Not according to what numerous people in this article have told me.
This has to do with the real children who are harmed making them.
Yes, making them. We're talking about sharing the images or looking at the images.
It is noteworthy that the supreme court ruled recently that depictions of child pornography which are simulations - i.e. computer generated images - are not illegal to have.
That's good if so, because that was especially ridiculous.
So the only thing relevant in your live is You and your believes?
When you're discussing whether or not the TSA, the NSA, etc. should be eliminated, do you not take your own beliefs into account? I can't imagine the point of your statement.
So, if I get you right some arbitrary " government should not be involved bullshit" is more important than fighting child porn?
It's not arbitrary. If it is, then your desire to fight child porn is just as arbitrary.
But really, yes, I consider freedom of speech more important.
You really believe any "freedom of speech" is above the right to rape, to rape children, to sell pictures of that rape?
Straw man. We're not talking about rape, but about looking at images, sharing them, or possibly selling them. Don't include rape, because I don't think that's protected.
Furthermore, nice job on making me think you're a bloodthirsty "for the children" lunatic, like most people in the "for the children" crowd are. You can't stand anyone disagreeing with you, so you resort to telling me to go get killed and call me an "ill pervert" all to defend government censorship. If that "ill pervert" remark was your way of calling me a pedophile or something, then that's simply the guilt by association fallacy; I can oppose censorship of child porn without being a pedophile, just like I can support gay marriage without being gay.
There are just some thing which legally must be limited in any society
Child porn is not one of them. It's like saying we need the TSA or the NSA's surveillance; it's just nonsensical. The country would survive without them.
Anyway, since your brain is dysfunction, allow me to walk you through the series of complicated steps that we'd have to go through in order to not use censorship: 1) Don't allow the government to use censorship.
You cannot legally incite riots, yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and stuff like that.
Idiot. For one thing, you have to intentionally incite riots to be punished. Second of all, just screaming "Fire!" is not forbidden; screaming it while knowing there is no fire and causing a panic, however, is.
Also, I believe such prohibitions to be unconstitutional. The first amendment lists no exceptions. Anyone who starts rioting or panicking is at fault, not the speaker.
It happens because people keep desensitizing themselves to the shock
Blah, blah, blah, unfounded explanations of a problem that's not even provably large with no actual scientific basis. No, people don't start looking at child porn just because they see an image or oppose censorship, or whatever you're specifically trying to get at. If you want to show otherwise, present some credible scientific evidence, and it can't just be a biased psychology study that uses subjective terminology and subjective data gathering methods; those are bad science.
Would you be opposed to allowing your mother to issue a DMCA take down notice?
Yes. The DMCA, as well as copyright, are terrible. Also, besides me despising censorship, copyright is a *terrible* way to handle these issues. Seriously, copyright is meant to benefit the public by promoting innovation and science, not for protecting your personal image. How did things get so silly that we rely on legal hacks to prevent people from spreading around images of you?
How can you be opposed to the censorship of child pornography?
Because I am opposed to government censorship. I do not believe that censoring something merely because people don't like it, or because you think it influences others in 'bad' ways (in this case, people say it influences people to make more) is okay. It's too subjective for me. But again, I oppose all censorship.
We punish people for receiving stolen goods, because doing so reduces the demand for stolen goods, and reduces the appeal of stealing them in the first place.
So that was your point? I care about it because the stolen goods are actually someone else's property. People's actions are their own; if you steal something, that's your fault. If you rape someone, that's your fault. It doesn't matter if you think someone else wanted you to.
Also, I value fundamental freedoms over safety, so even if I bought into your point, I would still oppose you.
2. Yes, it's government censorship. Yes, the right to free speech isn't absolute - incitement to riot, libel, etc.
It should be. I oppose all government censorship.
3. Since nothing will convince you otherwise, there's no point in continuing this discussion - your beliefs are an article of faith, like those of a New Earth Creationist.
So you're saying that all of your beliefs could be changed through a mere discussion? Could I convince you that 1 + 1 = 3? To expect me to change my fundamental belief system (that free speech should reign above all) is simply unrealistic, and it has nothing to do with creationism.
