually refers to people who are attracted to pre-pubescent children . Clearly this is a problem since 9 year olds can't reproduce.

2) The term "pedophile" in a more of a legal sense refers to people attracted to people under a certain age.(18 being common, but actually ranges to anywhere from 12 to 20).

Think about this for a moment: a range that differs by some 80% of its base value, as the basis of whether or not we should ruin somebody's life. 12 is legal in some places, in others you have to be almost 2x as old to afford the same legal protections! Clearly, the age of "adult" is an imprecise measurement, at the very least.

Biologically speaking, it's appropriate for men to be attracted to young females. They are healthy, don't already have children, and are likely to be available for bearing children. If you are a guy and you want to generate posterity, paying particular attention to newly minted young women is a particularly successful strategy. 200 years ago, it was pretty common for a young woman to be wed at 14, and an 18 year old unwed woman was regarded to be almost a spinster. Life was simple, life expectancies short, rules weren't so arbitrary.

Enter civilization, which lengthens lifespans but doesn't lengthen puberty. Abstract ideas create complex hard rules somewhat divorced from individual situations. Life is more complex, and the ramifications of a bad decision can be much worse, and it takes much longer for people to be truly cognizant of the effects of their actions.

But millions of years of evolution (or a moody, jealous god, your choice) have created a life form that is hard-wired to reproduce at about age 15 to 16, while the circumstances of that life form in its present circumstance has the real, ideal age of reproduction some 10 years later. Young people are impressionable and easily manipulated, and society seeks to defend their decisions by letting them incubate longer before making major decisions.

Folks, this situation just isn't going to end well for everyone.

While we should definitely work to defend young, newly sexually active people from the manipulations of far more experienced adults, we shouldn't ruin the lives of people who otherwise do what they are hard wired to do. And we certainly shouldn't group them with people who have an actual, diagnosed mental disorder.

I'm a father of adult children. One of my sons had a healthy, sexual relationship with a young lady 4 years, 3 months his junior. It was a courteous, long-term relationship, and he was civil and polite the entire time. It was terrifying to me, and there was precious little I could do about it. He was legally an adult, but had any authorities found out about it, could have face serious legal consequences, including being branded a "sexual offender" for life, treated as a diseased sexual deviant that he is not.

Try telling my kid no? Puleeeeaaaase.... your ignorance is part of the problem.

Re:Jeans

[dgatwood]

Your kids almost certainly aren't the ones dressing up like a hooker and posting pics on Facebook. Hint: my rant was not directed at you or your kids.

I agree with you that the law is problematically broken as designed and has unfortunate edge case problems. That might have some bearing on the legality of pics after they cross a certain line. It doesn't have any bearing on why those pics exist in the first place.

The latter problem is caused by two things: 1. really lousy role models coming from the entertainment industry and 2. parents who leave their kids in front of the TV all day and use it to babysit their kids and teach them values instead of doing it themselves, thus causing those kids to excessively idolize those poor role models.

The only way to fix that is for all (or at least the majority) of the parents in the world to break the cycle of those bad influences early and often. Sure, it may not always work in every individual case, but if everyone as a society agrees to try, over the course of decades, things will improve on the whole. If we as a society do not, things will almost certainly continue to worsen.

BTW, the ideal age of reproduction is getting earlier and earlier, as is the age at which they start to be interested in sex. The main reason this is such a problem is that kids today are physically maturing sooner, but are maturing emotionally later. Although one could argue that this is a good reason to protect them from sex until their mid-twenties, one could also argue that the late emotional development is a problem that needs to be fixed, and soon, before we end up a world populated by 50-year-old children.... :-)

And no, I'm not naïve. None of the things I describe will keep teenagers from having sex. Being sexually active is not the same thing as being sexually promiscuous and overt. The former is common and natural. The latter is usually a sign of an underlying problem that needs to be addressed, whether that's drinking, drug abuse, or serious self esteem problems.

Re:Jeans

[Antique Geekmeister]

You mean Brooke Shields. She was apparently 14 when she made those ads, and I remember them. She looked rather seductive. She also did numerous nude scenes through her teens, some in the movie "Pretty Baby" about child prostitituion, which I've not seen but am now curious aobut.

Re:Jeans

[fafaforza]

I honestly despise FTFY responses. You're putting words on people's mouths, or telling them that they misrepresented their own thought in what they wrote. It seems very rude and presumptuous. Honestly, why are you a better judge of the thoughts that are in my head than me?

Re:Jeans

[drinkypoo]

Now, if we could get the folks who market jeans and other clothing to teens to stop using sexually suggestive images of people under 18 . . .

...or get the parents to stop letting their kids dress that way.

First of all, these kids are humans. So while they don't have legal rights to speak of, that's not a good thing. Talking about them like they're monkeys won't get you anywhere, with them or with anyone else. Second, you can't control them when they're out of your sight. Kids are trading and selling their other stuff to get clothes, or just stealing them. Then they smuggle out the clothes, maybe hiding them at an outside location, and change after leaving the house. So just telling them not to wear the clothing is not an effective remedy.

Third, people purchase what is advertised to them. Advertising uses well-known techniques to deliberately manipulate the mind of the buyer, usually to make them feel inadequate if they do not have your product. Children are especially vulnerable to this influence. Particularly young children cannot even separate commercials and television shows. It is worth noting that many people never gain substantial resistance to advertising, and remain utterly vulnerable all their lives. It doesn't help that everyone around them and every authority figure encourages them to purchase products without regard for whether they are needed.

Treating the symptom doesn't cure the disease. The pictures are the symptom.

Yes, the pictures on the billboards are a symptom of a system utterly sick with capitalism, a systemic infection which far from having learned to fight it, we are still at a stage where most of us want the disease, because we think it serves us. Capitalism is the equivalent of botox; limited and superficial rewards now, for a lifetime of suffering and reduced function and ultimately winding up an inhuman wackjob.

Re:Jeans

[GameboyRMH]

Relevant quote:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0576930/quotes?qt0236135

Re:Jeans

[shutdown -p now]

I honestly love FTFY responses. You're putting words on people's mouths, or telling them that they misrepresented their own thought in what they wrote. It seems very polite and courteous . Honestly, surely you are a better judge of the thoughts that are in my head than me!

FTFY.

Re:Jeans

[Murasaki Skies]

I honestly love FTFY responses. You're putting words in people's mouths, or telling them that they misrepresented their own thought in what they wrote. It seems very polite and courteous. (space before period removed) Honestly, surely you are a better judge of the thoughts that are in my head than me!

FTFY.

Re:Jeans

[fafaforza]

Hmm? I didn't make any comment on advertising. I'm a bit confused with your comment.

If you disagree with someone's comment, offer a response or a rebuke. But don't tell them that what they wrote isn't their actual thought, or that they did not mean to write it, and instead made a mistake. It's very rude.

Re:Jeans

[badkarmadayaccount]

And how do you address those underling issues all at once? (no, I'm not that fucked up. I'm even more fucked up.)

Moral Panic

[Nicknamename]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

Re:Moral Panic

[0100010001010011]

Kids? Sorry. 17 is not a "Kid". In almost every century of human's existence this was considered an adult. You think the "Virgin Mary" was 23? She was most likely 14/15.

Not to mention the double standards of arbitrary age that is defined at 18. I wish I could find the exact quote but it essentially goes like this: "The age of consent in most states is under the age of majority as defined by the feds. If you were were to have sex with a 16 year old it would be legal in numerous states. If her friend was there she couldn't watch, but could join in. Nothing could be video taped as it would be 'making child pornography'. However if any of the 16 year olds involved were to murder or rape any other person in the threesome they would be tried as an adult."

Lets just make anything under 30 child pornography. Move the drinking age and smoking age to 45, since that will fix everything. Americans parents can keep sticking their heads in the ground about everything and that'll solve everything. Vs say the Dutch who accept the fact that teens are going to act like teens and consequently have a lower pregnancy rate.

Re:Moral Panic

[Nicknamename]

0) It's not moral equivalency. You misunderstood.

1) Read the link, and try to understand the social phenomenon it is describing. Obviously, since you are caught up in it, it won't be easy. Make an effort.

2) Do you think it's healthy that 40% of news stories are about paedophilia? (Obviously, I'm pulling a number out of my ass, but whatever it is, it's extremely high.)

3) Do you think it's healthy that such a large percentage of conversations is about paedophilia?

4) Etiology. Ever heard of it?

5) DSM. Ever heard of it?

6) Psychology. Ever heard of it?

7) Psychiatry. Ever heard of it?

8) Since you're most likely a "moral atheist," three free exit questions: How would Jesus treat the mentally ill? How would the average "moral atheist" treat the mentally ill? Who's more superstitious, when you get down to it? (And when answering the second question, don't be disingenuous. We already have sufficient empirical evidence to know the truth.)



Something written by stupid people. Probably wouldn't interest someone as brilliant as you.



P.S. Long live the Police State. It's the only thing that can keep our children safe from the mentally ill. (Who are evil. Mentally ill people are evil, never forget that.) And long live Government regulation of the Internet. It's the only thing that can keep our children safe from the mentally ill. And long live complete/total surveillance of every citizen. It's the only thing that can keep our children safe from the mentally ill.
Try to thing things through, retards.

And yeah, I'm replying to myself because it's a reply to all of you myopic, single-minded retards, not one of you in particular.

Re:Moral Panic

[Johann Lau]

uhm, wtf? what's your point? it's hard to not draw a perfectly clear line in all cases, so why bother at all?

Re:Moral Panic

[cheekyjohnson]

I know. Anyone who criticizes you must indeed be a pedophile themselves. There are only two sides here, after all.

Re:Moral Panic

[TFAFalcon]

If we wanted to protect children, we'd raise the minimum age required to enlist in the army. 30 years sounds about right.

Re:Moral Panic

[Nicknamename]

Try to think*



The voice of one calling in the wilderness...

Re:Moral Panic

[Nicknamename]

Well, I'll say this much. If the people modding you down had instead modded me up, I would have been much happier.



There is no point in modding people like you down. Humanity is full of people like you. No one is ever going to be capable of modding all of you down.

Re:Moral Panic

[Nicknamename]

"Earlier today, forum members of the comedy website Something Awful coordinated a mass-message to websites, members of government, and media outlets about Reddit's lenience towards subreddits containing sexualized images of people under the age of 18 (commonly referred to as "jailbait")."

It's a fucking moral panic. And it doesn't actually solve anything (a typical symptom of a moral panic).


Also, anyone interested in /r/3DBabyWieners is clearly mentally ill. How about some sympathy for mentally ill people instead of constant counterproductive demonization? Nah, forget about it. This is the 21st century, and I'm a "Progressive." Mentally ill people are clearly evil.

Re:Moral Panic

[Nicknamename]

Some of the moderators are sickos.



Yes, and what do you propose we do about it? A good dose of Zyklon B perhaps ("the Final Cure")? I'm ok with that, since I don't believe in evil. How about you, bonch, are you ok with that?

Moral Equivalence

[sonamchauhan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_equivalence

Re:Moral Equivalence

[Anthony Mouse]

Moral equivalence doesn't really refute the moral panic argument... there is nothing less unsavory that the behavior in question is alleged to be equivalent to.

If anything it supports that this is a moral panic: Topless seventeen year olds are in no way equivalent to fornicating six year olds. Yet what we see consistently is that legitimate outrage directed at the latter is used to create draconian laws and massive public pressure to eliminate the former, even though it isn't in any way more harmful than if the same picture was taken a month later when the girl was eighteen.

It's the same thing we see with the copyright industries: Actual counterfeit drugs that kill patients are terrible but not common whereas noncommercial copyright infringement is common but not terrible. Actual child pornography is terrible but not common whereas "barely not legal" jailbait is common but not terrible. They aren't the same thing and deserve to be addressed separately rather than indiscriminately lumped together.

Re:Moral Equivalence

[Nicknamename]

"Earlier today, forum members of the comedy website Something Awful coordinated a mass-message to websites, members of government, and media outlets about Reddit's lenience towards subreddits containing sexualized images of people under the age of 18 (commonly referred to as "jailbait"). Hours after the campaign began, Reddit admins expressly banned the content and banned several subreddits, including r/jailbaitarchives, r/truejailbait, and r/preteen_girls."

If you still can't see how this is a moral panic, well, I just don't know.

Also, it's one thing to not know what a moral panic is. It's another thing to know what a moral panic is, and not care. It's another thing entirely to know what a moral panic is and to try to prevent others from understanding what it is with an intentionally nonsequiturial comment.

Also...

i can't believe Something Awful has

[decora]

finally done something productive and contributory to society. i am gobsmacked.

Re:i can't believe Something Awful has

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it was mostly just because they don't like reddit.

Re:i can't believe Something Awful has

[bonch]

Consider it making up for giving the world /b (which began as an offshoot of the FYAD subforum).

Re:i can't believe Something Awful has

[Anonymous Coward]

Fighting child pornography, or getting Reddit "banned?" It's obvious from the thread that they primarily hate Reddit, for various reasons. And that while most material posted to the subreddits in question are legal if reprehensible, some user-posted material is not, and this is a handy attack vector against the site.

Re:i can't believe Something Awful has

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they likely haven't.

All they've done is highlight an arena to shut down under social net pressure. A portal, that was probably a resource for law enforcement agencies to locate and prosecute those actually doing the child exploitation and posting the pictures. Or, at least a trail to them. Now, they will just go back to the hidden seedy parts of the net that it crept out from.

Re:i can't believe Something Awful has

[Doctor_Jest]

If it were anybody but SomethingAwful, I'd agree with you. SA has had a boner for Reddit for YEARS... it's really childish, to be honest. Just because they happen to latch onto a specific thing that might actually be good doesn't absolve them of the e-penis envy they've had for years.

Re:i can't believe Something Awful has

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this comment hidden? It's the most insightful comment on the page.

SA did this to prank reddit. But of course reddit can't fight back, because anyone who does not declare their opposition to child pornography loudly and repeatedly is by definition a pedophile.

Re:i can't believe Something Awful has

[cheekyjohnson]

Not once in your comment did you claim to be super mega ultra anti-child porn. What are you, some sort of pedophile?

It will be missed...

[Anonymous Coward]

...by the FBI (honeypot) and your boss (honeypot?)

Re:It will be missed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, maybe the FBI has enough IP addresses to last a couple of decades to prosecute?

Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[QCompson]

How dare these creeps sexualize teenage girls with big firm full breasts? That sort of sexual attraction is completely unnatural and twisted. I'm glad reddit has taken the step of eliminating these pictures of fully clothed busty girls.

Next challenge: prevent men from looking at busty teenage jailbait out in public. These perverts must be stopped.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[ChinggisK]

I would point out that TFS clearly states that one of the subreddits was " pre teen_girls"; as in, not even teenagers yet.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[bonch]

You sound like all the other creeps who were ranting and raving about this on Reddit. Naked pictures of a 14 year old girl are illegal. Sexual imagery of preteen girls is child porn. The main subreddit in question was called /r/preteen_girls for god's sake. One of the subreddits was devoted to encouraging underage girls to submit photos of themselves to the site--you okay with that?

Hell, you're creepy just for using the word "jailbait" to describe underage girls.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[RyoShin]

Let's just have all minors dress as nuns until they turn 18. Not only will this remove the possibility of jailbait, but it means that if someone is wearing normal clothes you'll know they're legal and can go about things without worries.

(What was that quote? "The best thing about teenage girls is that they remain the same age as I get older"?)

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Find pictures of busty 17-year, 11-month old wome...err, "girls" fully-clothed.
2) Post on reddit
3) Get multiben's panties in a twist
4) Trollface

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[QCompson]

If you get your kicks from looking at sexually and emotionally immature girls then you need to see someone.

I agree. These teenage girls with big firm perky breasts are obviously sexually immature and it is "creepy" for any human male to look at them in a sexual context.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about naked pictures? /r/jailbait and the others explicitly outlawed pornography.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[multiben]

The term pre-teen girls means 12 or under. Clearly that is what I'm talking about here. RTFA properly.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[king neckbeard]

So, everyone who was aroused by the music video for '...Baby One More Time", featuring a sixteen year old Britney Spears, is creepy?

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the issue becomes blured, As we were growing up the internet was just begining to take off (im 26 now I got on prodigy somewhere around 92 or 93), when i was 15 and 16, I wanted to look for other people my own age and I am sure a lot of other teens do the same.

the issue becomes how do we really know that the person looking at 15 year olds is also in that age range and not some 55 year old perv.

2 like aged, but under 18 year olds looking at each other is normal

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[ganjadude]

but what about all the preteen boys who want to look at like aged girls???

and besides, since when do people over the age of 16 use reddit???

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[ganjadude]

the quote was

"the best thing about high school girls is while i keep getting older they stay the same age...yes they do yes they do.."

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Junta]

He did explicitly call out the subset of anatomically mature 'girls' and you explicitly called out the subset of prepubescent children. It may be creepy if he is in his 50s and looking at 17-year-olds, but shouldn't be any more creepy than looking at 19-year-old girls. If there is no anatomical or emotional way to tell and you have to bust out a birth cirtificate to be sure, it seems kind of arbitrary. I'm pretty sure 19-year olds are rarely ever substantially more ready to deal with these circumstances than 17-year olds. No one was claiming that there was anything particularly normal or acceptable about preteen material.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[MightyMartian]

Picture it being your daughter, and some creepy motherfucker eyeing her up. Put yourself in someone else's shoes.

