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

Re:Moral Panic

[bonch]

Yes, banning the posting of sexual pictures of kids is a moral panic. Sorry you can't have /r/3DBabyWieners anymore.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!?

[multiben]

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.

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"

Let's play a game

[bonch]

Let's play a game. It's called, "Read every line in your post and remember that this is about child porn."

Ready? Here goes.

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

This is about child porn.

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

This is about child porn.

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

This is about child porn.

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?

This is about child porn.

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

This is about child porn.

Possession of a picture should not constitute a crime.

This is about child porn.

Okay, so your post is obviously completely off the deep end. But that's not what's shocking. What's shocking is that at the time of this reply, your post is +5 Insightful. +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 (hint--you're still participating in the exploitation and victimization of that child), and that some random case you don't even give a link to about someone photoshopping underage girls somehow justifies letting child porn get traded on Reddit.

Your post is disgusting, and the people who modded you up are disgusting.

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

[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

[artor3]

When was the last time you saw a 14 year old joining the military?

We need to draw a line somewhere. We draw the line for driving around 16, the line for the sex a bit older, and the line for drinking older than that.

What the hell is with all the people trying to rationalize pedophilia on this site? Is pedophilia apologia a "thing" for libertarians or something?

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[Beelzebud]

No just people who condone child rape/porn. Thanks for trying though. going by your asinine sig I can see you're a libertarian / free state style moron, so have a nice day raging against modern society.

Re:Some Context from a Redditor

[Beelzebud]

Keep fighting the good fight. Child porn for everyone!

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography

[Myopic]

You just won a Slashdot Achievement for getting a +5, Informative mod on what is clearly a -1, Troll.