The harm is in the production of the images in the first place
I agree 100%.
The viewing supports the production.
People's actions are their own. If the rapists rape, then it is their fault for raping, whether or not they're doing it for a profit or because they want others to see the videos or images. Going after people who merely look at the content is blaming them for other people's actions, and I don't condone that.
But even if that were true, I'm 100% opposed to government censorship, even if it keeps people 'safe.' So no such arguments will work on me.
The last thing that we need as a society is to encourage others to consume the evidence of that abuse.
There is a reason that the red scare is described as a witch hunt, so saying that the term "witch hunt" can only be used for imaginary things is simply false.
Hey, pedophiles have serious mental issues and deserve a special place in prison.
A pedophile is nothing more than a person who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Not all pedophiles rape or even look at child porn, and not all child rapists are even necessarily pedophiles.
Also, why do they need a special place in prison? Why not 'normal' rapists, or murderers? Do they also get special places in prison? If not, then why single out this group? Because mentions of 'the children' cause your irrational brain to malfunction?
that you report the existence of any of this kind of stuff because of the harm that is caused to the children.
Voodoo is not real. Voodoo does not exist. Images will not harm people like voodoo dolls. Any 'harm' is caused by their own reaction, assuming that they even see it. But if the mere thought that an image of themselves could be out there is enough to make themselves emotionally unstable, then there is nothing that can be done for them, because censorship is - in practice - futile.
So in this case, it IS for the children and it's hard to argue with the logic.
No, it's easy, and that's because there is no logic; just a strong desire for more and more government control over what information is accessible to people.
Does not compute. How is having copies of something in any way, shape, or form similar to receiving stolen goods? Someone loses their goods when they're stolen; that's the point.
This is just government censorship, and pointless government censorship at that; that's something everyone should oppose. None of your useless analogies will convince me otherwise.
Possessing images that authorities subjectively deem "disgusting" is illegal there? The US has "I know it when I see it." The fact that such censorship (based on opinions about subjective matters, no less) is allowed in any 'free' countries shows that free countries don't truly exist.
There is no way that they don't know what bandwidth is, how networking works, and there really is no such thing as an "unlimited data cap", so pretending like they don't is really just disingenuous.
Then don't sell plans claiming they're unlimited. It's really easy, is it not? This is *deliberate* throttling; no one could expect them to defy the laws of physics, but that's not the issue here.
I seriously don't know why people step up to defend this corporate lying.
Because the companies hiring requires a college or university degree.
Obviously. But then we end up with a bunch of people who expect colleges and universities to be like trade schools, making it more difficult for people who care about education to get one from those places.
The companies are too greedy and lazy to be expected to train their own employers or even test people properly, so we need to stop handing out loans and grants to people who simply should not go to college or university, or come up with some scheme that will help with that.
Sadly, a lot of people seem to want colleges and universities to be turned into half-assed trade schools, rather than just going to an actual trade school. I don't know why. But that's exactly what's going to happen with all this "Everybody's gotta go to college so they can get a job!" nonsense that's been going around.
You know what really works? People using common sense and realizing that there is no such thing as "unlimited" bandwidth, food, or anything else.
Then stop advertising it as such. "common sense" is nonsense, and I'm tired of people using a phrase that could literally mean anything. Popularity is irrelevant, and since what is believed to be "common sense" is often nonsensical, it's just not a very good term.
There are a few things he released that I actually wish he hadn't. For instance, I think the details on technologies and methods used for targeted surveillance, for instance, should have remained secret.
Nope. They're doing unconstitutional spying, so they deserve to have the details leaked so people can better try to defend themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Bandwagon fallacy.
This has nothing to do with influencing people.
Not according to what numerous people in this article have told me.
This has to do with the real children who are harmed making them.
Yes, making them. We're talking about sharing the images or looking at the images.
It is noteworthy that the supreme court ruled recently that depictions of child pornography which are simulations - i.e. computer generated images - are not illegal to have.
That's good if so, because that was especially ridiculous.
So the only thing relevant in your live is You and your believes?
When you're discussing whether or not the TSA, the NSA, etc. should be eliminated, do you not take your own beliefs into account? I can't imagine the point of your statement.