Shitting is a natural function as well, but that doesn't mean you take a crap in the middle of the street.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[king neckbeard]

I would suggest you do the same, preteen_girls was the only subreddit closed that I noticed that specifically mentioned preteens.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

/r/teen_girls has been removed as well

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Junta]

Naked pictures of a 14 year old girl are illegal.

I don't think that's so simple. I never did medical school, but I sure hope my kid's pediatrician had an education that included anatomical texts with nude underage people. I'm also pretty sure there exist nudist colonies where children are allowed. Also who doesn't have parents with embarassing childhood pictures that include nudity? 14 may be a bit old for the childhood pictures bit, but the other two scenarios seem likely enough.

Other than that, I agree. The only exception is how people pining for 17-year olds are horrible people but people pining for 18-year olds are not. Any delineation must unfortunately be arbitrary, but some people embrace that delineation with an inappropriate degree of zeal without recognition of the situation as a continuum rather than a step function, with immature people over 18 and mature people just shy of 18.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[QCompson]

Picture it being your daughter, and some creepy motherfucker eyeing her up. Put yourself in someone else's shoes.

Males looking at my fully clothed daughters? The horror! This is why all my daughters must wear burkas in public until the day they reach 18. Once they're 18 though, it's fair game for pervs to check them out.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[LordLucless]

Actually, I'm pretty sure most of the viewers were doing so in their own home.

Would you rather them be doing it in their bathroom instead?

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[LordLucless]

I would point out that TFS clearly states that one of the subreddits was " pre teen_girls"; as in, not even teenagers yet.

FTFY

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Meditato]

Yes. It was ONE of the subreddits. That was definitely a worthy ban. And there were a couple more good bans as well. But a large number of those subreddits were of fully clothed girls, many over the age of 18. One or two of the those subreddits were for girls exclusively over the age of 18. They just nuked a whole series of subreddits without verifying that all of them were a problem, presumably because SomethingAwful spooked them.

Additionally, US. vs. Knox defined Child Porn as any medium depicting sexual behavior in a child. A 16 year old girl in a bathing suit is not necessary depicting sexual behavior. It may be externally sexualized, as in, observers masturbate to it, but is that enough to call it porn? People masturbate to normal pictures of feet. Are we to define pornography on the basis of who gets off to it, as opposed to the original intent? And is that enough to ban a subreddit full of 16+ year olds who are clothed, or at most, dressed in bathing suits?

I'm certainly not a fan of sexually objectifying children, but it seems to me that there are still some hard issues here that haven't been addressed.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[MightyMartian]

Wow. I didn't know condemning lechery could get one modded down.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I stare at all of my friends sexually mature daughters. I'd fuck them all if given the chance.

It must be tough not being an alpha male.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you too are under age, then you just pretty much planted yourself in the 'creepy' category. The deliberate distribution of images of under age girls, in particular r/preteen_girls, is nothing short of despicable. If you get your kicks from looking at sexually and emotionally immature girls then you need to see someone. The effects on girls who suffer from this kind of exploitation are huge and can last a lifetime. Next time you are checking out some hot children for your own seedy satisfaction, I suggest you think about what events have preciptated their need to sexualise themselves for the predators amongst us.

Yeah. Think of the children!

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[MightyMartian]

If you tell your friends that, you'll be lucky if you have functioning genitals at the end of the day.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Johann Lau]

Other than that, I agree. The only exception is how people pining for 17-year olds are horrible people but people pining for 18-year olds are not. Any delineation must unfortunately be arbitrary, but some people embrace that delineation with an inappropriate degree of zeal without recognition of the situation as a continuum rather than a step function, with immature people over 18 and mature people just shy of 18.

Well, sure. But the way I see it, thresholds like 16 or 18 do a reasonably good job at ensuring people beyond them have certain maturity with a certain likelihood, and that's good enough.

Or put differently: a mature 14 year old in love with a 20 year old will just have to wait a bit -- big deal! Even 1000 such "tragedies" cannot outweigh one case of abuse. Pushing the thresholds down just so a few people can get it on a tiny bit sooner, or saying it has to be decided case by case, IMHO simply opens the doors to bad stuff, without much benefit to justify that. I'm not saying it's perfect as is, but it's better than nothing.

"Age" is still the best indicator we have. If anyone disagrees,they should come up with another criterion that can be measured objectively. I'm not seeing that.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[QCompson]

I'm still trying to figure out exactly when looking at pictures of clothed people became equivalent to having sex with them.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

hehe. Keep it up dude! :D If I had mod points, I'd upvote all your posts.

Some people really get hung up on odd-ball laws, and numbers. Especially numbers. She's 17? You're a pervert for looking. She's 18? Fuck her to kingdom-cum!! :D

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Johann Lau]

who's saying it's equivalent? glorification of violence is considered bad by some because of undesirable properties of violence, but not because it's equivalent to it. similar for leering over clothed minors because they're naked under those clothes.... I'm still trying to figure out wether some posters here are genuinely that naive, or just acting it, you know?

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[king neckbeard]

Or put differently: a mature 14 year old in love with a 20 year old will just have to wait a bit -- big deal! Even 1000 such "tragedies" cannot outweigh one case of abuse.

That's generally the opposite of how our legal system works, at least if the tragedy is the 20 year old and 14 year old having sex, someone reporting it, and the 20 year old being a registered sex offender.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Johann Lau]

well, that can be avoided by not having sex in that case.

but how can you avoid being talked into sex by a grown up when you're 12? that's where the problem of having a one-age-fits-all law. as I said, if there's a better way I haven't heard it... and moaning about cases as you mentioned, as sad as they may be, doesn't change that either, because if I had to be real cruel about it, I'd say that's just using a bunch of horny teens used as an excuse to dilute the line when it comes to child fucking.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[king neckbeard]

Picture it being your daughter, and some creepy motherfucker eyeing her up. Put yourself in someone else's shoes.

Or in other words, put yourself in the shoes of a madman. Parents are often crazy in regards to their children, and perhaps the worst case on average is the father in regards to his daughter, which would be what's relevant here.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Johann Lau]

holy crap, even I have trouble deciphering what I just wrote there, and I just wrote it! haha sorry.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[king neckbeard]

Explaining good touch, bad touch, and stranger danger would be the key IMO. That would depend upon good parenting, although it might be something to bring up in schools as well.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Issarlk]

Except in clothing catalogs, ads, commercials, movies, etc... Moral is serious business, but there's more important things in life (money).

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's just everybody who watches that kind of "music" :)

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

You were clearly talking about both and the article is also clearly about both. It also was about some subreddits that were just cought in the crappy draggnet but that's besides the point that you clearly talked about under age in general and pre-teen only in particular.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[makomk]

Assuming girls are their father's property to control and to protect from the corrupting influence of sex tends to be a bit controversial these days, especially once they're 17 year olds and entirely capable of thinking for themselves. Can't imagine why that might be; why would anyone object to good old patriarchy anyway?

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[QCompson]

Ok, then what is your point exactly? That people should be prevented from leering over anyone clothed under the age of 25? Or just that we allow it to happen and "consider it bad"?

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Johann Lau]

no, my point is to not engage in dumb fucking sophistry.

and this is about reddit shutting down something very specific after all, not whatever slippery slope you're on about.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[geminidomino]

That was my first thought. Most fathers I know (and one doting uncle I can speak authoritatively for) would probably react the same way whether their "little girl" was 17 or 37.

GP's example was probably not the best to use

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Asic Eng]

This is difficult for all of us who have daughters, but they will grow up, they will be sexually attractive to others - and they will want to be sexually attractive to others.

As a parent you are afraid for your daughter, you worry, you want to protect her. That's natural, and you need to try and guide her. However you also need to come to terms with her becoming an independent sexually aware person. There will never be legislation which will spare you that, and there shouldn't be.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[shutdown -p now]

Picture it being your daughter, and some creepy motherfucker eyeing her up. Put yourself in someone else's shoes.

Also picture it being somewhere early 19th-century. In which case, you being in those shoes, you'd probably start thinking about whether the guy eyeing your daughter up would make a worthy party - and if yes, then they'd likely be married by the time she's 14, and have kids by the time she's 15.

Which is to say, your appeal to emotional reaction is just that, and said emotional reaction is not "natural" - it's strictly a part of our cultural upbringing. And, funny thing, sexual instincts don't care in the slightest about culture and upbringing, it's all hardwired on visual and pheromone level.

So, yes, if you think that no-one eyes your sexually mature teen daughter while being sexually aroused, you're very mistaken - unless she is extremely ugly. To be completely safe in the knowledge that it will never occur, you'll probably need to unscrew genitals on all unmarried males who know her and are themselves sexually mature as well.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[shutdown -p now]

Or put differently: a mature 14 year old in love with a 20 year old will just have to wait a bit -- big deal! Even 1000 such "tragedies" cannot outweigh one case of abuse.

Tragedy is not when they wait. Tragedy is when they don't (and, admit it, a 20 year old is not quite an even-headed adult yet, even if we consider him past that magical 18 year old barrier), and end up in prison for 5-10 years and a sexual offender record for the rest of their lives. That happens with depressing regularity today.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Nimey]

There /are/ nudist colonies where kids are allowed.

A few jobs back one of my coworkers went to nudist colonies and he'd show me brochures that had pictures (at the time I was interested in the lifestyle). Most of the people shown were unattractive middle-aged types (possibly to scare off the peepers), but one of them was this girl who must've been thirteen or fourteen; at any rate she was just old enough to start developing her breasts.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Johann Lau]

that's a.) completely cool to the alternative, no protection of minors at all, and b.) pretty much restricted to the USA. so maybe that's the problem, not the age limit.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[shutdown -p now]

What happened to "better have ten criminals go unpunished, then to execute one innocent man"?

And it's restricted to USA largely because age of consent is much lower elsewhere.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also pretty sure there exist nudist colonies where children are allowed.

Sure, a few years back I frequented a clothing-optional campground with friends. Skinny-dipping, sunbathing, or just doing chores around the camp site with several family groups would include a number of people aged from 7 to 70 quite frequently.

It is considered polite not to leer at your buddy's 14yo daughter.

Back then, the only real rule (imposed by the camp site) on photography was that you didn't photograph ANYONE unless you had their permission first.

Of course, these days, I'm betting the camp site has had to make a number of changes.

Oddly enough, this was in the bible belt ...

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[psiclops]

What happened to "better have ten criminals go unpunished, then to execute one innocent man"?

it's not as effective a method of controlling your populace.

It wasnt really CP

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean photos like : http://imgur.com/d4Ymc dont qualify as CP do they? cause thats what most of the content was
Oh, and thanks SA for pushing people who watched photos minors willing took and posted of themselves towards the darker parts of the net where actual children would be being exploited for photos

plz make another post like this

[decora]

entitled "lax attitudes towards child labor", then we could throw in the entire tech industry and the mountain of factories in china.

Re:plz make another post like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, this certainly has anything at all to do with the topic. Way to deflect.

Reddit is the new USENET

[Anonymous Coward]

Except now it will be like a moderated USENET.

Something Awful put a user for 3 days as a example

[Anonymous Coward]

No one sees anything fishy.

Re:Lax attitudes toward apostasy

[Anonymous Coward]

"There has to be a line drawn between OMG-FREEDOM-AT-ALL-COSTS and posting inappropriate statements regarding Muhammad. Living in a civil society requires some level of protection of decency. Reddit should shut the hell up about slippery slopes and do what it should have done six freaking years ago."

Ever stop to think that maybe some people have given thought to this issue and just happen to share Stallman's opinion on this, even without knowing (or caring) that the great almighty Stallman happens to agree with them? You are welcome to voice and argue your moral beliefs, but nothing good comes from assuming by default that anyone that disagrees with you is evil / brainwashed / stupid.

Hit piece

[trolman]

Looks like a hit piece from Slashdotters that are loosing the techies to the Reddies. Slashdot rarely has an interesting discussion about tech and when it does there are many politico non-techs. The poor moderation just makes it less tolerable.
I have been in IT for 30 working years. I want to talk/read tech and maybe have some politics thrown into the mix. I have spent much more time commenting and voting on Reddit in three months than I have the past 14 years on Slashdot.

Re:Hit piece

[ganjadude]

reddit is miserable, it makes 4chan look like a decent site. We all hate the slashmod system but at least the site is clean, reddit is like someone threw up on the screen

Re:Hit piece

[Doctor_Jest]

Seriously? *boggle*. Yes, there are dark corners of reddit (since you can make your own subreddit if you want), but if you stick to the lighted areas (linux, debian, buildapc, metal, etc.) you won't be "shocked." Just going to 4chan's main site is enough to induce vomiting without going to /b....

Re:Hit piece

[ganjadude]

to be clear I was referring to design, not content, reddit is unbearable to me anyway

Re:Hit piece

[Doctor_Jest]

You do have a point there. It is rather hideous. :) Of course there are a few tweaks and greasemonkey scripts that make it less than hideous... almost tolerable. :)

Reddit has hit the fan

[Anonymous Coward]

It has hit it's peak of popularity already. Just like Digg, Myspace and Slashdot before it. Only the weirdos are keeping it afloat now. Also this highlights the unconfortable truth that reddit is cool with piracy and drugs but won't let pedos have their kicks.

Touchy subject...

[wbr1]

But you have to admit, parents LET their kids dress and act like this, and the market caters to it, whether it is right or not, I will not enter into that debate right now.
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/05/09/nearly-onethird-of-childrens-clothes-sexy-study
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/16/children-clothing-survey-bikini-heels
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/08/19/french-line-offers-lingerie-for-girls-as-young-as-four/
http://www.playpink.com/games-for-girls/sexy-dress-up.html

This was just 5 minutes with google.

Re:Touchy subject...

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaaaand you're now on 20 government watch lists. Good job.

Re:Touchy subject...

[I3OI3]

Ah, Google... the 5-minute confirmation bias generator. As an exercise: in 5 minutes, can you find 4 links refuting the argument, or do you assume that since someone on the internet agrees with you, then you must be right?

Not to attack you personally; I've found myself falling into that same trap many times, and have to intentionally take the time to search out opposing arguments and evaluate them on their merits. One of the dangers of the internet (especially with Google's new user-targeted-search feature) is that we will increasingly be exposed only to opinions that we agree with, and thus assume that anybody who disagrees must be in the marginal minority. It's an insidious damper on actual discourse.

Be strong. Fight the fallacy.

Re:Touchy subject...

[SuperTechnoNerd]

"I will not enter into that debate right now."
I agree. But one thing some freaky parents do is enter very young kids, usually girls, in thees beauty contests i.e. Toddlers in Tiaras. If that is not 1 shy thread away from kiddie porn, I don't now what is.. Talk about children in sexually suggestive. situations and clothing.. And it's legal and on TV for christ sake! I find that whole thing very very creepy.
I find the hypocrisy interesting.

SA versus reddit; truth on both sides

[Anonymous Coward]

The SA thread reads like a campaign more concerned about destroying reddit (the OP telling people to contact local churches and family organizations to convey how reddit is a platform for pedophiles, apparently to get reddit under as much public pressure as possible) than the actual moral crusade itself. On the other hand, reddit does appear to have had a real problem regarding underage content and I don't feel the core of the criticism is unjustified.

As someone occasionally active on reddit (not not a fanatic or anything), I don't feel it loses anything of worth by being a bit less lax about this. I understand the ideal of 'we're just a platform and we don't give a shit as long as we're stay within the laws', you won't be that platform for long if you let things slip out of control like this on a regular basis, potentially turning yourself into the next megaupload.

Restrict ALL Criminal Images and Videos

[Anonymous Coward]

All explicit images and videos of crime should be restricted for the same reason. Snuff, animal cruelty, beating people, fight videos - all of it is exactly the same - someone is getting off on it and it's perpetuating the crimes themselves.

Re:Restrict ALL Criminal Images and Videos

[cheekyjohnson]

someone is getting off on it and it's perpetuating the crimes themselves.

Just like video games. The instant someone sees a picture/video, they'll turn into a criminal themselves.

And how horrible that is. Someone might enjoy the pictures/videos. It's the apocalypse!

I Left Today

[deweyhewson]

I'm one of the many who deleted their accounts at Reddit today, not just over the admins' lax "oh-noes-censorship!" policy, but due to the sheer number of Redditors there actively defending pedophiles and their crimes under the guise of "free speech". I had over 10,000 karma there, as well, which means really nothing other than to say I wasn't just a random lurker on the site.

The front page stories at the moment don't even begin to tell the story of the stuff that goes in in the nether regions of that site, and the fact that so many members there not just defend, but seemingly embrace, those who perpetrate it - look up a guy named violentacrez if you don't believe me - is beyond disgusting. The number of members there who seem to base their morals on whether something is legal or not (unless the matter relates to pot, prostitution, or any of the other activities they like) is disturbing, as well, and I'd finally had enough.

Reddit didn't care at all about any of this stuff until suddenly they were at risk of a major media campaign against them - organized by Something Awful - then suddenly they went into full defensive mode, not out of a sudden concern for the actual children being exploited, but for their own reputations for allowing it. A good move overall, but hardly noble. It's the same tactic they eventually were forced to use when the r/jailbait scandal hit the mainstream news.

The bottom line is that Reddit has been, and can be, an interesting site full of interesting content. But the willingness of the admins there to allow such abhorrent (and clearly illegal) content until publicity won't allow them to continue to do so is a glaring flaw in the organization of the site, and I'd rather not be associated with such a wild west approach to such things, especially when their morals seem to be dictated more on whether something will affect their reputation than whether or not it's right.

