You can't not do something because it isn't 100% perfect and foolproof
I didn't say that that was the case. I believe the problem with most of these laws, though, is that they're unjust and circumvent due process. Given history's countless corrupt governments, I believe it is a very, very bad idea to allow them to pass.
Actual research has continuously contradicted this idea, showing that people use fantasies to work themselves up over time
Citation needed.
In short: sustained perverse ideation leads directly, over time, to perverse action.
Even if that's what appears to happen, how do you know it's because of the content itself? What if they would have done it eventually anyway? What if this doesn't apply to everyone?
this debate is all built on straw if you do not realize the basic reason for banning these _depictions_
I don't believe a few criminals are a justification for resorting to censorship just like I don't think the existence of terrorists is justification of the TSA. And you offer the same thing as the TSA: security theater.
You don't have to buy child porn to look at it. Some of them don't buy it.
are paying the actual rapists either directly or indirectly
Yes, I believe we should really stop the actual rapists and everyone directly involved in the process instead of blaming everyone who indirectly helps them.
so it's ban removes the customers of the rapists
It hasn't and never will. We've been trying to censor it for quite some time now. Similar efforts have failed with copyright infringement.
Just because you KNOW the evidence is on the internet.
It's futile to try to censor it. Once it's on the Internet, it's likely there for good. Not only that, but the fact that they don't like it being on the Internet doesn't mean we should resort to censorship in the first place. There are plenty of things on the Internet that people don't like, but I don't believe that means we should censor it.
(s)He may think (s)he enjoys it, but their brain is damaged
I think this is why you can't phrase such infractions in terms of "causing offence" but in terms of privacy rights.
It doesn't really make any difference to me. The point is that it's not physical harm here. Even if you phrase it in terms of privacy rights, it's still just someone getting offended, feeling violated, or wanting people to not see the content.
I just meant that there's really no easy way to stop it. Once something is out there, it's going to be very difficult or impossible to get rid of. I think trying to minimize the damage in less futile ways is a better solution.
It worries me that your definition may be based on harm to some quasi-religious ideal rather than harm to individuals.
It's based on my own opinion (just like everyone else's). At least when we're talking about the types of harm that should be illegal to inflict upon other people.
To me, there is only one sort of harm that can occur: harm to living beings.
I believe there is physical harm and emotional harm. Of course, there are also things such as reputation to worry about, but that's really just other people's perception of you. There are only a few situations where I believe you should be able to inflict physical harm upon others (when you're defending yourself or others), but to me, the line for emotional harm isn't as clear. What if someone is offended by someone's speech or behavior? What if someone feels 'violated' by the images of them circulating around on the Internet? Some types of emotional harm are arbitrarily (no escaping that) regarded as worse than other types of emotional harm, and this is such a case.
Although, since I don't agree with censorship, what course of action I think we should take is very clear.
The parents don't decide the final verdict of whether the rape has taken place
Actually, if you read my post, I didn't actually say that you said the parent would decide the final verdict; I didn't even imply it. But there was a misunderstanding on my part, and that's that the amount of cases can't possibly be any higher than it is now (as you said, they try to convict 100% of the time).
(Especially since you've shown yourself a not very attentive reader.)
I don't think a single example demonstrates that, but okay.
Someone's likeness does have characteristics demanding ownership or privacy.
There's nothing demanding anything. Besides, I don't believe that we should try resorting to censorship once it's already out there. It's a complete and utter waste of time and resources to me.
but the fact that a person reasonably has rights over personally identifying information and/or their likeness.
I'm not sure I agree with such rights. Sure, if someone actually harms you, I believe they should be punished. But I don't believe that you have some magical ownership over pictures/videos of yourself that's reason enough to resort to censorship.
Wrong ! It's very effective at catching the actual rapist also.
How is wasting tremendous amounts of resources trying to catch people who merely look at the images effective at catching the actual rapist? More could be caught if we went directly after them. Incidentally, linking to a few examples won't demonstrate that.
Do you believe that the parents would prosecute too much?