So, if I get you right some arbitrary " government should not be involved bullshit" is more important than fighting child porn?
It's not arbitrary. If it is, then your desire to fight child porn is just as arbitrary.
But really, yes, I consider freedom of speech more important.
You really believe any "freedom of speech" is above the right to rape, to rape children, to sell pictures of that rape?
Straw man. We're not talking about rape, but about looking at images, sharing them, or possibly selling them. Don't include rape, because I don't think that's protected.
Furthermore, nice job on making me think you're a bloodthirsty "for the children" lunatic, like most people in the "for the children" crowd are. You can't stand anyone disagreeing with you, so you resort to telling me to go get killed and call me an "ill pervert" all to defend government censorship. If that "ill pervert" remark was your way of calling me a pedophile or something, then that's simply the guilt by association fallacy; I can oppose censorship of child porn without being a pedophile, just like I can support gay marriage without being gay.
No, we don't. The end.
There are just some thing which legally must be limited in any society
Child porn is not one of them. It's like saying we need the TSA or the NSA's surveillance; it's just nonsensical. The country would survive without them.
Anyway, since your brain is dysfunction, allow me to walk you through the series of complicated steps that we'd have to go through in order to not use censorship:
1) Don't allow the government to use censorship.
You cannot legally incite riots, yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and stuff like that.
Idiot. For one thing, you have to intentionally incite riots to be punished. Second of all, just screaming "Fire!" is not forbidden; screaming it while knowing there is no fire and causing a panic, however, is.
Also, I believe such prohibitions to be unconstitutional. The first amendment lists no exceptions. Anyone who starts rioting or panicking is at fault, not the speaker.
If you don't believe in moral absolutes, why would you believe that some people are objectively 'broken'? That's a subjective term.
It happens because people keep desensitizing themselves to the shock
Blah, blah, blah, unfounded explanations of a problem that's not even provably large with no actual scientific basis. No, people don't start looking at child porn just because they see an image or oppose censorship, or whatever you're specifically trying to get at. If you want to show otherwise, present some credible scientific evidence, and it can't just be a biased psychology study that uses subjective terminology and subjective data gathering methods; those are bad science.
Has it occurred to you that I don't go on Slashdot 24/7? Idiot.
Anyway, would you use the same 'logic' if someone said that 1 + 1 = 3 and I didn't respond?
Let's use an extreme example here.
Alright, but it's not going to change anything.
Would you be opposed to allowing your mother to issue a DMCA take down notice?
Yes. The DMCA, as well as copyright, are terrible. Also, besides me despising censorship, copyright is a *terrible* way to handle these issues. Seriously, copyright is meant to benefit the public by promoting innovation and science, not for protecting your personal image. How did things get so silly that we rely on legal hacks to prevent people from spreading around images of you?
How can you be opposed to the censorship of child pornography?
Because I am opposed to government censorship. I do not believe that censoring something merely because people don't like it, or because you think it influences others in 'bad' ways (in this case, people say it influences people to make more) is okay. It's too subjective for me. But again, I oppose all censorship.
I'm actually calm while making such insults.
We punish people for receiving stolen goods, because doing so reduces the demand for stolen goods, and reduces the appeal of stealing them in the first place.
So that was your point? I care about it because the stolen goods are actually someone else's property. People's actions are their own; if you steal something, that's your fault. If you rape someone, that's your fault. It doesn't matter if you think someone else wanted you to.
Also, I value fundamental freedoms over safety, so even if I bought into your point, I would still oppose you.
2. Yes, it's government censorship. Yes, the right to free speech isn't absolute - incitement to riot, libel, etc.
It should be. I oppose all government censorship.
3. Since nothing will convince you otherwise, there's no point in continuing this discussion - your beliefs are an article of faith, like those of a New Earth Creationist.
So you're saying that all of your beliefs could be changed through a mere discussion? Could I convince you that 1 + 1 = 3? To expect me to change my fundamental belief system (that free speech should reign above all) is simply unrealistic, and it has nothing to do with creationism.
The harm is in the production of the images in the first place
I agree 100%.