Re:I Left Today

[Anonymous Coward]

You left with 10.000 karma?

How brave you are. And your stance is very corageous. You are an example to follow!

Fucking idiot.

Re:I Left Today

[deweyhewson]

"I had over 10,000 karma there, as well, which means really nothing other than to say I wasn't just a random lurker on the site."

Learn to read and/or comprehend better before desperately reaching for something with which to attack me, perhaps?

"Fucking idiot", indeed.

Re:I Left Today

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a look at violentacrez profile. I didn't go through any of his previous posts, for a multitude of reasons. Can you expand more about him, and why authorities haven't already dealt with him if he's so notorious?

I'm honestly curious, and you're the only person I know who actually lived in there, in that world.

Re:I Left Today

[eclectro]

I hope that you deleted your facebook account as well, because they at one time allowed the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) to be on their website.

The thing is (whether you agree with it or not) many forum operators see themselves merely as a carrier and not provider or policer of content and try to remain neutral about content posted. Not unlike those that make/sell VHS tape or DVD players.

I thought that this whole problem was taken care of when they deleted r/jailbait. But what happened is the people associated with that content just moved to another forum. Just like they will move to another place on the internet again.

Re:I Left Today

[sunwolf]

I find this attitude prevalent in many people my age - early twenties - except that instead of leaving Reddit, they talk about leaving the country. I always think it's a shame, since they are giving up any dissenting voice they may have had in the government.

Re:I Left Today

[cheekyjohnson]

for the actual children being exploited

Yeah, all those images being looked upon. Truly, there is no worse fate for those images.

When it comes to children, everything must be banned. After all, what if someone looked upon an image of a child and they were sexually attracted to it? That would simply bring about the apocalypse. That said, people seem to be stating things as facts (such as that such content is objectively morally wrong) far more often than usual. I wonder what it is about children that gets people so flared up.

especially when their morals seem to be dictated more on whether something will affect their reputation than whether or not it's right.

We could always just ask the magical moral fairy if it's right.

Re:I Left Today

[Karganeth]

The bottom line is that Reddit has been, and can be, an interesting site full of interesting content. But the willingness of the admins there to allow such abhorrent (and clearly illegal) content until publicity won't allow them to continue to do so is a glaring flaw in the organization of the site, and I'd rather not be associated with such a wild west approach to such things, especially when their morals seem to be dictated more on whether something will affect their reputation than whether or not it's right.

The admins NEVER allowed illegal content on their site. Child pornography was never allowed. Not caring about what people in each subreddit did was not a glaring flaw. If you didn't like a subreddit, you didn't go there. It worked pretty well actually - reddit is very popular.

Re:I Left Today

[the_raptor]

due to the sheer number of Redditors there actively defending pedophiles and their crimes under the guise of "free speech"

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation that is as "natural" as any other sexual orientation, and pedophiles should have the same legal rights as anyone else unless they molest children. Also most child molesters aren't pedophiles.

The "crimes" were posting pictures of fully clothed children and making creepy comments. Any actual child pornography was reported and banned as standard policy.

The number of members there who seem to base their morals on whether something is legal or not

Which is exactly what you are doing. Your morals seem to consist of "its against the law" and "its creepy".

Re:I Left Today

[Anonymous Coward]

I had over 10,000 karma there, as well, which means really nothing[.]

especially when their morals seem to be dictated more on whether something will affect their reputation than whether or not [I think or someone else tells me] it's right.

FTFY.

Your protest is completely forgotten by tomorrow. Thx for playing.

Re:I Left Today

[Anonymous Coward]

The front page stories at the moment don't even begin to tell the story of the stuff that goes in in the nether regions of that site, and the fact that so many members there not just defend, but seemingly embrace, those who perpetrate it - look up a guy named violentacrez if you don't believe me - is beyond disgusting.

I didn't trust you, mainly because you didn't actually describe in any way what you find so horrible, just that you find it horrible. I looked up this guy and his posts. The worst thing I saw was some pictures of "chics with dicks". I'm not into that, but it's hardly what I'd describe "beyond disgusting" or "don't even begin to tell the story of the stuff that goes on in the nether regions of that site". Other than that it was standard porn (tits, pussy, etc), and gross-out images (involving fecal matter, distorted images, etc).

So exactly what is it you find so horrible? There's lots of pictures of horrible things like the goatsex thing. Some real, some fabricated. If that kind of thing offends you, don't go into the places where people post that kind of thing. Quite frankly, if you're going to talk about seeing things that are "clearly illegal" you could at least describe what it is you're talking about. Merely stating opinions about something without presenting any facts is actually counter productive.

Re:I Left Today

[Anonymous Coward]

The admins NEVER allowed illegal content on their site. Child pornography was never allowed.

That's cute, you think there's still any kind of differentiation in most peoples' minds between a picture of a child and child pornography. Welcome to the future.

Re:I Left Today

[deweyhewson]

The admins NEVER allowed illegal content on their site. Child pornography was never allowed. Not caring about what people in each subreddit did was not a glaring flaw. If you didn't like a subreddit, you didn't go there. It worked pretty well actually - reddit is very popular.

You clearly are not really familiar with the circumstances of what was going on or what led to this situation. This all came to a head because a random Redditor was presented with r/preteens content while he was just browsing r/new. He wasn't subscribed to it, never went there, yet he was exposed to it, anyway. So that dismantles your argument of, "if you don't like it, you don't have to look at it."

Secondly, the admins absolutely HAVE and DID allow child pornography on the site. r/jailbait was allowed for a long while, even after the CNN story on it. One Reddit admin went as far as to blame the victims themselves for it. And the admins also did nothing about r/preteen_girls until Something Awful began their media campaign, in which case they were terrified into defensive mode. They still have yet to ban the still-popular-on-the-site violentacrez (who is friends with the site admins, it should be pointed out) or other subreddits such as r/picsofdeadkids.

They have no moral authority in this. They simply were, and are, fine to allow such content to go on unconfronted until their reputation is at stake, then they will tenuously pretend to care and respond to it. As the OP here pointed out, Reddit just now had to come out and say that child sexualization was not allowed on the site; something that people with morals would have already assumed to be the case.

The entire situation is, and remains, despicable, and Reddit and its admins don't have a moral leg to stand on it over it.

Re:I Left Today

[Anonymous Coward]

> Secondly, the admins absolutely HAVE and DID allow child pornography on the site.

So they SHOULD and HAD been investigated by appropriate agencies, right? I mean, if "r/jailbait was allowed for a long while, even after the CNN story on it." and it was illegal, someone should have got a sentence already, violentacrez, for example.

So it seems that "allowed child porn" was indeed in "teen in a bikini" variety you get in magazines, "Toddlers&Tiaras" and public FB albums.

> And the admins also did nothing about r/preteen_girls until Something Awful began their media campaign

Which was a 2 week old subreddit with 620 subscribers at the end of life and ranked 3328. Not exactly high profile to catch admins' attention.

What, did you think admins browse each and every of thousands subreddits to find the porn, as opposed to relying on user reports - which they did and which they reacted to?

All in all it sounds like a smear campaign by SA goons.

Re:I Left Today

[Aladrin]

Have you found a place for good topic-based sharing of links and information and discussion that doesn't allow this kind of sickness?

I've been increasingly dissatisfied with Reddit (and most other sites) lately because of the ridiculous groupthink that occurs on them and I'd love to have moderated place for actual discussions on a wide array of topics.

Re:I Left Today

[Anonymous Coward]

This is insane.

You were creeped out by some (legal) pictures. Reddit always took the like of "no censorship unless it's illegal" and now you're all butt hurt about it?

What was "clearly illegal"? Cite one example. Seriously.

I've never even seen these things. Hell, I've never been to reddit, but everything I'm reading here is shit like teens in bathing suits pics. Cripes.

  Were you raped as a child? Why the violent reaction?

Re:I Left Today

[anonymov]

Then start one. There's obviously a niche for it, as seen even on this page.

If you're ready to spend some time and money for building an engine and initial setup and promotion, you might have a next big thing.

It's not like /. and Reddit were here forever and came to existence looking same as now.

Re:I Left Today

[Anonymous Coward]

You're essentially saying: Most people who take sexual advantage of children aren't people who take sexual advantage of children.

I hope you can realise how silly of a position this is.

Re:I Left Today

[Cainam]

Better stop using the internet. I hear it's full of bad stuff, just like Reddit!

Re:I Left Today

[Anonymous Coward]

If you didn't like a subreddit, you didn't go there. It worked pretty well actually - reddit is very popular.

The way I'm subscribed on reddit, I didn't actually hear about any of this until the HN and slashdot posts. Always strange to find out whats going on in the next reddit.

Re:I Left Today

[DerekLyons]

But the willingness of the admins there to allow such abhorrent (and clearly illegal) content

The problem is 99.9999% of the content they banned wasn't "clearly illegal". It wasn't illegal at all.

Re:I Left Today

[Aladrin]

I've actually considered it, but I have 2 main problems:

1) It's expensive and time-consuming. While I want to enjoy the site, I don't want to run the site.

2) I'm a very heavy-handed moderator. I recognize this failing in myself enough that I wouldn't put me in charge of that. It would be okay at first, but who knows how long it would be until someone annoyed me and I abused me power? No thanks, I don't need that stress.

Re:I Left Today

[Anonymous Coward]

And the admins also did nothing about r/preteen_girls until Something Awful began their media campaign

Probably because SA created r/preteen_girls to troll the internet. Pretty much every subscriber came from a SA link and a bunch of them were new accounts.

Re:I Left Today

[chekkerness]

Nice straw man.

Re:I Left Today

[riondluz]

kind of like saying you dropped your nntp account and access to 30K+ groups because you found a few of them to be offensive. It reflects less on Usenet and more about you.

Bec you can extrapolate it to dropping out of the real world, and all culture and civ (purportedly) has to offer because there are places in it that you don't like.

How about, just don't go there, you have 359 other directions to follow.

Re:I Left Today

[Anonymous Coward]

The admins NEVER allowed illegal content on their site. Child pornography was never allowed.

And yet factually incorrect trash like what deweyhewson posted gets "Score 5, Interesting". What a joke.

Re:I Left Today

[Anonymous Coward]

What jurisdiction do you live in where things such as Statutory Rape, Conspiracy to Statutory Rape, and Possession of Child Pornography is not an offence? Must be an ... interesting ... place.

Re:I Left Today

[Anonymous Coward]

I find this attitude prevalent in many people my age - early twenties - except that instead of leaving Reddit, they talk about leaving the country.

I always think it's a shame because the little fuckers never seem to have the balls to actually leave. They stay and continue whining.

Re:I Left Today

[Anonymous Coward]

They still have yet to ban [...] other subreddits such as r/picsofdeadkids.

Why should /r/picsofdeadkids be removed? Because you find it offensive? Fuck off.

Re:I Left Today

[insertwackynamehere]

I'd say it's much more like rape. Yeah it happens that some people have such a fetish but it is rooted in violence. I would hardly call it legitimate. I don't see violence driven people as being beneficial to society or having a drive that is worthy of objective consideration.

This crusade to draw parallels between Pedophilia and homosexuality is just as disgusting and obnoxious as when right wing pundits did it 10-15 years ago on Fox.

Re:I Left Today

[firefrei]

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation that is as "natural" as any other sexual orientation, and pedophiles should have the same legal rights as anyone else unless they molest children

An extremely dangerous and foolhardy position to take. Easy to state online, but if you physically go up to any parent (ideally a father) and try to argue said position, YOU... WILL... DIE.

It's a completely indefensible position, and everyone who values their self-preservation knows it.

Re:I Left Today

[psiclops]

in case you didnt understand his point.

99.9999% of what was banned does not fall into any of these categories. (i have not been to any of these subreddits, i'm basing this on what has been said in these comments and my belief that illegal to posess imagary would not be openly traded on a public forum that had has previous news coverage due to the fact that it is well - illegal to posess)

Also absolutely none of what they banned was actual statutory rape.
it could be argues that none of it was conspiracy to commit statuatory rape as conspiracy to commit statuatory rape is not the medium over which such a discussion would take place. i doubt it would beven be the discussion itself (the discussion would be considered evidence of such a conspiracy).

As long as they leave r/tailbait alone

[Anonymous Coward]

With only adult animals, no minors.

Why do I ...

[HeLLFiRe1151]

always find these things out, after they get shut down.

A sick and tenous link to kick free software

[dbIII]

Look, just get your own site if you are going to be paid to write editorials here pushing an agenda and leave the posts to those of us who don't get paid to do it. It's a very annoying subversion of this site akin to a pimp parading his girls through McDonalds to get some extra trade.
Your little PR propaganda pieces were merely annoying the first dozen times, but now it's getting truly bizzare and disgusting.

Some Context from a Redditor

[RobinEggs]

Being between jobs, I've spent a crap load of time on Reddit lately, so I'll try to give you some better context than you're getting from the other posts, which are almost all random speculation.

This isn't just about seeing sexuality in children or people fapping over misappropriated but otherwise innocuous pictures of other people's children.

The largest of the sub-reddits at issue, preteen_girls, featured a posting from a man attracted to his daughter (I would provide a link to this thread, but reading it once was enough; I ain't going back there). He received advice about how to get her drunk, how to gradually introduce her to some physical intimacy via backrubs and neck massage, and gradually escalate to fully sexual encounters. This is exactly how things unfolded when my wife was raped as a 12 year old. They're not just trading pictures, they're trading time-tested advice on seduction and child rape.

Oh, and the advice I described came from the moderator of the page.

That's the kind of stuff that's going on here. I don't give a flying fuck how you feel about free speech, or even child porn: giving advice on intoxicating, seducing, and fucking people is wrong. Setting aside the serious question of whether children can give consent in the first place, these people think it's fine to seduce and drug kids until consent is no longer an issue. This kind of stuff is wrong whether your target is 12 or 42. Knowing that people meet and give one another advice about such things in public on these sub-reddits, to say nothing of what goes in private between people who connect via these sub-reddits (because most people are still smart enough not to collude in raping a child or sharing true snuff on a public forum), gives Reddit both the moral authority and the legal imperative to shut those forums down.

Seriously, raping 12 year olds. Intoxicating and fucking your own daughter or niece. As I've already had to say once this month on slashdot, sometimes 'think of the children' is a valid concern.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[SecurityGuy]

I dunno, GP makes a pretty sound case. I agree that "think of the children" is a crock when applied to most censorship, but if you're talking about adults actually plotting crimes against children, does that not cross the line? Your point is somewhat valid. They probably will just go somewhere else, but still, if someone is conducting themselves in a vile and depraved way, wouldn't you kick them out of your house? Why not out of your web site?

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[Beelzebud]

You are condoning them. There is a line.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[cheekyjohnson]

Yes. Anyone who says something you disagree with condones child rape. And your arbitrary line is the most important.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[bmo]

>That's the kind of stuff that's going on here. I don't give a flying fuck how you feel about free speech, or even child porn: giving advice on intoxicating, seducing, and fucking people is wrong. Setting aside the serious question of whether children can give consent in the first place, these people think it's fine to seduce and drug kids until consent is no longer an issue.

This is a crime, and it's called conspiracy.

Someone wants to do something illegal like rob a bank or fuck a 12 year old.
You give advice or material support
They commit the crime
You are a conspirator. You go to jail.

That's how it works in a civilized society.

Seriously, violnentacrez needs to be behind bars.

--
BMO

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[Anonymous Coward]

What you descibe is nothing new. It's exactly what Roman Polanski did. He is regarded, to this day, as a hero for resisting the unsophisticated American savages idea of propriety. Remember the kerfluffle a year or two back when they tried to extradite him and France refused? The applause was loud and long. This advice predates reddit and making it illegal just pushes it underground where it cannot be regulated.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[shadowofwind]

As I see it, people who mock 'think of the children' generally do not care much about other people. Children do need to be protected. Yes, child pornography laws become ridiculous when applied to romances between teenagers. But almost every time this topic comes up on slashdot, a not insignificant number of the posters express sympathy for full blown pedophilia. If they had any decency and understanding of the subject, they'd argue for pushing the legal limit down to about 13, while creating more nuanced consent laws to protect older teenagers from date rape. But they don't do that, they use the problems at the age boundary to justify behavior that is hell on children.

The trend seems to be positive though - as evidenced by your '5 informative'.

Though I probably can't help with your job situation, if you're in Oregon, Idaho, California, or Ohio, I'd be happy to do what I can.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[DigiShaman]

Totally crosses the line. As a long time member of Slashdot, you have no idea much hope some of you people show for humanity. The ability to call bullshit on both those defending CP, and the politicians who hide behind the "think of the children" mantra in order to pass legislation unimpeded. Those two groups are nothing but cowards! It's about time people start calling it out like it is. By all means, keep spreading the message.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[cheekyjohnson]

going by your asinine sig I can see you're a libertarian / free state style moron

Just from my sig you concluded that I was a libertarian (guilt by association)? Amazing. Where did you get such an ability? You seem to be fond of putting those you disagree with in groups you oppose.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[JimBobJoe]

This reminds me of the show Californication. (I'm at the end of season 1.)

During season 1, we see the main character have sex with a girl (whom we can see naked on top of him) and is later revealed to be 16.