I believe that the parents would be too biased and overwhelmed by parental instincts to make informed, rational decisions. So yes. That's not to say that the government is perfect (right now, they're far from it, in my opinion), but I think it's far better than putting parents in charge.
A person convicted of a "sex crime against a minor" can spend decades in prison, has a good chance of dying there, and, because of all the "sex offender" restrictions after prison, would never be free again.
That's a problem with the actual laws. Parents doing the prosecuting wouldn't solve that.
The judge / jury would balance out the power of the parents
I believe the judge/jury should be balancing out the current situation, but they're not.
their reputation will ultimately suffer for it.
Everyone else's reputation will. Because accused of child rape is the current equivalent of being accused of witchcraft.
then who are we to say that it's been a rape?
I believe 'sensible' laws are a better solution than leaving it all up to the parents/alleged victim.
I believe the laws need fixing, but I don't believe leaving what constitutes rape to the affected parties is a good idea.
Why does everyone think they're smarter than average?
While it likely doesn't do any good to believe that, some of them would have to be correct (depending on how you measure intelligence).
Also, CP is not "just bits" when you are the girl or boy having your image distributed around the web.
And the word "when" may not be 'just a normal word' to someone; it might be extremely offensive. But that fact that it might be offensive to them or cause them great stress doesn't mean it should be censored.
Without it, we wouldn't belong to the survivors of Nature
I doubt that. Thinking about a situation rationally would hardly cause us to go extinct. Most of the perceived dangers aren't even an immediate threat, neither are they deadly, and there just aren't enough of them that would cause us to go extinct. So, I don't think a bit of rationality would bring us to extinction even if most people still had the desire to protect the children.
children would be victimized at a grander scale than they are now.
Citation needed.
Not only that, but that's the fault of the actual producers. I don't believe the fact that not having draconian laws might (but probably won't) lead to slightly more crime is a justification for draconian laws.
[IT IS NOT INFORMATION... IT IS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY]
Would you care to explain how videos or images depicting child pornography are not information? You may not like the content, but it's still information.
I don't think that type of content is even allowed on Youtube.
Oh no! I can magically feel when each person is looking at a video, and with each view, a part of my soul is stolen! I'm entitled to censor content because I don't like the way people are looking at a video!
That said, your comment needs to be censored. I can feel myself getting violated just reading it.
A pedophile could make the same argument as you did; therefore, you're a pedophile! A homosexual could make the same argument as you did; therefore, you're a homosexual! I hope that's not what was meant. Not that it invalidates someone's arguments, either.
Well, those are the arguments I'd expect. "If someone disagrees, they're not a True Parent! If someone isn't a parent, their arguments are incorrect because ad hominem attacks are arguments now! Also, I don't like it, so the images themselves should be banned!"
I cannot think of anything worse than someone having Child porn.
What about murder? Then they're dead forever, and they'll have no 'innocence' (whatever that ambiguous term means).
Slashdot Mirror
You can't not do something because it isn't 100% perfect and foolproof
I didn't say that that was the case. I believe the problem with most of these laws, though, is that they're unjust and circumvent due process. Given history's countless corrupt governments, I believe it is a very, very bad idea to allow them to pass.
Actual research has continuously contradicted this idea, showing that people use fantasies to work themselves up over time
Citation needed.
In short: sustained perverse ideation leads directly, over time, to perverse action.
Even if that's what appears to happen, how do you know it's because of the content itself? What if they would have done it eventually anyway? What if this doesn't apply to everyone?
this debate is all built on straw if you do not realize the basic reason for banning these _depictions_
I don't believe a few criminals are a justification for resorting to censorship just like I don't think the existence of terrorists is justification of the TSA. And you offer the same thing as the TSA: security theater.
and therefore should be illegal.
I don't follow you.
People who buy child porn
You don't have to buy child porn to look at it. Some of them don't buy it.
are paying the actual rapists either directly or indirectly
Yes, I believe we should really stop the actual rapists and everyone directly involved in the process instead of blaming everyone who indirectly helps them.
so it's ban removes the customers of the rapists
It hasn't and never will. We've been trying to censor it for quite some time now. Similar efforts have failed with copyright infringement.