The viewing supports the production.
People's actions are their own. If the rapists rape, then it is their fault for raping, whether or not they're doing it for a profit or because they want others to see the videos or images. Going after people who merely look at the content is blaming them for other people's actions, and I don't condone that.
But even if that were true, I'm 100% opposed to government censorship, even if it keeps people 'safe.' So no such arguments will work on me.
The last thing that we need as a society is to encourage others to consume the evidence of that abuse.
The last thing we need is censorship.
There is a reason that the red scare is described as a witch hunt, so saying that the term "witch hunt" can only be used for imaginary things is simply false.
Hey, pedophiles have serious mental issues and deserve a special place in prison .
A pedophile is nothing more than a person who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Not all pedophiles rape or even look at child porn, and not all child rapists are even necessarily pedophiles.
Also, why do they need a special place in prison? Why not 'normal' rapists, or murderers? Do they also get special places in prison? If not, then why single out this group? Because mentions of 'the children' cause your irrational brain to malfunction?
that you report the existence of any of this kind of stuff because of the harm that is caused to the children.
Voodoo is not real. Voodoo does not exist. Images will not harm people like voodoo dolls. Any 'harm' is caused by their own reaction, assuming that they even see it. But if the mere thought that an image of themselves could be out there is enough to make themselves emotionally unstable, then there is nothing that can be done for them, because censorship is - in practice - futile.
So in this case, it IS for the children and it's hard to argue with the logic.
No, it's easy, and that's because there is no logic; just a strong desire for more and more government control over what information is accessible to people.
Just like with drugs they go after the users
That works so well!
Gotta work your way up.
Going after people looking at/sharing images is morally wrong, so it isn't even a viable option. And that's a non sequitur, anyway.
Does not compute. How is having copies of something in any way, shape, or form similar to receiving stolen goods? Someone loses their goods when they're stolen; that's the point.
This is just government censorship, and pointless government censorship at that; that's something everyone should oppose. None of your useless analogies will convince me otherwise.
Possessing images that authorities subjectively deem "disgusting" is illegal there? The US has "I know it when I see it." The fact that such censorship (based on opinions about subjective matters, no less) is allowed in any 'free' countries shows that free countries don't truly exist.
This cloud crap is just trash. At least use encryption (not theirs) or something.
Plus, they caught someone with images that shouldn't be illegal to have to begin with. When is an actual rapist going to be arrested?
I disagree. They are the same thing.
"Best" is subjective. "Unlimited" is not.
There is no way that they don't know what bandwidth is, how networking works, and there really is no such thing as an "unlimited data cap", so pretending like they don't is really just disingenuous.
Then don't sell plans claiming they're unlimited. It's really easy, is it not? This is *deliberate* throttling; no one could expect them to defy the laws of physics, but that's not the issue here.
I seriously don't know why people step up to defend this corporate lying.
"Best" is subjective; this is just outright lying.
I really don't mind the endless spying so much
Glad to know you want to live in a free country.
Because the companies hiring requires a college or university degree.
Obviously. But then we end up with a bunch of people who expect colleges and universities to be like trade schools, making it more difficult for people who care about education to get one from those places.
The companies are too greedy and lazy to be expected to train their own employers or even test people properly, so we need to stop handing out loans and grants to people who simply should not go to college or university, or come up with some scheme that will help with that.
Sadly, a lot of people seem to want colleges and universities to be turned into half-assed trade schools, rather than just going to an actual trade school. I don't know why. But that's exactly what's going to happen with all this "Everybody's gotta go to college so they can get a job!" nonsense that's been going around.
You know what really works? People using common sense and realizing that there is no such thing as "unlimited" bandwidth, food, or anything else.
Then stop advertising it as such. "common sense" is nonsense, and I'm tired of people using a phrase that could literally mean anything. Popularity is irrelevant, and since what is believed to be "common sense" is often nonsensical, it's just not a very good term.
There are a few things he released that I actually wish he hadn't. For instance, I think the details on technologies and methods used for targeted surveillance, for instance, should have remained secret.
Nope. They're doing unconstitutional spying, so they deserve to have the details leaked so people can better try to defend themselves.