The main character is shocked and while he is a womanizer he says that sleeping with a 16 year old is wrong. It's an exercise to the reader if he really believes that or just chooses not to (the show is at best indifferent--because we got to see a "sixteen year old's" breasts bouncing up and down as they were having sex.) We later encounter another character who truly is bad--he takes underaged students to his house and drugs them up (though it appears that they do so voluntarily.)

The point here is that context I guess is important. But moreover, the show is hypocritical if it's trying to make us dislike the guy who drugs up underaged girls for sex, if it's also trying to titillate us with sex with 16 year olds anyway.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[Beelzebud]

Keep fighting the good fight. Child porn for everyone!

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[cheekyjohnson]

How did you know of my true intentions!?

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Reddit.com, not Reddit.gov.
Yes, people can exchange law-breaking tips by going out and meeting in person, but if they're doing it on my front lawn, I'm going to ask them to leave.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[outsider007]

What if someone was about to post and encourage the guy not to rape his daughter and to get psychiatric help instead? Maybe shining some light on that forum was a better solution than shutting it down.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[cheekyjohnson]

As I see it, people who mock 'think of the children' generally do not care much about other people.

Why do you see it that way? Can you read minds? Do you truly understand the arguments that they are trying to make?

I mock "think of the children" because I could say that about anything. "Think about the murder victim!" "Think about the man whose money was stolen!"

The fact that they're children holds little meaning to me. I'm against rape of all kinds, not just when it comes to children. I don't think that innocents should be harmed when going after criminals. I don't think that entire technologies should be banned because criminals may use it. I don't think that way even when it involves children.

If they had any decency

Sounds subjective.

understanding of the subject

They might understand it, but simply have a different opinion.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[bill_mcgonigle]

You give advice or material support
They commit the crime
You are a conspirator. You go to jail.

In many jurisdictions "They commit the crime" is not required. They can prosecute you and your D&D buddies for planning a bank robbery, even if there's no provable intent to actually do it.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[shadowofwind]

I don't need to be able to read minds to have a good idea what they're thinking, because they have expressed their arguments in great detail, and I accept those arguments at face value.

OK, so we agree that rape isn't good, and I'll assume that you have some understanding of what rape amounts to psychologically, not just a reflexive distaste from a distance. How do you propose to help protect people from rape? When I refer to the "think of the children" mocking, that's what I'm referring to, mocking. If you have actual ideas that address the anti-pedophile concerns, that's much different.

You didn't present any such ideas in your response here, such as in response to to the reforms I suggested. Maybe you just didn't have time or interest, that's fine. But if the anti-censorship extremists aren't going to take the time to pony up real, honest arguments, then other people will rationally regard them as assholes. Your suggestion that 'decency' is subjective is consistent with the general attitude I'm referring to though. Yes of course there is a subjective element. There is also an objective element. How about acknowledging the objective side of 'decency' also, instead of always blowing it off as subjective?

I said nothing about banning technologies. On the censorship/anti-censorship spectrum, I'm fairly far towards the anti-censorship end. And I loathe right wing politicians, especially the religious national security types. I apologize if I unjustly smeared your view in my brief and "general" characterization of people who make your argument. But so far you haven't said anything that separates you from the others that I had in mind.

If you would like to argue about it more, I'm willing to do that. Otherwise, I was speaking to the other guy, and assuming the thread was probably stale enough that my post wouldn't attract other attention, so have a nice day.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[shadowofwind]

Also, "The fact that they're children holds little meaning to me." suggests that you do not in fact understand the subject, or else you're not being very honest about it. Rape of a child has very different effects than the rape of an adult, since the child's mind is in a much earlier stage of development. Its easier for the child to recover in some ways, and much, much harder in others. If you don't have a special protective reflex in relation to children, then I stand by my assertion that you don't care very much about other people and/or don't understand the subject very well.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[Anonymous Coward]

You're also leaving a quite important detail out: the moderator you are talking about was a brand new account that people have accused of being an SA goon deliberately posting bad stuff in order to provoke the issue.

Also, I may be remembering it wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was an oblivious parent asking for normal parenting advice that had the moderator telling him to get her drunk and fuck her. In that context, it was obviously not serious advice.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, no crime was committed...

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[bmo]

Well, I didn't bother to include all cases, but basically yeah, except there has to be some mens rea there.

But it's almost trivial for those prosecuting to invent mens rea in circumstantial cases.

--
BMO

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[outsider007]

Wait, so if I disagree with you it means I condone child porn? In that case I agree with you.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone can be a moderator for the subreddits they create, so your highlighting the word is redundant. Several people are thinking that these subreddits containing these materials were created by others specifically to hurt the site as a whole (the one you mentioned had only been active for a couple of days).

Maybe reddit admins (different from moderators) should send all the posters data to the FBI, I'd wager there were more than a few idiots from other websites that wanted to hurt reddit.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly how things unfolded when my wife was raped as a 12 year old.

You must be from one of the southern states if you married at that age.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[chekkerness]

There is also an objective element.

And that would be?

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[swalve]

At least in the US, there needs to be some act in furtherance. Talking about it is fine, but the moment one of the guys goes out and buys a gun or the zip ties they talked about using as handcuffs, that's where the just talking becomes a crime.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[Anonymous Coward]

Talking about it is fine, but the moment one of the guys goes out and buys a gun or the zip ties they talked about using as handcuffs, that's where the just talking becomes a crime.

You should totally go grab a random guy from the street, bind him with zip ties, clothes line and duct tape (don't forget to buy scissors, box cutter or knife to cut it) and beat him over with a loaf of stale bread, bag of sugar, some canned beans, a wheel of cheese and a frozen ham. Then there's something to do with a sausage, cucumbers, an eggplant, fresh fish and a skewer and I'm pretty sure it's not grilling.

... There, good luck shopping next time!

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually.. NO. Think of the children is not a valid fucking concern. EVER.

The valid concern involved here.. is "lets not rape people" It is entirely besides the point if the victim/potential victim is a child, an adolescent, or an adult.

Any other time you could shout "think of the children!" in support of some cause, you could also argue some other more thoughtful point that is still entirely supportive of the action you want to take. If you cannot, then your cause is not worth supporting in the first place. Think of the children is only ever useful for advancing some horrid bullshit that would be otherwise unsupportable.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[DerekLyons]

I don't give a flying fuck how you feel about free speech, or even child porn: giving advice on intoxicating, seducing, and fucking people is wrong.

Translation: It's not against the law - be we hateses it anyhow. Burn 'em at the stake. Fuck their rights. Fuck the Constitution. (But only on subjects I think it should be fucked about. Stay the fuck away from the things I like and agree with.)

And thus begins the slippery slope.
 

As I've already had to say once this month on slashdot, sometimes 'think of the children' is a valid concern.

An even bigger concern is what you're advocating - creating thoughtcrime.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[bmo]

I can tell you the layout of a bank, but if I believe you are going to rob the bank, then I'm no longer "just talking." And when you go to rob the bank, I can be prosecuted for conspiracy.

Similarly, if someone is asking how to rape a 12 year old girl, and you give them tips as a how-to, it's not "just talk" if a "reasonable person" would believe the information would be used to commit the crime of actually raping a 12 year old girl.

That's the standard. Whether a "reasonable person" knew or should have known the information would contribute to a crime. It determines mens rea.

--
BMO

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly how things unfolded when my wife was raped as a 12 year old.

Pics or it didn't happen.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[Anonymous Coward]

The crime of "conspiracy" is a US thing and it's rather dangerously broad.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[cheekyjohnson]

Rape of a child has very different effects than the rape of an adult

But I see both as bad things. Mentioning the victim's age, gender, or occupation seriously means nothing to me. I see them as a victim.

If you don't have a special protective reflex in relation to children, then I stand by my assertion that you don't care very much about other people and/or don't understand the subject very well.

Sorry for not having a knee-jerk reaction whenever children are involved and demanding that people burn the witch.

then I stand by my assertion that you don't care very much about other people

Or perhaps I just don't care about the victim's age. Why is that not possible? Your assumptions are meaningless to me.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[cheekyjohnson]

I don't need to be able to read minds to have a good idea what they're thinking

You do if you make the assumption that they don't care about anyone merely because they think "for the children" arguments are pure idiocy.

How do you propose to help protect people from rape?

First of all, I'll tell you what I would not do: censor everything in some vain attempt to burn the pedophile boogeyman, circumvent due process, throw people in prison based on mere accusations, or get up in arms about clothed pictures of children merely because someone might be masturbating to them somewhere. There's probably a few more, but I think you get the idea.

How do we protect people from rape now? From what I see, there's not a whole lot we can do beyond what we're doing now (unless I'm missing something). And censorship of everything because some people think that pictures might make people go out and rape others is unacceptable to me (just like how some people say that video games cause violence). I simply don't see how we could do much more than we're doing now without infringing upon civil rights.

But if the anti-censorship extremists aren't going to take the time to pony up real, honest arguments, then other people will rationally regard them as assholes.

"Rationally"? Whatever you agree with is rational?

If someone were to suggest to me that we should get rid of copyright infringement by shooting everyone, I would call them imbeciles. If they then suggested that I'm an "asshole" because I do not have another solution to get rid of copyright infringement, I would again call them imbeciles. The fact that I don't have another solution doesn't mean that whatever solution you propose is a good thing (just thought that needed to be said), nor does it mean that I can't voice my concerns about your solution. It doesn't even mean that I don't care about others (assumption, guilt by association, etc).

I said nothing about banning technologies.

I didn't say that you did say anything about that. It was a general statement that I'm against such a mentality.

But so far you haven't said anything that separates you from the others that I had in mind.

Because you seem to like to characterize everyone who disagrees with you on this issue as some sort of person who doesn't care for others. Why? Again: how did you reached such a conclusion merely from the fact that they (and I) am against censorship? Are you saying that you know what's in our minds better than we do?

There is also an objective element. How about acknowledging the objective side of 'decency' also, instead of always blowing it off as subjective?

Where is the "objective element"?

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[shutdown -p now]

You make a solid case for reporting the people involved in that thread - both the person seeking "advice", and the person who gave him one - to the police. It certainly has all hallmarks of conspiring to commit a very serious crime.

It doesn't really make a good case for a broad censorship of anything and everything.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[jahudabudy]

Or perhaps I just don't care about the victim's age. Why is that not possible?

Sure, it's possible (I'm willing to accept you at your word) but it is alien to most people. It is a natural instinct in the majority of humans to see something bad happening to a child as more tragic than that exact same bad thing happening to an adult. Maybe it's an evolutionary response to protect the future of the race, maybe it's easier to transfer your emotion about your own children (which is evolutionarily programmed to be stronger than emotion about just about any other human) to another child than another adult. Maybe it's an emotional response to the (presumed) innocence of the child versus the (presumed) emotional shields of the adult, making the act (likely) more traumatic to the child. Maybe children are just cuter and elicit more sympathy. Whatever the explanation, most people react more strongly to harm befalling children than they do harm that befalls other adults. Empathizing to an equal degree does not fit inside the common paradigm, EXCEPT under the edge case of not empathizing at all. Everyone can conceptualize zero empathy - they've experienced it. They cannot conceptualize equal non-zero amounts of empathy for a child and an adult, that lies outside their experience.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[cheekyjohnson]

It is a natural instinct in the majority of humans to see something bad happening to a child as more tragic than that exact same bad thing happening to an adult.

I suspect this might be why a majority of humans seem like they'd be perfect to participate in the Salem witch trials (only, instead of witches, the pedophile boogeyman). I'm not sure that they have to be that way, either. They probably just don't want to change.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[jahudabudy]

I'm not sure that they have to be that way, either. They probably just don't want to change.

Eh, probably both. I suspect most people see this instinct as a positive attribute. And it unquestionably was at some point- saving a child from a hungry tiger rather than the adult that has probably already procreated and won't do so again is positively correlated from an evolutionary perspective. Whether it is still a positive trait is questionable, due to the paradigm change technology has brought to human civilization. But even if we all sat down and rationally decided it was a negative attribute, 100,000 years of selective pressure is pretty hard to overcome.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[celle]

"He received advice about how to get her drunk, how to gradually introduce her to some physical intimacy via backrubs and neck massage, and gradually escalate to fully sexual encounters."

You've described one of the basic predatory behaviors of every male on the planet when going after females.

    Funny, don't buddies give the same/similar advice, when you haven't figured it out yourself, to each other from early teen years to late twenties when chasing women in the Y/clubs/bars/etc. Well, except in bars women often get themselves wasted. Not everyone looks like Brad Pitt, every little trick helps in a game of traps and one-sided rules.

Fact is evolution is slow, social arrogance is fast.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[celle]

"giving advice on intoxicating, seducing, and fucking people is wrong."

    I'm surprised the guy had to ask as this scenario has been used in various media for decades. The young girl isn't even new as I remember references to similar situations in the 70's in movies, and books. Speaking of books, lets not leave out the bible and several historical references.
      Thing is I think people just don't care anymore. They definitely don't remember much or learn from history. But others don't learn either that just because it was wrong then doesn't mean it is now. The deafness goes both ways. The worst part is all this whining about something that's been going on for millenia and it's not going away soon regardless of whatever purge is currently going on. Kind of like the oldest profession, just from the arrest reports it's doing quite well even with the legal justification no longer relevant.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[swalve]

I just bought a lot of that stuff. NEWMAN!

meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[catmistake]

Maybe I have a dirty mind, but when I watched cable/broadcast TV, every single advertisement that has a child in I found could be considered soft pornography. I find it particularly obvious and offensive when children are used in the "Got Milk?" campaign. Child pornography, in a soft form (no nudity) is really mainstream in the US right now... and I'm not sure who is to blame... ad executives, directors, parents... I just don't know.

I'm sure there are going to be others that disagree that can't see it. But its there... it absolutely is everywhere... and I would expect it is also in most programming that has child actors. I suppose if it isn't explicit, then its perfectly fine with censors because many will not even notice. But I imagine these images, that are seemingly innocuously depicting children being children, stuffing something into their mouths, are like pinups for pedophiles.

Suffice to say, I grew tired of getting angry at every commercial, and removed my TV last year. Ironically enough, using tpb to watch programs I want to see actually forces less (no) soft child porn into my bleeding eyes.

Hey networks and advertisers, I'm talking to you: Stop pimping out images of children depicting adult choreography. No one wants to see it.

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[cheekyjohnson]

I think the child porn and "for the children" hysteria is even worse. Apparently entire technologies and places should be banned because someone might be having sexual thoughts of children (Wow! They're looking at images! The horror!). Sometimes I've noticed people who voice disagree with this policy are called pedophiles themselves (just like supporting the civil rights movement makes you a black person). And they keep seemingly going on this child porn witch hunt and trying to enact all these draconian "for the children" laws that I find completely ridiculous.

When children are involved, I think all logic goes out the window.

Luckily this only happened on a single website.

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[nu1x]

Hah ! If you are addressing media, you are addressing a jew, and jews will not listen to you.

For they have an agenda.

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[geminidomino]

Hey networks and advertisers, I'm talking to you: Stop pimping out images of children depicting adult choreography. No one wants to see it.

Just a minor point here: if no one truly wanted to see it, it wouldn't be effective marketing, and they'd stop doing it.

Marketers might compete with politicians and MAFIAA lawyers for the lowest rung of the scumbag ladder, but they're generally not stupid in the general case.

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[Anonymous Coward]

Chances are, by your dismissive post, you have no idea what pornography is. You think you do... but you are not really taking account of what your eyes can see.

I know what the GP is taking about... sick, suggestive, disgusting soft child porn is EVERYWHERE.

Allow me to open your eyes... warning... cannot unsee:

obvious, if foreign, normal "healthy" adult soft porn

not the best example of soft, gay. child pornography, but you'll get the idea

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[cheekyjohnson]

I... really can't find myself caring. Is it legal? Are the children actually being sexually abused? If both of those answers turn out to be "no," then I really don't care.

Again, the fact that some people masturbate to a picture/video simply does not concern me.

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[Anonymous Coward]

I... really can't find myself caring. Is it legal? Are the children actually being sexually abused? If both of those answers turn out to be "no," then I really don't care.

Again, the fact that some people masturbate to a picture/video simply does not concern me.

That is interesting. So if a pedophile had pictures or video of your children fully clothed, and used these images as props for sexual arousal, you just wouldn't care. I don't know what's wrong with me, but if I discovered such a thing, I would not be so apathetic. In fact, I'd be homocidal. Who raised you?

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[cheekyjohnson]

That is interesting. So if a pedophile had pictures or video of your children fully clothed, and used these images as props for sexual arousal, you just wouldn't care.

I don't know, and I don't think it's relevant. Banning things because you don't like them is not, I feel, a good solution.

Besides, whether or not you know it, it likely happens. I'm not a fan of thoughtcrime (as you seem to be), and I, at least right now, don't really care what person fantasies they have.

Who raised you?

Irrelevant. Difficult to believe that someone can disagree with what may or may not be the norm, isn't it?

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, and I don't think it's relevant.

It is relevant... its called Ethical Universalization. The ethical application of universalization is a test for whether an action, if universalized to a broad population, would have harmful consequences or maintain its sense of justifiability. If a broad population would not wish to see their own children, if not explicitly exploited, even merely suggestably exploited, then its an indicator that it is very likely unethical. We are not talking about "thought crime," but exploiting children sexually, even if merely suggestively.

Its not a particularly difficult question to answer... allow me to rephrase.