Just because you KNOW the evidence is on the internet.
It's futile to try to censor it. Once it's on the Internet, it's likely there for good. Not only that, but the fact that they don't like it being on the Internet doesn't mean we should resort to censorship in the first place. There are plenty of things on the Internet that people don't like, but I don't believe that means we should censor it.
(s)He may think (s)he enjoys it, but their brain is damaged
I think that's too ambiguous.
I think this is why you can't phrase such infractions in terms of "causing offence" but in terms of privacy rights.
It doesn't really make any difference to me. The point is that it's not physical harm here. Even if you phrase it in terms of privacy rights, it's still just someone getting offended, feeling violated, or wanting people to not see the content.
That's not arbitrary at all.
All laws are arbitrary.
bad is bad, and it's really not that subjective.
But I'd say that whether something is bad or not is subjective, and that that also applies to the degree in which it is bad.
No it isn't.
I just meant that there's really no easy way to stop it. Once something is out there, it's going to be very difficult or impossible to get rid of. I think trying to minimize the damage in less futile ways is a better solution.
It worries me that your definition may be based on harm to some quasi-religious ideal rather than harm to individuals.
It's based on my own opinion (just like everyone else's). At least when we're talking about the types of harm that should be illegal to inflict upon other people.
To me, there is only one sort of harm that can occur: harm to living beings.
I believe there is physical harm and emotional harm. Of course, there are also things such as reputation to worry about, but that's really just other people's perception of you. There are only a few situations where I believe you should be able to inflict physical harm upon others (when you're defending yourself or others), but to me, the line for emotional harm isn't as clear. What if someone is offended by someone's speech or behavior? What if someone feels 'violated' by the images of them circulating around on the Internet? Some types of emotional harm are arbitrarily (no escaping that) regarded as worse than other types of emotional harm, and this is such a case.
Although, since I don't agree with censorship, what course of action I think we should take is very clear.
Indeed. So does land ownership.
Right.
That's just Might Makes Right.
No, that would be, "1 + 1 = 3 because I'll beat you up if you say otherwise." I say it's a futile endeavor, and as we've seen, it is.
You're essentially saying that anyone can publish anything about anyone.
Right.
OK. The democratic representatives of 400 million people, at least, disagree with you
Okay. I disagree with them, too. Was there a reason you mentioned a large number of people disagree with me?
What is "actual harm"?
I think it's clear that I don't agree with your definition of "harmful."
It's no less "magical" than any form of ownership.
I didn't say that it was. Copyright exists, after all.
The parents don't decide the final verdict of whether the rape has taken place
Actually, if you read my post, I didn't actually say that you said the parent would decide the final verdict; I didn't even imply it. But there was a misunderstanding on my part, and that's that the amount of cases can't possibly be any higher than it is now (as you said, they try to convict 100% of the time).
(Especially since you've shown yourself a not very attentive reader.)
I don't think a single example demonstrates that, but okay.
Why pretend? How bad it is is subjective to begin with. I personally find adult rape to be as bad as child rape.
Only someone that has never experienced evil could possibly say something like this.
What? That assumes objective evil exists in the first place. I believe what was meant was that the matter is subjective.
Someone's likeness does have characteristics demanding ownership or privacy.
There's nothing demanding anything. Besides, I don't believe that we should try resorting to censorship once it's already out there. It's a complete and utter waste of time and resources to me.
but the fact that a person reasonably has rights over personally identifying information and/or their likeness.
I'm not sure I agree with such rights. Sure, if someone actually harms you, I believe they should be punished. But I don't believe that you have some magical ownership over pictures/videos of yourself that's reason enough to resort to censorship.
Do you understand?
No. It's futile.
Wrong ! It's very effective at catching the actual rapist also.