Would you like it if your own child (or if you are childless, then substitute a little sister, or a baby niece, or what have you) were sexually exploited, even if only in a suggestable sense? Do you take any issue whatsoever with the sexualization of fully clothed minors?

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[cheekyjohnson]

It is relevant

No, it isn't. What I would or would not do if I was in another situation than I am now is irrelevant to whether or not my current arguments are wrong.

Would you be offended if someone looked at your children in a sexual way if you were someone who didn't care about that kind of thing? I can create many scenarios where your viewpoint is different from how it is now, but that wouldn't make you wrong.

even merely suggestably exploited, then its an indicator that it is very likely unethical.

Right. Because appeal to popularity is a nice way to prove something.

We are not talking about "thought crime,"

It looks like you are. Some people masturbate to some picture/video, and apparently they need to be stopped. We must save the children in their thoughts!

Its not a particularly difficult question to answer... allow me to rephrase.

It is a difficult question to answer when you don't have children. If I had children, and I didn't change from how I am now, no.

Would you like it if your own child (or if you are childless, then substitute a little sister, or a baby niece, or what have you) were sexually exploited, even if only in a suggestable sense?

"If I had children, and I didn't change from how I am now, no. "

Do you take any issue whatsoever with the sexualization of fully clothed minors?

Are they being held against their will, raped, or is anyone doing anything that could hurt them? If not, then no.

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, it is not an appeal to popularity, or bandwagon fallacy, as its usually called. It is an ethical test known as ethical universalization, and it is not definitive, but is a very strong indicator.

Secondly, this dialogue is pointless unless you can accept that the exploitation is there whether or not there is someone masterbating to it. Go back up to my earlier post and look at that commercial. If you can honestly opine the creators had no intention of sexualizing the children in the ad, then we must agree to disagree. In my opinion, even fake child pornography hurts children, and thus what is obviously sexualization of children in advertising, is also tremendously suspect, ethically.

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[cheekyjohnson]

Firstly, it is not an appeal to popularity, or bandwagon fallacy, as its usually called. It is an ethical test known as ethical universalization, and it is not definitive, but is a very strong indicator.

Alright, not definitive.

But a very strong indicator? I disagree entirely. When someone claims that a majority of people believe something, the only thing I conclude from that is that a majority of people believe something. I don't conclude that something is true (appeal to popularity), that it's more likely (only in certain people's opinions), or anything such as that. It either is or it isn't, and a majority believing something isn't going to make it more likely to be true.

Frankly, I don't even care what a majority of people believe, and I don't believe in absolute morals.

Secondly, this dialogue is pointless unless you can accept that the exploitation is there whether or not there is someone masterbating to it.

I think you might have ignored me when I said things such as, "Are they being held against their will, raped, or is anyone doing anything that could hurt them? If not, then no."

I fail to see how being in provocative commercials equates to any of those if they're not doing it against their will. Chances are, they don't even understand it. I simply don't care (which I've said multiple times).

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[Anonymous Coward]

do you have a daughter between the ages of 14 and 25? i can gaurantee she has sent at least one person photos of a provocative/sexual nature, clothed or otherwise.

Should you kill her or the boy/boys/girl/girls that she HAS sent them to?

oh wait, you asked her? and she said she hadn't and wouldn't? wow you must be slightly more of a moron than you appear already.

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, it is not an appeal to popularity, or bandwagon fallacy, as its usually called. It is an ethical test known as ethical universalization, and it is not definitive, but is a very strong indicator.

Alright, not definitive.

But a very strong indicator? I disagree entirely. When someone claims that a majority of people believe something, the only thing I conclude from that is that a majority of people believe something. I don't conclude that something is true (appeal to popularity), that it's more likely (only in certain people's opinions), or anything such as that. It either is or it isn't, and a majority believing something isn't going to make it more likely to be true.

You have misinterpreted Universality quite astoundingly. It has nothing to do with popularity, nor what the majority of people believe. In short, Universality is, again, a simple test: to determine if something is morally correct for you, then it MUST be morally correct for EVERYONE. For instance, is it morally correct for you to troll? To determine if it is morally correct or not, we can apply Universality: If it is morally correct for you to troll, then it is morally correct for everyone to troll; If it is not morally correct for everyone to troll, then it is not morally correct for you to troll. Get it? It has nothing to do with any kind of survey of what people believe.

It is NOT Bandwagon fallacy, which you are attempting to apply incorrectly, and actually, you're applying one fallacy while committing another, using a Slashdot troll's favorite weapon: Strawman fallacy. I propose Universality, but instead of applying Universality, you wish to apply Bandwagon fallacy... ironically enough, your application is a strawman: you set up your strawman (the Bandwagon fallacy) so you can attack it. But there is no Bandwagon fallacy, thus, again, your argument is a strawman.

Secondly, this dialogue is pointless unless you can accept that the exploitation is there whether or not there is someone masterbating to it.

I think you might have ignored me when I said things such as, "Are they being held against their will, raped, or is anyone doing anything that could hurt them? If not, then no."

I fail to see how being in provocative commercials equates to any of those if they're not doing it against their will. Chances are, they don't even understand it. I simply don't care (which I've said multiple times).

Sounds like what you are saying is it is morally acceptable to you ( "you don't care") that pornographic images of children exist so long as no child was physically harmed. You haven't thought this out properly. By what you have said, you are perfectly ok with peep holes in bathrooms for the purpose of photographing children so long as no child gets hurt, and since they are unaware, they are not hurt. I assure you, you are quite mistaken.

I refer anymore mindless interpretations of yours to Immanuel Kant and his categorical imperitives. Good luck.

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[cheekyjohnson]

It has nothing to do with popularity, nor what the majority of people believe.

"If a broad population would not wish to see their own children, if not explicitly exploited, even merely suggestably exploited, then its an indicator that it is very likely unethical."

Sorry, but the way you worded that made it sound like it does have to do with popularity.

By the way, I reject your tests. As a moral relativist, I believe all morals are subjective. As such, I believe that someone can think that they can do something and have it be a "good" thing, while if someone else does it, it's "evil." I'm sure people might not agree with them, but that's irrelevant to me.

It is NOT Bandwagon fallacy

Actually, in the second comment, I never claimed that it was (I only mentioned it as a mindset that I disagree with). It was only after you explained that you did not mean it in an objective way that I realized it was not quite the appeal to popularity fallacy.

Sounds like what you are saying is it is morally acceptable to you ( "you don't care") that pornographic images of children exist so long as no child was physically harmed. You haven't thought this out properly.

I haven't thought it out properly? An interesting assertion to make. How do you know I have thought it out, but just disagree with you? Shocking, I know.

But there is no Bandwagon fallacy, thus, again, your argument is a strawman.

Looks like you just misinterpreted my second comment to me.

morally acceptable to you

Since I said that I didn't care, technically I'd be apathetic. Not accepting and not opposing.

By what you have said, you are perfectly ok with peep holes in bathrooms for the purpose of photographing children so long as no child gets hurt, and since they are unaware, they are not hurt.

I fail to see how that's relevant to commercials and the like where all parties know of the footage and are consenting.

As for my personal feelings? I don't really care about such things, either.

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you can attempt to backtrack if you like, but "appeal to popularity" is also known formally as Bandwagon fallacy. See what I mean that you don't know what you're talking about?

here ya go, champ, this should help:

Bandwagon fallacy

Ethical Universalism

Unfortunately, your claim of moral relativism isn't upheld by your statements. Anyone is now free to examine that your position is much closer to that of psychological egoism, but that is being a bit optimistic. More than likely, you are merely unaware that you subscribe to nihilism.

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[cheekyjohnson]

Well, you can attempt to backtrack if you like, but "appeal to popularity" is also known formally as Bandwagon fallacy. See what I mean that you don't know what you're talking about?

What? I told you that I didn't use the appeal to popularity fallacy. If you're such an expert, shouldn't you have been able to decipher that I meant that I didn't use the bandwagon fallacy?

Because I didn't. You just, yet again, misinterpreted me. In that second comment, I never specifically said that you yourself used appeal to popularity (but since you're only attacking my word usage now, I'll tell you that I mean "bandwagon fallacy").

here ya go, champ, this should help:

It didn't. Because after the first comment, you actually described what you were talking about.

Unfortunately, your claim of moral relativism isn't upheld by your statements.

Really? Meta-ethical relativism sounds like it describes my beliefs quite accurately. Are you so sure?

Regardless of what you'd call it, you now know what I believe, yes? Certainly not moral universalism.

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[cheekyjohnson]

Anyone is now free to examine that your position is much closer to that of psychological egoism

They are? That doesn't sound like my belief at all. I wouldn't make any such assumptions about another person's reasons for helping another person.

Unlike some people, I don't try to pretend to be a mind reader. What were you even talking about?

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[Anonymous Coward]

What? I told you that I didn't use the appeal to popularity fallacy. [...]

Because I didn't.

Allow me to refresh your memory:

Right. Because appeal to popularity is a nice way to prove something.

And that, as they say... is that.

Re:meanwhile "soft" child porn is mainstream

[cheekyjohnson]

No, it's not. I said that I didn't use the appeal to popularity fallacy in this comment.

The reason I thought you said I did is because of your comment in this comment: "It is NOT Bandwagon fallacy, which you are attempting to apply incorrectly, and actually, you're applying one fallacy while committing another, using a Slashdot troll's favorite weapon: Strawman fallacy." That was a reply to my comment that I linked to above, so I thought you were saying that I said that you used the appeal to popularity fallacy yet again in a different comment.

And the whole reason I thought you were using the appeal to popularity fallacy is because of this comment in this reply: "It is relevant... its called Ethical Universalization. The ethical application of universalization is a test for whether an action, if universalized to a broad population, would have harmful consequences or maintain its sense of justifiability. If a broad population would not wish to see their own children, if not explicitly exploited, even merely suggestably exploited, then its an indicator that it is very likely unethical."

You started talking about "Ethical Universalization" and then went on to mention things about what the majority. But perhaps I misinterpreted you there.

SOPA and PIPA, Round 2

[jesseck]

This is Round 2 of SOPA and PIPA- not-as-high-profile sites (such as Reddit) are going to get "shut down" on the guise of "protecting the children", to reduce public knowledge of censorship in the future. These guys are out to discredit Reddit as a whole, not remove a couple of groups. Makes me wonder about Slashdot's "abuse flag"- did the moderator program suck so much, and who forced that to happen?

Re:SOPA and PIPA, Round 2

[msheekhah]

This is vastly different. Much of the reddit community is against this as well. Sopa/pipa was going to cripple the internet as we know it. This is the internet self policing itself.

Re:SOPA and PIPA, Round 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Hollywood/Madison Avenue has its fingers too far into the despicable sexualization of children, to become cheerleader for this. They will never fight on moral grounds, because they exploit moral extremes for profit. If this is SOPAv2.0, it will be pushed with backing from a Christian institution, or some such.

Re:SOPA and PIPA, Round 2

[Johann Lau]

what, exactly, does pedophilia have to do with copyright/IP, and how does this open the doors to more of that? who's getting shut down? reddit? no, reddit is bowing to pressure, and if they could stand behind any of that stuff, they wouldn't. I guess they looked at it and decided it's really just a festering cesspool of sickos. who forced them to remove it?

as for the abuse flag, I don't know what others use it for, but I've used it to report a spam bot post so far (would do it again, too), and I would certainly hope that flagging any other posts for any other reason would be ignored. but I have no idea.

Re:SOPA and PIPA, Round 2

[Johann Lau]

just because you can make up memes with version numbers doesn't mean it has any bearing on reality.

Re:SOPA and PIPA, Round 2

[Anonymous Coward]

what, exactly, does pedophilia have to do with copyright/IP, and how does this open the doors to more of that? who's getting shut down?

It's about credit, not shutdowns. The next time Reddit comes out against the establishment, nobody takes them seriously because they "are a bunch of perverts". To the masses, it doesn't matter whether they are or not - they are now tarnished.

Re:SOPA and PIPA, Round 2

[Johann Lau]

dude, don't stop there. can't you see? those people making a subreddit like "pre-teen girls" are totally undercover cops, who simply go about destroying reddit in the most efficient and straightforward way possible.

and you know why they make it so obvious? because that way nobody will believe it, because it's *too* obvious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications

^ that's as fucking punk rock as you can get. reddit is basically one huge molotov cocktail, and the powers that be are taking it down for that reason. is there a way to donate money to the struggle here? this seems important.

There's a huge gap...

[gwolf]

Between a 13-year-old having consentual sex with a 14- or 15-year old and having sex with a 18-year old. Yes, during adolescence, many behavioral structures change deeply. 13-year-old children can just be stupid or horny and get sex with somebody with a similar maturity level than theirs, and that's not a crime. However, a five year gap *is* too much at that time, and yes, 18-year-old people (regardless of their gender) should know they should not seek sex with a person unable to do that judgement that five years of maturity gave them.

18-and-13 is clearly illegal. I would *not* see 18-and-16 in the same scale.

Re:There's a huge gap...

[Hognoxious]

18-and-13 is clearly illegal. I would *not* see 18-and-16 in the same scale.

What about 17 and 14? 16 and 15?

Re:There's a huge gap...

[hitmark]

5 years do not automatically give maturity of the experiences during that time are meaningless in the context.

Re:There's a huge gap...

[Ihmhi]

However, a five year gap *is* too much at that time

Why?

Why should a 29-year-old man having sex with a 17-year-old woman be illegal, but a 52-year-old man having sex with a 22 year-old woman be just peachy keen?

Re:There's a huge gap...

[AK Marc]

So the problem isn't consent, but one of "eww-ness". If you personally find the difference greater than you like, then they should be in jail. Otherwise, if you think it's ok, then there's not a problem.

Re:There's a huge gap...

[misexistentialist]

18-and-13 is clearly illegal

Out of the norm, but they could be going to the same school. If the 18 year-old sexually assaulted or forcibly raped a 13-year-old he/she might deserve more punishment than if it was with a girl closer to his/her age, however.

Re:There's a huge gap...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the sex itself is so damaging to a 13 year old, then why does it matter if the 13 year old has sex with another 13 year old or with an 80 year old? The damage should be the same. In fact the 80 year old is more likely to know to take precautions like using condoms. Yet we do not imagine that a 13 year is necessarily greatly scarred from having sex with another 13 year old. I don't know what the truth is, but clearly the truth is nothing like the public understanding of teenage sex, so any public debate about it is likely to be completely unrelated to facts.

As I understand it, under the current US system with 18 as age of consent, if a 17 year old man breaks into a house, finds a sleeping 18 year old woman and proceeds to rape the 18 year old, then the 17 year old rapist has not consented to the sex. Absurd! No one here supports raping children, yet clearly the laws in most countries that are supposed to prevent that cover all kinds of things that are nothing like that. For example a 17 year old man taking a nude picture of himself, or drawing a nude self-portrait. It's not about protecting children at that point, and it's pretty scary to speculate about the actual motivations behind something like that.

The trolls have been overfed

[Anonymous Coward]

The last time there was a pedophile witch hunt on Reddit, the SA thread which instigated it was a bit incensing to read, because it was so clearly a cadre of trolls stirring up a fury that it was hard to believe they found other posters that dumb. This time it seemed like more of the same, so I wasn't at all surprised to see the dumbasses in GBS are the pitchfork mob this time. It's a goddamn crowdsourced variant of forum raids which should have died five years ago but yet again we see SA flooding another website with troll accounts and threads. They may think they're on a great crusade but all they have really done is dragged the signal:noise ratio of Reddit's nontechnical forums down to the pitiable level which finally made me realize that SA was an unfunny and brain-shriveling shitheap a couple years back.

Meanwhile at Slashdot, seemingly leading the charge, we have our very own expert troll bonch claiming in a +4 post at the top that all nerds are pedophile enablers because we think we need to embrace pedos to protect our precious internet freedoms. GNAA was baby steps compared to the refined mass manipulation that's in practice today. The Internet ain't what it used to be.

Well, that depends...

[RobinEggs]

I understand your feelings, and I just posted about why this stuff should be deleted. However, when this thing blew up I became curious about the correlations between child porn and child predation.

I found these: http://www.news.com.au/study-finds-no-link-between-child-porn-and-sex-abuse/story-0-1225749645592
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-legalizing-child-pornography-linked-sex.html

It appears that child porn may not lead people to child predation, and perhaps the availability of what is or resembles child pornography can even lower child predation. I don't know how you separate 'harmless' use of child porn from the coupled market-making that would encourage actual predators to make more for these mere users. Nevertheless, it appears that child porn may not cause behavior escalation any more than snuff films produce serial killers or marijuana produces crackheads. In my opinion, there's likely something wrong with predators, chronic addicts, and serial murderers that goes well beyond the content and availability of their "soft" content like pot or movies. It looks like child porn leading to child predation may be one more "gateway" theory in which the correlation is far weaker than we believed.

I obviously don't support watching or producing child porn, snuff films, or even necessarily pot - but newer data suggests the situation may be a lot more complicated than people think.

4chan

[Anonymous Coward]

If 4chan followed this example, none of the community would listen or care and everything would continue.

Please stop abusing others, Sir !

[Taco Cowboy]

Unfortumately, the Reddit admins' bizarre six-year acceptance of child porn on its site is reflective of an overall lax attitude in online geek communities.

What is really bizarre in this case - and all similar cases - is the censor-happy camp's unquenchable thirst in wanting to close down Internet

They will use all the suggestive words to boost their censorship campaign - like using "Piracy" to boost their campaign to censoring the Net, for example

Reddit caved in because of the word "Child Pornography"

But anyone who understand the true meaning of the word "PORNOGRAPHY" knows that "sexually suggestive postings" does not necessarily means that they are pornographics

I am not campaigning for porn, per se, but I AM sick and tired of those who want to trample on other people's rights just so that your view be the dominant one

Remember one thing, Sir, the Internet belongs to ALL, not those who only wants to powertrip over everybody else

The Feds?

[fyngyrz]

Federal law defines child porn in the US.

Ok, granted, the feds are complete idiots with unbelievable numbers of stupid, often obviously unconstitutional laws, and just because the feds say "no" is a terrible reason to write anything in particular off...

But regardless, actual child porn -- not of sexually active teenagers, of course, but of children -- presents a problem for the child, even if, as some would argue, the majority of the harm comes from the adults hysterically imposing said harm upon the participants. Regardless of its source, the kid is going to suffer some emotional fallout. So child porn is bad, period, in our society. Because there is harm done to the child.

One of the best examples I can think of for "bad law" are the lines in (ok, all over) the sand that the law draws about consent. I can easily find you teenagers who are quite capable of informed consent; and I can just as easily find you adults (that is, people 21 and over) who couldn't even tell you what informed consent is. You know what those age lines really are? A complete cop-out delivered by a society that is too immature to deal with the issue of sexuality in any kind of reasonable fashion -- a late stage superstitious society that squeezes its collective eyes shut in literal horror at the idea of a 16 year old having pleasurable, consenting sex, but watches eagerly when kids the same age -- and younger -- are portrayed in movies as engaged in bloody combat with injury and death both being commonplace. In other words, our lawmakers, our citizens, and the cultural mores that drive them, are nothing more, generally speaking, than a bunch of sick, ineffective failtards.

But hey... you keep rolling with "it's a federal law." Because, you know, that's a sure thing.

Re:Let's play a game

[cheekyjohnson]

He was completely obliterated. All logic just vanishes when it comes to children.

Reality check

[microbox]

Lets try to get this straight.

Okay, you need a reality check. Pedophilia is about primary sexual interest in *prepubescent* children. This is a *different* clinical disorder to Hebephilia, which involves children in early puberty, and Ephebophilia, which is the case that you are talking about: adults interested in under-age teens. A pedophile will lose interest in a child when they reach puberty. I remember one victim disclosing how upset he was when he was discarded. (The pedophile was perfectly frank, and said he was too old to interest him.)

So we really are talking about different things, and hopefully the law recognises that. There are many 17 year old women who wouldn't want to be caught when boys their own age -- it is a status thing amongst -- and young boys are pretty darn annoying. So this can become a sticky situation.

And *many* 17 year old /cannot/ make an informed decision around an older mature person, despite what they think they may want. But at least by 18, we can draw a line in the sand, and say that it is time to learn life's lessons the hard way if that is what you must do.

Re:Reality check

[mikael_j]

And *many* 17 year old /cannot/ make an informed decision around an older mature person, despite what they think they may want. But at least by 18, we can draw a line in the sand, and say that it is time to learn life's lessons the hard way if that is what you must do.

Who are "we"? Where I live the age of consent is 15 (as in, once someone is 15 it's perfectly legal to have sex with them even if you're 25, 41 or 78). It varies by country. Even here in Europe it varies between 13 and 18, in North America it varies between 12/onset of puberty to 18. Hell, even in the US it varies between 16 and 18 depending on state.

Re:Reality check

[Anonymous Coward]

> So this can become a sticky situation.

And that's when law enforcement steps in.

The subreddit was called /r/preteen_girls

[Overly Critical Guy]

Who said anything about beating off to pictures of 14 year olds? I said that 14+ is not a pedophilia.

If you'd RTFA, the most active subreddit now banned by Reddit was called /r/preteen_girls. But hey, enjoy your +5.

What's up with the moderation to this article? Everyone opposed to trading child porn pictures on Reddit is getting modded down, and everyone defending possession of those pictures is getting modded up. Please tell me Slashdot's moral compass isn't that horribly screwed up.

Re:The subreddit was called /r/preteen_girls

[king neckbeard]

The reddit post says nothing about that, and I don't recall the OP in the SA thread (which now apparently needs an account to view) saying anything conclusive about activity, nor would I consider it a particularly reliable source anyway. The summary says it was the most egregious, not the most active. Even if it is the most active, it doesn't mean it constitutes a majority, and could very well be just a plurality.

What's up with the moderation to this article? Everyone opposed to trading child porn pictures on Reddit is getting modded down, and everyone defending possession of those pictures is getting modded up. Please tell me Slashdot's moral compass isn't that horribly screwed up.

A major reason for that may be that most don't consider much of the content in question to constitute 'child' or 'porn', let alone both. Also, given the amount of bullshit that has been forced upon by the 'think of the children' mentality, many people, especially techies, might want horrible things to happen to children just because of all the trouble they have caused.

Re:The subreddit was called /r/preteen_girls

[Corbets]

Who said anything about beating off to pictures of 14 year olds? I said that 14+ is not a pedophilia.

If you'd RTFA, the most active subreddit now banned by Reddit was called /r/preteen_girls. But hey, enjoy your +5.

What's up with the moderation to this article? Everyone opposed to trading child porn pictures on Reddit is getting modded down, and everyone defending possession of those pictures is getting modded up. Please tell me Slashdot's moral compass isn't that horribly screwed up.

No, but those of us who agree with you are not logged on to Slashdot 24/7, unlike those who disagree with you, apparently (draw your own conclusions!). Therefore, the initial mods sent you down, but in the time since then you've been modded back up.

Re:The subreddit was called /r/preteen_girls

[makomk]

Presumably because they'd already banned most of the communities like /r/jailbait dedicated to pictures of 14+ year olds - they were actually the original target of this anti-pedophile campaign by Something Awful.

Re:The subreddit was called /r/preteen_girls

[icebraining]

If you'd RTFA, the most active subreddit now banned by Reddit was called /r/preteen_girls. But hey, enjoy your +5.

Then TFA is wrong. /r/preteen_girls only existed for a few days (strangely enough, only a couple days after SomethingAwful launched their campaign; just saying) and it only had 620 subscribers, which is pitiful for a subreddit.

The most active was /r/teen_girls (with 11640 subscribers), which didn't allow preteens.

http://redditlist.com/stats/preteen_girls
http://redditlist.com/stats/teen_girls

Re:The subreddit was called /r/preteen_girls

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, given the amount of bullshit that has been forced upon by the 'think of the children' mentality, many people, especially techies, might want horrible things to happen to children just because of all the trouble they have caused.

To even have had this train of thought tells me that you were one of the subscribers of this list and are trying to justify your own perversion and desire to be killed by someone's father.

Re:The subreddit was called /r/preteen_girls

[Anonymous Coward]

But what sort of pictures were there? Nude? Bathing suit? Clothed? Were the preteens being harmed in those pictures? Not all pictures of preteens are illegal right? I see adults gushing over cute little kids all the time, and show (sometimes near forcibly) others pictures of their "adorable" children.

FWIW I'm not going to check myself, given the state of things it's too dangerous to risk accessing what might be considered child-porn.

And so what if people collect fully-clothed pics of cute kids and proceed to use them for "thought crime"? Are we also going to ban cuteoverload because a few people masturbate to the pictures of unclothed kittens and bunnies there?

Or are we going to ban sexy adverts because some weirdo enjoys _imagining_ raping the people in those ads?

Posted anonymous to try to avoid any Child Porn Inquisition.

Re:The subreddit was called /r/preteen_girls

[king neckbeard]

No, I don't even visit reddit and never have for any extended period of time, and that portion wasn't entirely serious.

Re:The subreddit was called /r/preteen_girls

[say_hwat]

If you'd RTFA, the most active subreddit now banned by Reddit was called /r/preteen_girls. But hey, enjoy your +5.

Then TFA is wrong. /r/preteen_girls only existed for a few days (strangely enough, only a couple days after SomethingAwful launched their campaign; just saying) and it only had 620 subscribers, which is pitiful for a subreddit.

The most active was /r/teen_girls (with 11640 subscribers), which didn't allow preteens.

http://redditlist.com/stats/preteen_girls http://redditlist.com/stats/teen_girls

r/preteen_girls has existed for 19 days; the SA campaign began yesterday. It was nowhere near the most active subreddit, but it contained some of the most blatantly sexualized content, including a poster recommending on how to seduce your eleven-year-old daughter.

Re:The subreddit was called /r/preteen_girls

[Jibekn]

Every time I hear "Think of the Children" all I'm hearing is "Die mussen die juden ausrotten" Abusing children is bad, so is ruining someones life because they thought a 16 year old was hot when their genetics told them to, isn't that what we've been fighting for on the GLBT front?

Re:The subreddit was called /r/preteen_girls

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but those of us who agree with you are not logged on to Slashdot 24/7, unlike those who disagree with you, apparently (draw your own conclusions!). Therefore, the initial mods sent you down, but in the time since then you've been modded back up.

In theory, posts are supposed to be modded on their content, not because of agreement or disagreement of the content :-(

Open Access?

[owenferguson]

The link to the Reddit post goes directly to the story in question. The link to the SA post goes directly to a page demanding that I register with them if I wish to view their content. This speaks volumes (to me, anyway) about the relative moralities at conflict here...

Re:Open Access?

[Johann Lau]

you're right. SA is up front and honest about the costs :P

Yet when I point it out on here

[kyrio]

When I point out the obvious child porn trading, for profit making purposes, this is the response I get: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2633373&cid=38788719

Re:Yet when I point it out on here

[Anonymous Coward]

What profit making? There is no commercial market for CP anymore because there is no such thing as an untraceable payment method. Bitcoin is traceable. So-called "commercial" CP sites are almost certainly police stings designed to get middle aged school teachers to enter their credit card details and get busted.

Absurd estimates of huge dollar values associated with the alleged CP "market" are nonsense.

Re:Yet when I point it out on here

[Anonymous Coward]

Profit from download sites that pay for every download of your file, retard.

MODS, READ THE DAMN SUMMARY

[Anonymous Coward]

From the summary: "Among others, the thread creator cites r/preteen_girls as being particularly egregious."

This was about trading pictures of kids. Genuine kids, not 16 year olds who look like 18 year olds.

Your mind, not everyone else.

[microbox]

And when most people hear the word, "teen," 18-19 are not the ages which first come to mind.

Well... 18-19 are the ages that first come to my mind. Guess it has to do with how your mind is wired up -- from genetics and experiences.

You could easily to a cognitive experiment (IAT, or a proactive interference measure) to discover empirically if your statement is true; however, I would suggest that it has something more to do with the very personal nature of your mind, and you are projecting it onto everybody else.

Note that homophobia is *positively* correlated with arousal by homoerotica... and some people get confused by this, and then think it is terribly important for everybody to be down on gay people. They are projecting their own cognitive barriers, just as you may be now.

Re:Your mind, not everyone else.

[Ethanol-fueled]

however, I would suggest that it has something more to do with the very personal nature of your mind, and you are projecting it onto everybody else.

Did you even read the first line of my post? All of it? I'm not the one who makes those videos, and there are an awful lot of them, indicating some kind of demand.

You think you sound smart, but your armchair psychology sounds hackneyed and pretentious and your barb at me is smarmy as hell. I didn't even state whether or not I condoned or condemned "teen" porn, I was just pointing out what I have observed. Run along, kiddo, go back to church. Real life is too cruel for your infantile mind to comprehend.

Re:Your mind, not everyone else.

[Rennt]

Hit a nerve there did he? lol

Consent

[fyngyrz]

with necrophilia, bestiality, and underage sex, it is questionable whether or not one party is capable of truly giving consent

In the case of necrophilia, there is only one party, and obviously they consent if they choose to engage. The "other party" is strictly in the imagination of the beholder -- there's no one home. The problem I have with it is that what very likely is home are legions of bacteria who are presently engaged in consuming the host, and are likely just as interested in consuming the, er, visitor. If this is understood (and really, just how ignorant do you have to be to not understand this), then I conclude that choosing to engage is an indicator of self-destructive intent. And no, I don't think condoms sufficiently obviate the risk.

Animals can't consent any more than a trumpet can, but, presuming you don't hurt them, I doubt they care, either, and so what. No one seems to be concerned if the animal consents before we knock them over the head and eat them, so it really seems ludicrous to me to worry if they consent to playing North Dakota to your South Carolina given that the "don't injure them" caveat is in play.

Underage sex is a legal position; there are obviously those "underage" who are capable, competent, and eager -- and who are being abused by the law, not by the sex and/or the partner. There are just as obviously those who are forced and who are injured, and just as in any other case when people are coerced and harmed, society needs (and has, in almost infinite degree) remedies for that. Unfortunately, as long as we define "problem" as "age mismatch = shit one's self and then fall in it" we're just making it worse for the vast majority of people. Getting the politicians off this horse is nigh impossible, though. It's the low hanging fruit, and no, that wasn't a pun.

reddit

[msheekhah]

Pre-teen is hebephilia, but it's just as illegal and just as despicable. Your brain doesn't fully develop risk analysis on average till you're 25. Cause and effect is tough for a pre-teen's brain. They are not equipped psychologically or physiologically to handle that. Sexualizing minors is a problem on the internet. As an older guy, even those under 25 are young to me... not because of an age gap of a decade, but because their minds are still developing... not to mention the lack of experience that comes with being so young. Things were different when the average life expectancy was 40, but we don't live in those times anymore. Women aren't promised to men at age 13 and immediately expected to have children. That kind behavior is considered more barbaric than the medical technology of the time.

Re:reddit

[QCompson]

As an older guy, even those under 25 are young to me... not because of an age gap of a decade, but because their minds are still developing... not to mention the lack of experience that comes with being so young. Things were different when the average life expectancy was 40, but we don't live in those times anymore. Women aren't promised to men at age 13 and immediately expected to have children. That kind behavior is considered more barbaric than the medical technology of the time.

I agree, if only because looking at sexually mature women under the age of 25 is pretty much the same as having sexual intercourse or marrying them. Pretty much.

Re:reddit

[SecurityGuy]

Things were different when the average life expectancy was 40, but we don't live in those times anymore.

No, not really. Life expectancy doesn't mean what you think. It doesn't mean everyone dropped dead around 40. Life expectancy was low because so many died before reaching adulthood at all. Even in the middle ages, if you made it to 21, you were likely to see 60. It was a cultural difference.

This is not in defense of sexualizing the young, but in opposition to treating adults as children. Case in point, excusing whatever a drunk college "kid" does because they're "young".

Re:reddit

[cheekyjohnson]

Your brain doesn't fully develop risk analysis on average till you're 25. Cause and effect is tough for a pre-teen's brain. They are not equipped psychologically or physiologically to handle that.

Were they raping them or something?

Sexualizing minors is a problem on the internet.

If you're talking about looking at images, I'm simply not seeing the problem.

Re:reddit

[Red_Chaos1]

Actually, it's not illegal, but nice try. Images of those underage are only illegal if they are showing genitalia. Provocative poses that keep said areas covered are in no way illegal. Fantasies that remain in ones head are also not illegal, though many would just love to police ones thoughts as well. The only thing illegal is acting on those thoughts, and providing pictures of underage people that have exposed vaginas, breasts, penises, or anuses, or that involve sexual acts with those minors. Nothing more.

I'm all for cracking down on actual illegal material and those that perpetuate it. I'm not at all okay with treading the slippery slope and policing things that break no laws.

Most Jews are pedophiles

[Dainsanefh]

Jerry Sandusky is one, Richard Stallman is another.

"Virgin" Mary

[fyngyrz]

She was most likely 14/15.

...and absolutely dead certain not to have been a virgin.

ermmm

[Anonymous Coward]

What are all the whores going to do in their spare time now?

government: the biggest promoter of snuff

[decora]

no other organization on the planet shows video of people being killed and then brags about what a great accomplishment it is.

Can't stop the signal

[J'raxis]

And this accomplishes...?

Just people moving the content elsewhere, that's all. You can't stop people from trading information if they want to do so.

Re:Lax attitudes toward apostasy

[geminidomino]

Ever stop to think that maybe some people have given thought to this issue and just happen to share Stallman's opinion on this, even without knowing (or caring) that the great almighty Stallman happens to agree with them?

Might admittedly be possible. OTOH, I've seen no evidence of this since, to date, every instance I've seen of someone agreeing with Stallman on this matter has had no problem with name-dropping him within two posts on the subject.

Re:Let's play a game

[outsider007]

I agree that possessing child porn harms the children involved in making it. But so does possessing an iphone.

"Child" is a very general term...

[Anonymous Coward]

Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia."

"Children" can and do consent to sex all the time.
Hey, that's what you get when you lump everyone under 18 years in the same group.

Could I just add...?

[Colourspace]

The world we live in at the moment is broken and bereft of moral values - if you're a religious type or not, we all have our own personal values (or ' morals') and with the population of the world leading to intellectual entropy I'm not sure opinions will ever converge unless we all go and live in North Korea. We all discuss it on-line, everyday, but we will never come to a majority judgement or solution on any topic, will we? I love the internet in so many ways, and it is fascinating to hear everyone's opinion - this is a subject important top me as the father of a five year old - But not the point I want to make right now. We need discussion, absolutely (and free speech too), but does anyone else on /. just feel a little bit more than helpless about anything any more? I don't mean to offtopic, but I wasn't going to submit this to /. as an 'Ask Slashdot' - Maybe I should? Genuine question - are you weeping for the future?