How is wasting tremendous amounts of resources trying to catch people who merely look at the images effective at catching the actual rapist? More could be caught if we went directly after them. Incidentally, linking to a few examples won't demonstrate that.
Do you believe that the parents would prosecute too much?
I believe that the parents would be too biased and overwhelmed by parental instincts to make informed, rational decisions. So yes. That's not to say that the government is perfect (right now, they're far from it, in my opinion), but I think it's far better than putting parents in charge.
A person convicted of a "sex crime against a minor" can spend decades in prison, has a good chance of dying there, and, because of all the "sex offender" restrictions after prison, would never be free again.
That's a problem with the actual laws. Parents doing the prosecuting wouldn't solve that.
The judge / jury would balance out the power of the parents
I believe the judge/jury should be balancing out the current situation, but they're not.
their reputation will ultimately suffer for it.
Everyone else's reputation will. Because accused of child rape is the current equivalent of being accused of witchcraft.
then who are we to say that it's been a rape?
I believe 'sensible' laws are a better solution than leaving it all up to the parents/alleged victim.
I believe the laws need fixing, but I don't believe leaving what constitutes rape to the affected parties is a good idea.
Why does everyone think they're smarter than average?
While it likely doesn't do any good to believe that, some of them would have to be correct (depending on how you measure intelligence).
Also, CP is not "just bits" when you are the girl or boy having your image distributed around the web.
And the word "when" may not be 'just a normal word' to someone; it might be extremely offensive. But that fact that it might be offensive to them or cause them great stress doesn't mean it should be censored.
Without it, we wouldn't belong to the survivors of Nature
I doubt that. Thinking about a situation rationally would hardly cause us to go extinct. Most of the perceived dangers aren't even an immediate threat, neither are they deadly, and there just aren't enough of them that would cause us to go extinct. So, I don't think a bit of rationality would bring us to extinction even if most people still had the desire to protect the children.
And by this logic, nobody should ever be punished because the damage is already done.
I don't see how that follows. The claim is that merely looking at an image is not what damages the child.
Child porn consumers provide the incentive and money that drives the pedo porn industry.
But it is the rapists doing the damage. Instead of resorting to censorship, I'd much rather we expend all of our resources going after them.
children would be victimized at a grander scale than they are now.
Citation needed.
Not only that, but that's the fault of the actual producers. I don't believe the fact that not having draconian laws might (but probably won't) lead to slightly more crime is a justification for draconian laws.
[IT IS NOT INFORMATION ... IT IS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY]
Would you care to explain how videos or images depicting child pornography are not information? You may not like the content, but it's still information.
[WRONG - IT'S VERY EFFECTIVE]
Certainly not at catching the actual rapists.
Then the rapists put it on youtube.
I don't think that type of content is even allowed on Youtube.
Oh no! I can magically feel when each person is looking at a video, and with each view, a part of my soul is stolen! I'm entitled to censor content because I don't like the way people are looking at a video!
That said, your comment needs to be censored. I can feel myself getting violated just reading it.
A pedophile could make the same argument as you did; therefore, you're a pedophile! A homosexual could make the same argument as you did; therefore, you're a homosexual! I hope that's not what was meant. Not that it invalidates someone's arguments, either.
but it should be up to the victim and/or his/her parents/guardians, not power-hungry government thugs, to determine what constitutes rape.
I'm not sure leaving it up to emotional, paranoid parents or the actual 'victim' is a good idea...
It makes it difficult to do their jobs.
Just like due process and requiring them to present evidence before allowing a conviction. Get of it all!
Well, those are the arguments I'd expect. "If someone disagrees, they're not a True Parent! If someone isn't a parent, their arguments are incorrect because ad hominem attacks are arguments now! Also, I don't like it, so the images themselves should be banned!"
I cannot think of anything worse than someone having Child porn.
What about murder? Then they're dead forever, and they'll have no 'innocence' (whatever that ambiguous term means).
Are we really arguing that no actual people are being physically harmed when children are being forced to engage in sexual activity?
No. Only in the making of the child pornography is a child actually harmed.