Re:Could I just add...?

[Yosho]

Genuine question - are you weeping for the future?

Nope! The information age has made it easier to see the entire world's issues than ever before, but realistically, overall I think civilization is in the best shape it's ever been in. Don't get me wrong, there are still plenty of issues, and we've got a long way to go before things are perfect, but I think we'll get there eventually. We're certainly far better off now than, say, the people who lived back during the US revolution, or back during medieval times in Europe.

Re:Could I just add...?

[Colourspace]

Thanks. I really would like to hear more people comment on this.

Their Choices

[Alunral]

I've been reading a lot of comments on this article, and I just want to point this out. In no way am I supporting child pornography(or hell, even "child" pornography, "child" being 14/15-18). but...these laws are telling these people what they can and cannot do with their own body. Why does the law get this decision? Because they "can't decide for themselves"? Why can't they? Who is the government, or even some random person who finds out, to tell them they can't? Sure, younger than 15 is questionable, but yes, they can. A 14 year old is going to know exactly the same amount of information about what kind of impact sex will have on them as an 18 year old. There's not much to really not understand at that point. It's something pleasurable, is involved in reproduction. And can also cause you to become pregnant/impregnate someone.

The maturity levels don't really differ much either, by then. I certainly know many people younger than 18 that are more mature than most adults. And yet the government gets to decide this. Okay, fine. In most cases, I could understand this. But this is the very same government that does not give those minors the full "freedoms" an adult has(or as much "freedom" as we currently have here, what with censorship running rampant). You do not have full freedom of speech. You can't vote on your country's leader(and yet they can coerce you into fighting, and dying, for that same country). You can't vote for any leader, really. You cannot legally marry. You cannot get medical treatment without parent consent(except in extreme circumstances). You must attend public school(and your parents are forced to pay for this, too). That's quite a bit of human right that you do not have. These are all things that I can't agree with. At least not until you hit close to that age.

So why does the government get to decide what you can do with your body, the one "property" they cannot take away from you(I'm starting to wonder if I should add "yet" to this. I get the feeling if left alone, they'll find a way...)?

Re:Their Choices

[Yosho]

Why does the law get this decision? Because they "can't decide for themselves"? Why can't they? Who is the government, or even some random person who finds out, to tell them they can't?

Not that I'm saying it's a good thing, but that's what the government does. They tell you what you can and cannot legally do. That's the entire point of government. Who are they to do so? Well, they're the government.

You do not have full freedom of speech.

In what way are you prohibited from saying what you want?

they can coerce you into fighting, and dying, for that same country

The draft was discontinued in 1973, and you't not required to register for selective service until you're 18.

You must attend public school(and your parents are forced to pay for this, too).

That's a deceptive way of putting it -- everybody is forced to pay for it, through their income taxes.

You may also be interested in knowing about emancipation of minors.

So why does the government get to decide what you can do with your body, the one "property" they cannot take away from you(I'm starting to wonder if I should add "yet" to this. I get the feeling if left alone, they'll find a way...)?

No, they already do that, too. Familiar with the death penalty?

Re:Their Choices

[darthdavid]

I disagree with the current 'burn the witch' situation we have going in this country anytime someone brings up pedophiles or anything that could be construed as CP, but your argument is silly.

The government has the right to do things based on the social contract. That is to say, at least theoretically, we choose the government's composition via democracy and the government provides services and writes/enforces laws to allow us to live in a civilized society. Part of that is protecting citizens from those who would see them harmed.

Asking 'who is the government to do things like this?' is silly, because doing things like this is the entire point of the government's existence.

That said, I think what the government is doing in this area is a non-solution. Worrying about child porn that's already out there and declaring a bunch of things that aren't actually child porn (art, stories, edited images, young looking but legal actors etc) to be child porn and going after them is dumb. As is going after teenagers who self-produce porn (which the government has done, often charging all involved with producing child porn, as if legal charges and almost certain sex-offender status will somehow 'protect' 15 and 16 year olds). Worry about the people who rape children, especially the ones who record it (can you say 'documenting your crimes and providing ready-made evidence'?) as well as anyone profiting off it (if money's being made it's encouraging more children to be raped).

Going after images that are already out there and things that didn't actually harm any children (whether because they were doing it to themselves or because there were no children involved in the first place) is only useful as a propaganda piece so people can act like they're tough on crime (as if that actually meant anything or accomplished anything useful). It doesn't stop any children to be hurt and it drives the people who want to look at it underground where they get encouraged to rape little girls and take pictures for the 'community' rather than going and getting psychiatric help (which is what they actually need). And unlike when it happened on reddit, when people give this sort of advice on a darknet it's not out in the open where non-child-molesters can see it and possibly take preventative action.

Re:Their Choices

[chekkerness]

You must attend public school

I have lived in the US for my entire life, and I dropped out of elementary school.

Puberty Sexualizes Children

[Anonymous Coward]

This is obvious right?

Re:Let's play a game

[Deorus]

Isn't there a huge difference between raping a woman and distributing porn? So why do the terms suddenly change when it comes to children? You know, repeating yourself doesn't make your arguments any more valid. We all understand that you don't like child porn, and the fact of the matter is that nobody gives a flying crap about what you like or not; however your posts are highly emotional and devoid of rational thought, hence the justified moderation. I'm actually sorry for having disabled moderation on my account 6 years ago, otherwise I would be contributing to it myself now, because you did not address a single point of what the parent poster said.

Not about THAT shock

[SuperKendall]

if you stick to the lighted areas (linux, debian, buildapc, metal, etc.) you won't be "shocked."

Yes you will, just not in the way you think.

The site design is horrific, so ugly I literally cannot read it. That's not speaking at all of the content - just presentation and layout. I'm not just a Slashdot readers, I follow a lot of other sites. Reddit was the only one I had to give up on.

Over the years it sure does not seem Slashot has "lost" any techies to Reddit - and if they had I can't imagine anything of value was lost.

I hear that a lot

[KingAlanI]

Yes, it's a problem that American culture tends to be relatively concerned about sex and relatively unconcerned about violence

"I'd rather my son watch a video of two making love than two people trying to kill one another" - George Carlin

Re:I hear that a lot

[Cimexus]

And swearing. Don't forget the swearing.

When my American wife moved here to Australia for the first time she thought it was so weird that we didn't bleep out words on TV and radio anywhere near as much in the US. Even the worst words are usually allowed through here. Oh and full frontal nudity on free to air TV here was a bit of a shock for her too (this only occurs after a certain hour at night though ... 10pm or something like that).

And when I'm in the US I often get a laugh out of the most mundane words being bleeped or removed from things. Like 'crap'. Or even things like 'hell' and 'gun' ... they aren't even swear words!

OTOH a violent movie is likely to receive a higher rating in Australia than in the US, true.

Re:I hear that a lot

[swalve]

Protip: sometimes words are bleeped out because it is funnier to have the bleep than it is to leave the word in.

IF YoungerAge = (OlderAge/2)+7 : OK

[KingAlanI]

how about this for a mathematical definition?
Take the older person's age, divide by 2 and then add 7. If the younger person is at least that age, then it's OK.

21,17.5
20,17
19,16.5
18,16

Re:IF YoungerAge = (OlderAge/2)+7 : OK

[geminidomino]

42, 28...

You can bet it was a middle-aged man who came up with this function...

(NB: That's actually a joke. I'm well aware that it's widely attributed to Aristotle)

Re:IF YoungerAge = (OlderAge/2)+7 : OK

[shutdown -p now]

15, 14 - off to the gallows?

Re:IF YoungerAge = (OlderAge/2)+7 : OK

[Anonymous Coward]

15, 14 - off to the gallows?

15/2 = 7.5
7.5+7 = 14.5
14.5>14

L2Math

Re:IF YoungerAge = (OlderAge/2)+7 : OK

[shutdown -p now]

L2Read:

Take the older person's age, divide by 2 and then add 7. If the younger person is at least that age, then it's OK.

older_person_age == 15
actual_younger_person_age == 14
permissible_younger_person_age == 15 / 2 + 7 == 14.5
(actual_younger_person_age >= permissible_younger_person_age) == false

So, off to the gallows.

Re:IF YoungerAge = (OlderAge/2)+7 : OK

[Anonymous Coward]

46, 30 .... damn my girlfriend is gonna be unhappy when i tell her she needs to stop coming over.

Re:IF YoungerAge = (OlderAge/2)+7 : OK

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely missed that, as punishment I am reading War and Peace by candlelight. I will submit my book report at the end of the week.

Re:Let's play a game

[MightyMartian]

I simply cannot believe. I'd like to think that it's some sort of Ron Paul-like ideologues unable to recognize the limits of a philosophy, but we're talking about a guy attacking a highly questionable post being modded to -1.

IPs of site viewers anyone?

[basecastula]

Seems like law enforcement might find those helpful.

Re:Let's play a game

[Anonymous Coward]

I simply cannot believe.

This is about child porn.

I'd like to think that it's some sort of Ron Paul-like ideologues unable to recognize the limits of a philosophy,

This is about child porn.

but we're talking about a guy

This is about child porn.

attacking a highly questionable post being modded to -1.

This is about child porn.

There, I attacked, thoroughly disproved and dismantled (or proven and enforced - choose for yourself, because it's neither anyways) your argument using the same sophisticated logical approach.

Hint: it's not pro-child porn bias, it's anti-idiocy bias. Coherent posts with rational discussion don't get modded down - even bonch's first post here is +5 Insightful, for fuck's sake, however crooked it is ("no more suggestive content" becomes outright "6 year acceptance of child porn", RMS quoting someone becomes RMS endorsing necropedozoophilia, plus a heaping dose of "you all hippie nerds, y'all". Nope, not troll)

What types are you referring to ??

[Taco Cowboy]

Agreed. I guess that's just the types we get around here.

'scuse moi, but just WHAT types are you referring to?

Tell me, is a picture of a little girl biting a banana considered as "Child Porn" ?

That picture may be just an innocent picture of a little girl enjoying a sweet banana, but to the minds of some, that innocent picture is "sexually suggestive" and therefore, HAS TO BE ABSOLUTELY BANNED !!!

Who is sick, may I ask?

The child, who enjoy the banana?

The guy (or gal) who took the pic?

Or the person who saw porn when there was none?

Re:What types are you referring to ??

[firefrei]

Any reasonable, sane individual would not have a problem with said pic. Anyone who'd suggest banning it because someone might find it "sexually suggestive" would be considered unreasonable and a bit whack.

When I mention the types we get around here, I'm referring instead to the people who've taken Stallman's message of freedom and openness to the extreme, where nothing should be censored and everything should be available, even if society has deemed it undesirable to have such things available for public consumption.

Re:What types are you referring to ??

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd think it was the person who created an Internet forum dedicated to collecting hundreds of pictures of little girls for the purposes of sexual gratification, and all the people who then subscribed to that Internet forum.

Re:What types are you referring to ??

[nu1x]

The wider question is why is unforced sex bad in any case.

Why are photos of children brutally mutilating other children ok, but some suggestiveness, that harms none, bad at all ? WTF.

What has happened to human species that they started to associate sex with bad things ? Religion ?

This is on the level of making a sin out of eating, and people only eating in secret and begging "forgiveness" to"god" for the sin they are making, think about how absurd that would be.

Re:What types are you referring to ??

[Kjella]

Tell me, is a picture of a little girl biting a banana considered as "Child Porn" ?

obligatory not XKCD

Re:What types are you referring to ??

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

That's cute. Let's now consider the same picture with the term "jailbait" below it (or as a section header, or ...).

What exactly does said pic refer to then ?

Re:What types are you referring to ??

[hitmark]

And this is how the pedo bear meme got started. Someone had a fridge horror moment about a perfectly innocent cartoon/anime bear character, mentioned it on 4chan, and the rest is history...

Re:What types are you referring to ??

[dave420]

I'd say the person who put it online in a part of a website dedicated to sexualised images of children, and the site which knowingly lets that happen. Cut those two out, and the problem is gone.

Re:What types are you referring to ??

[bjwest]

I'd say the person who put it online in a part of a website dedicated to sexualised images of children, and the site which knowingly lets that happen. Cut those two out, and the problem is gone.

The problem is no more gone than if you were to take a cup of water off the counter and pour it down the drain. The water still exists, you've just removed from your sight.

The only thing you've done is removed the images from your view, thereby makeing yourself feel like you've "helped the children" when in fact you've done very little to solve the problem.

Re:What types are you referring to ??

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me: any picture of a child is now potentially considered child porn. The child can be depicted fully clothed and it can still be child porn in US courts because it is deemed "suggestive" by a particular judge for example. In many other countries fictional or simulated representations of a child engaged in sexual activity are considered as if a real child were involved and labelled child pron.

Any research which suggests that minors may suffer no harm from sexual activity with adults in certain circumstances (such as Rind et al) is fiercely suppressed and its authors heavily sanctioned. Society is now completely unable to consider any of these issues objectively. One researcher lamented publicly a few years ago that it is just not possible to carry out objective research on childhood sexuality because of extreme prejudice. The outcomes of research are predetermined before data is collected and this must reinforce the dominant harm or abuse model or it will be very unlikely to be published.

In short, no one is interested in hearing anything that challenges simplistic beliefs, beat-ups and myths about this issue that say anything other than "shock, horror!". One study in Australia found that even human service professionals were grossly misinformed about the actual risks of child abuse and greatly overestimated the risks and effects of CSA.

Re:What types are you referring to ??

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll see if I can find a screenshot to back up my claim, but the banana picture this poster is talking about was titled something along the lines of "banana blowjob".

Re:What types are you referring to ??

[firefrei]

See, this is why I don't debate on Slashdot (and keep making new accounts when things get out of hand). Evidently I'm not good enough at it to get highly modded like some people are. :)

Re:What types are you referring to ??

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

That's the weakness of ANY rule system : in the end it's humans interpreting the laws. Iran's laws, for example, have a constitution that guarantees human rights as they signed the relevant documents.

Judges think allah entitles them to violate any agreement they make (technically sharia requires any muslim to violate any agreements they make if it suits the cause - it is "haram" to respect peace treaties if they can win militarily)

The laws are quite resonable. In the end, the question comes down to : do you trust American judges to be reasonable ? If you don't, for the love of God, leave the country ASAP.

Any sane person would have no problems here.

Re:What types are you referring to ??

[Taco Cowboy]

See, this is why I don't debate on Slashdot (and keep making new accounts when things get out of hand). Evidently I'm not good enough at it to get highly modded like some people are. :)

Don't get discouraged

All you need to do in Slashdot - and I've been here for quite some time - is to post messages that can burn images into the minds of the readers

Re:What types are you referring to ??

[Anonymous Coward]

Intention of the heart my friend.
He who posts a picture like that meaning/intending to convey a double meaning is guilty.
He who sexual gratifies on a picture like that is guilty.
If a guy/gal took that picture because he saw some double meaning to it, he is guilty.

Intention!

The Reddit Admins Have Always Known About This

[TechnoGrl]

One of Reddit's most egregious offenders with regard to child porn is a despicable 50 something old man named ViolentAcrez who created many of the child porn sites on Reddit (as well as racist and anti-Semite subreddits as well). ViolentAcrez is SURPRISE! close friends with the admins of Reddit and had been modding Reddit child porn sites for four years prior to their removal today.

The SA forums leave much to be desired but they have done a great service in exposing the hypocrisy and outright vileness of the Reddit admins in permitting these sorts of things to occur. There is simply NO PLACE for child porn on Reddit or anywhere else and no excuse. The fact that the REddit admins were and contiue to be great friend with a pedophile and generally rotten person doesn't mean they get to look away from this. This all happenned because the Reddit admins REFUSED TO ACT when presented time and again with what their friends were doing with their site.

Re:The Reddit Admins Have Always Known About This

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's not just Penn State football coaches?

Re:The Reddit Admins Have Always Known About This

[Anonymous Coward]

There is and was no child porn on reddit, you made that up.

Re:The Reddit Admins Have Always Known About This

[Anonymous Coward]

The SA forums leave much to be desired but they have done a great service in exposing the hypocrisy

The only hypocrisy exposed is that of SA creating /r/preteen two weeks ago and writing all the fucked up messages on there. The moderator is a SA goon.

Re:The Reddit Admins Have Always Known About This

[GameboyRMH]

A lot of people don't realize this but SA forums actually have very strict rules. If you posted anything resembling child porn on there you'd be banned fast and hard and have to pay $10 to open a new account. Trolling, griefing, and depending on how and where you post it, porn, is totally fair game though.

Actual Reality check

[rdebath]

Children have fully adult brain function at an average of age eight. The rest of childhood, as far as the brain is concerned, is learning stuff, beginning with the word "WHY"!

The only reason that a 17 year old makes a bad decision is lack of experience and lack of knowledge. In everything except sex (and in America alcohol) children are explicitly taught about "important things".

As for the word "Pedophilia" it's been redefined (like Moron, Idiot and Hacker) by the media to mean something like "a creepy picture of an older guy who's rumoured or 'proven' to have sex with a female of 18 or under". Yes according to the media having "legal sex" can be "Pedophilia", it's hardly surprising, after all you've just done it, the age of consent in most America states is 16.

Then we have the law, it's just made up of people, often they get things right, but ignorance, peer pressure and propaganda can make fools of anyone.

Re:Actual Reality check

[ruvablue]

"Children have fully adult brain function at an average of age eight. The rest of childhood, as far as the brain is concerned, is learning stuff, beginning with the word "WHY"! I think this author seems to disagree with you: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/teenage-brains/dobbs-text Brain scientists are leaning toward saying that our brains are not mature until they are around age 25.

Re:Actual Reality check

[Tim C]

Children have fully adult brain function at an average of age eight.

That may be neurologically true (though I doubt it), but they most certainly do not have the experience to make informed decisions or a real grasp of the concept of consequence and how their actions can lead to consequences which may be unpleasant or dangerous.

Re:Actual Reality check

[hitmark]

This brings into discussion the definition of mature. Giving responsibilities to kids early seems to bring about more mature behavior for instance.

Re:Actual Reality check

[hitmark]

But how to get that experience when society isolate them from all that is "spooky"?

Re:Actual Reality check

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... If we start down the road of preventing people that might not be capable of making good decisions from making decisions then we may as well draw the line at 40 years. I (only 26) would argue that I and most people my age do not have the wisdom to make truly good choices and consequently we should have our lives largely orchestrated by the middle-aged and elderly.

Reality: At the age of 10 I was rather pissed off that some "adults" were clearly complete idiots not even fully capable of looking after themselves. These morons had the freedom to do pretty much anything including vote where I had no such freedoms. Through my teens I simply accepted the fact that I was a second class citizen at best. I was not sexually aware at all at that age and I know I would have certainly passed on an offer of sex even at 15. For me, "child pornography" that is related to coercion and rape is unseemly (the acts themselves vile and abhorrent respectively) but images in which the subjects consent and understand the privacy implications of posting online as well as your average adult are perfectly fine.

Re:Actual Reality check

[WilCompute]

And how, pray tell do they get that experience if they are forbidden by the law, and parents don't want to talk to them about it, are afraid to talk to them about it (in the case of a single male parent, talking to his preteen/teen daughter about sex, taken the wrong way to a jury of his "peers", could be jailed.) or don't care to talk about it? Our solution? Force them to wait til their parents are no longer "legally" responsible for them, and them abandon them to the world.

Admittedly, not every parent abandons their child at 18, but how may of your friends tell their children "at 18 you are out?" This is the main reason for our unstable relationships, as when the brain has been designed to learn about dealing with the opposite sex, at puberty to full brain maturity, we try to force our children to not have sex, and then we wonder why they end up pregnant before they ever leave home.

Since the law says we don't need to deal with it til 18, we let it go.

Now, I am not agreeing with non-consensual sex, with rape, with child abuse, or any such thing. I am advocating EDUCATION!

Re:Actual Reality check

[celle]

"but they most certainly do not have the experience to make informed decisions or a real grasp of the concept of consequence"

    Neither do college kids, hazing and drunken stupidity come to mind, but their still adults under the law. They are still learning and it doesn't stop ever so you're definition is incorrect.

Re:Actual Reality check

[Anonymous Coward]

"... [Children] most certainly do not have the experience to make informed decisions or a real grasp of the concept of consequence and how their actions can lead to consequences which may be unpleasant or dangerous.

Consider the fact that the last two US Presidents were elected by adults. They seem to have trouble with understanding consequences also.

Re:Actual Reality check

[rdebath]

The vast majority of people throughout history died before the age of 25. We as a species would not have survived with such a serious mistake in our makeup.

The brain does continue to change, because at that age the human brain has more interconnectivity that at any other time. Most of those paths are never used and get reabsorbed. Somewhere after about 18 most of the paths that will be deleted are gone and many people basically stop learning.

So these 'mature' brains are ones that will never learn and will never discover anything new. That doesn't sound right, that's not 'mature' that's ossified.

... What?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you say law enforcement guys - who manage to round pedos in P2P nets and work on catching them in anonymous networks - didn't react to 4 years of child porn and hate speech originating from same person on a plain old public website?.. And not just some third-world trash blog hosting, but Reddit, hosted in US and ranked somewhere around top 100 most visited sites.

Either you're exaggerate, or Reddit admins and ViolentAcrez make _very_ generous donations to someone in Washington, DC and bought out everyone in law enforcement. I wonder, which.

Utter fail in this thread.

[Beelzebud]

If your statement starts with, "I'm not defending child porn, but" ,you should just stop typing, and quit while you're ahead.

Re:Utter fail in this thread.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are unable to regulate yourselves, someone will regulate for you. I fear that this is the future for a lot of things on the internet.

Re:Utter fail in this thread.

[JoshuaZ]

What if someone said instead:

If your statement starts with, "I'm not defending pictures of Muhammad, but" ,you should just stop typing, and quit while you're ahead.

Does that sound different to you? If so, why? Is it simply that one is bad in your own moral framework and the other one isn't?

Re:Utter fail in this thread.

[Beelzebud]

One involved raped and exploited children, and the other is an insult to an imaginary character.

Re:Utter fail in this thread.

[cheekyjohnson]

"I'm not defending child, but I don't think that we should ban the internet because a few people might use it to distribute child porn. That would cause far too much collateral damage."
"Aha! You said, 'I'm not defending child porn, but.' Therefore, your arguments are invalidated."
"Wow! That's absolutely genius and not completely irrelevant at all! Yes, ban the internet on some burn the witches crusade!"

Does that qualify? The person's statement did start with that, after all.

Re:Utter fail in this thread.

[JoshuaZ]

So you did essentially answer the question. One of these you doesn't register in your moral system. And in fact, as discussed already, the existence of child porn or distribution of child porn doesn't by itself hurt children. And in the vast majority of the cases in discussion, it isn't even clear that it would normally be labeled child porn. We're talking mainly about pictures taken off the web from Facebook and the like of teenagers. Now, you may find that morally problematic. I find it repugnant. But finding something morally repugnant isn't a reason to let people not engage in essentially harmless acts. If free speech and tolerance mean anything they can't be just for the speech that one doesn't mind. That's not free speech.

nun outfits

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, require every underage person to wear a nun outfit, just to be safe. Until of course, like Japanese school uniforms, they become an almost obligatory recurring prop in porn... ;)

SOPA link?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has my tin-foil hat slipped off or was reddit at the forefront of the anti SOPA campaign? If it wasn't for this hat, I would be thinking about witchhunts ...

Half of that group can't give consent!

[stomv]

prostitution: consent possible, and it is legal in parts of tUSA
adultery: consent possible, and it is de facto legal in all parts of tUSA
necrophilia: consent not possible, and a corpse isn't a sock.
bestiality: consent not possible, and an animal, like a corpse, isn't a sock.
pedophilia: consent not possible, as minors can't give consent.
possession of child pornography: not a direct consent issue, but it is inextricably linked to the crime, much like ivory is to killing elephants.
incest: if not a minor, this is a funny one. Consent is possible, but heterosexual incest amongst adults can have some pretty awful results.

Half of his position isn't particularly controversial, and the other half a part of his statement ("as long as no one is coerced") eliminates most of the other half. The only two controversial remaining items which RMS seems to allow for are possession of child pornography and incest amongst adults. Controversial and extreme points? Sure. But only two of 'em methinks *shrugs*

Re:Half of that group can't give consent!

[makomk]

There's actually a fairly good feminist argument that basically, because our society is so fucked up, no woman can ever really consent to having sex with a man and not be coerced. There's an even more common one - and some countries have passed laws based on this - that no women can ever consent to having sex in exchange for money due to the inequality in power.

Re:Half of that group can't give consent!

[Rennt]

The first argument is more misandrist then feminist. I do believe the second argument has some merit, but the balance of power thing is about who has the money, not who has the penis.

Re:Half of that group can't give consent!

[Kjella]

bestiality: consent not possible, and an animal, like a corpse, isn't a sock.

Of course animals aren't asked to consent to anything, we breed them, we castrate them, we kill them, we keep them in cages and on leashes, if you're going to use human standards pretty much all animal owners would be put away for life on kidnapping, rape and murder charges. Pretty much the only rule that governs them is that they should not be maltreated, which obviously includes anything causing disease or injury. But if someone's idea of a good time is to suck a horse dick, well I can't really come up with a good reason why that should be illegal other than that it's unnatural, creepy sure but nobody objects to a vet artificially inseminating a cow sticking things in its private parts - and the cow gets pregnant.too.

Re:Half of that group can't give consent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Consent is possible, but heterosexual incest amongst adults can have some pretty awful results.

They teach about condoms in your schools, don't they?

Paywall

[KiloByte]

Could we get a ban on posting links to content behind a paywall in the summary, please? Not everyone is going to shell out money to a sleazy pro-censorship site like Something Awful to read what the fuss is about.

Re:Paywall

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's interesting that SA now requires a low membership fee. IMO? Sleazy membership drive tactic.
SA has never been a paragon of virtue,

Re:Paywall

[Anonymous Coward]

Could we get a ban on posting links to content behind a paywall in the summary, please? Not everyone is going to shell out money to a sleazy pro-censorship site like Something Awful to read what the fuss is about.

Actually I think the /. effect is to blame for that.
The site wasn't paywalled when the article first went up but after they began receiving heavy traffic all the forums were locked down.
It's a shame really, I had hoped their campaign would make them the victims of an unintentional DDOS.

Re:Paywall

[say_hwat]

Could we get a ban on posting links to content behind a paywall in the summary, please? Not everyone is going to shell out money to a sleazy pro-censorship site like Something Awful to read what the fuss is about.

Could we get a ban on posting links to content behind a paywall in the summary, please? Not everyone is going to shell out money to a sleazy pro-censorship site like Something Awful to read what the fuss is about.

At the time the story was submitted, the forum was not pay-walled. At some point yesterday, the thread was the top link on reddit. This resulted in the website getting hammered with guests. I'm assuming since then they have put the paywall up.

Re:Paywall

[Yunzil]

Yes, it's true. Something Awful is a pro-censorship site because they don't agree with people posting child porn.

Reddit sucks anyways

[XeroSine]

hell even 4chan had a policy up like that from the get go....way to be in last place reddit.

We should be happy

[DarkOx]

Everyone really ought to keep in mind this is not a case of censorship. This is the reddit people policing their own site. It's not like dear old uncle Sam came by and yanked their domain. Clearly the site owners realized the content was offensive to many, possibly harmful to some, of little artistic or political value and chose to remove it.

I am all for the freedom to say and do obscene things it has a place, however this was likely not one of those places. Responsible use of our rights and self restraint is the best way to keep them

Re:We should be happy

[Meneth]

Don't fool yourself, this is censorship.

Reddit is cringe worthy at times

[Shivetya]

The sad part is that there are many good subs on reddit, too bad its wasted at a site like that.

The problem from my standpoint is the level of lewdness, if not down right creepiness, you find on that site is cause for alarm. It is sites like that give "nerds" a bad name. It plays to all the worst stereotypes. That site is a good study into how anonymity of the internet brings out the worst in some people.

I am a gamer, I have followed their SWTOR sub for some time. Yet every day we get bombarded by characters/companions in proactive poses, slave girl outfits, and the like. Is this the level of maturity that "nerds/geeks" exist? Have they not escaped middle school bathroom humor and expression yet?

The sad part is that many are in their twenties and thirties.

Re:Reddit is cringe worthy at times

[anonymov]

Nerds?.. On Reddit?.. How long did you sleep?

With a million unique visitors daily, Reddit has long ago lost status of "nerd site", it's already become yet another site with sexy/funny pictures/post/demotivational posters/advice animals/rage comics and a few nerd reservations from earlier days.

/r/jailbait was AWESOME

[Anonymous Coward]

If being turned on by 16 year old girls with hard bodies is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Re:Let's play a game

[chekkerness]

+5 Insightful for claiming that possession of child porn is no problem, that there's a huge difference between raping a child and distributing child pornography

That's probably because there is a huge difference between the two.

you're still participating in the exploitation and victimization of that child

Not really.

Re:Let's play a game

[furbyhater]

So suddenly, when it comes to child porn, you shut off your brain and start screaming and foaming at the mouth?

This is a missed opprotunity...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish that SomethingAwful had simply reported this to the authorities rather than make a public row over it. While the latter may let them get their jollies about jostling Reddit around as they love to do so much, if the police had gotten to this first while it was still a round, a lot of people commiting Conspiracy to Rape and the like would now be indicted. An opprotunity to rid the world of some extremely deviant and harmful people was lost here.

the difference between cp and jailbait

[Anonymous Coward]

cp is like a priest abusing altar boys, 10-12 year-olds say. Jailbait is someone who you think is 18 because she was born in 2000 and it's 2018 this year, but hey, actually she hasn't reached 18 yet so you're busted. jailbait is someone who can pass off a fake ID and make you think they're old enough to consent, whereas they're not.

nothing to do with cp or pedophilia, imho.

I don't think you are correct.

[way2trivial]

every state makes allowances of people who are similar in age... 18 to 17 does not make it an automatic fail anywhere

check this list.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-r-0376.htm

Reddit, Digg

[p51d007]

Just a place for people to think they are really someone. I stopped going to Digg/Reddit years ago, when it became nothing more than a giant flamefest. Doesn't surprise me that the flamebaiters would also be into kiddy porn.

Re:Lax attitudes towards English.

[Anonymous Coward]

For the love of Christ/Stallman, fucking pick a/one goddamn word and stick with it.

I am not a legislator...

[gwolf]

So my opinion is clearly irrelevant. If I understand correctly, there is no *formal* felony between two underage (and thus not habilitated to formally consent) people. A more interesting case would be 16 and 19, 17 and 20. I guess it would be up to valuation by a psychologist - but this is just an uninformed opinion

Explain me again please.

[Requiem18th]

Stepping aside from Reddit's issue.

I'd like that some could explain me again how the free distribution of CP damanges the CP industry, but the free distribution of movies and music hurt the movies and music industries? After all if no transnational corporation gets paid for it no body would make it right?

Re:Explain me again please.

[cheekyjohnson]

I'd like that some could explain me again how the free distribution of CP damanges the CP industry

I don't think it damages them. I think it makes it more difficult for them to profit (which I think also applies to copyright infringement).

Is that all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if they'd also go back to removing /atheism as a default subreddit the front page would be so much nicer and I wouldn't have to log in. Why aren't atheism alternatives also default? It was so much better when all the arrogant, negative posts weren't on the front page.

That and remove pics of cats and you'd have a decent site.

Downvote to Oblivion

[Anonymous Coward]

I've spoken out about this on Reddit a couple times and each time I get downvoted hard. The pervs come out in force to defend their behavior.

Lol America

[Swampash]

Violence=good
Sex=makes me feel guilty that the sky fairy is watching me masturbate

Just an addition to your post

[Anonymous Coward]

There CANNOT be coercion in necrophilia, written consent prior death or not. A corpse is not a person, legal or otherwise, it is an object. The difference between an inflated doll and a corpse is minimal : in the material in which the object is constitued. If you say one need consent with a corpse, then one should need consent with a dildo too. It is very simple concept, but a huge amount of people can't go past "it was a human" think of afterlife and whatnot. No, no, 1000 time no. A corpse is not a human, is not a person, it is simply, an object which is rotting. No consent needed to do whatever you wish to my corpse. Or any corpse.

This is just sick

[liquidsin]

Children being dolled up all seductively for the viewing pleasure of adults has no place on the internet. Let's keep that where it belongs - on the The Learning Channel's "Toddlers and Tiaras" - Wednesdays at 10 (9 central).

lax attitudes towards thinking clearly

[Onymous Coward]

Because people generally fail to make distinctions is not a persuasive argument that we should avoid finer discerning.

Just because the average IQ is about 100 doesn't mean we should all be aiming to think at that level.

Generally, blunting your vocabulary blunts your thinking.

When you actually try to address the problem you stop calling the tailgater a "psycho" and you get more precise. He was he was "unnecessarily endangering people". You quit emotionally flailing with epithets and you try to get at the real problem, using more precise speech.

Heated debate about emotionally charged and contentious topics is exactly when you need to ratchet up your precision in thought and speech.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Reddit:

[Anonymous Coward]

Reddit: The reason that Slashdot is no longer relevant and I hardly even look here anymore.

Actually..

[shiftless]

And if someone is sexually attracted to a fourteen year old, I (and most every other moron with a shallow perspective) will call them a pedophile

FTFY

Ban SA from Reddit.

[sethstorm]

While there is no question about getting rid of the obvious stuff, why not go one step further and get rid of SA from reddit?

Then laugh at them as they get silenced from any further measures.

Hello, SA user or shill!

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back from where you came and be lucky Reddit didnt just ban them.

New laws?

[SuperTechnoNerd]

Lets just make it simple:
Make it illegal for any adult to photograph anyone under 18 for any reason, unless your a parent or guardian. With a harsh penalty and sex offender status. That seem how we do things around here.

Re:New laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except most child abuse is committed by a family member or guardian.

Re:Let's play a game

[psiclops]

Congratulations. your method of argument clearly shows that your stance on this issue is based entirely upon irrational fanaticism and not based on any actual thought about the subject.

his post was probably modded insightful because it was

Re:Lax attitudes towards English.

[lightknight]

You know, if you actually get a /. account, and play around with GreaseMonkey, I'm sure you could hide my posts. Then you never have to see them again.

Re:Let's play a game

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so we're clear, you're defending child porn possession, and you think such a defense is insightful.

Just so we're clear about that.