This leads into a story that was on slashdot a month or two ago about a canadian ISP who was shut down by their upstream provider for hosting sites that "discuss pedophilia openly". They were reviewed by the FBI and RCMP and found to be totally legal and protected by free-speech (so the government could not shut them down), however, none of the backbone providers in the entire province (Quebec) would host them. This is a canadian corporation... an ISP... last i heard they were left with no choice but to close their decade-old business, or move to Europe where some backbones would still have them.
The government cannot prohibit their speech.... but laws structring this protection were made when it was inconcievable that a single company (or small group of companies) would have border-to-border power over the dominant source of information in a society. It is now impossible (not illegal, but impossible) to run a legal ISP or website that exclusively hosts "discussions" of the rationale and legal issues surrounding pedophiles, provided your site gets enough exposure to be a PR risk to your upstream host. There is no solution under modern law, except to move to another country, or shut your doors.
The solution to speech you disagree with is more speech.... not silence.
So when a non-trivial number of people believe something should be legal, then it is the onus of the opposition to give empierical REASONS why it should not be allowed.
After all, in a free society, our default value is "allowed". You must specifiy an ACL in order to make it explicit "deny".
But arbitrary ACLs can break all of our RFCs....
and when there are no RFCs, everything is borked.:-)
So, emperical data. Prove your point, otherwise its just an opinion... and we know what people say about everyone's opinions.:-)
Statistics reveal there is only a small statistical coorilation.
Studies that show otherwise are usually taken from clinical (mental hospital) or incarcerated (long jail sentences) populations.
When you use actual "population" samples such as college and/or random area samples, there is little coorilation. However, the media is not smart enough to recognize that and folks like Nancy Grace (plus, people who get funding by claiming this for whatever reason) still spout it as gospel.
It's not. It's mostly false. It has a shred of truth, but only a shred.. a few percentage points but nothing substantial.
If you had read the discussion more carefully, you would have noticed that it was clearly qualified with a "direct, or likely harm". If an action causes, or is likely to cause harm to someone else, it is no longer protected.
If someone shows me that 90% (or even 75%) of people who view virtual porn are *going* to go rape a child now (when they wouldn't have before) then I will absolutely support bans on it.
That simply is not the case... it's not even close to the case. In fact, it might be the opposite of the case.
Therefore, a free society has no grounds on which to ban this material at this point, other than "moral indignation".
Nor is "hate speech" then, frankly, by your merits. The most educated interpretation of the word "essential" is that it is a modifier of freedom (all freedom is essential), not a qualifier (only certain freedoms are essential).
But feel free to continue shaking your head.
Do you believe anti-government speech is essential? Do you believe anti-semetic speech is essential?
Do you believe violent fiction is essential?
Once you decide, arbitrarily "we can't prove this is dangerous, but we think it might be and I personally don't find value in it, therefore, it is now illegal and carries a 25 year sentences and a lifetime of public shame on the 'registry'" Don't you see how utterly ABSURD that is?
Just becuase YOU believe something doesn't make it right. When you set the precident that "things we (any group) don't like and don't find personal value in, are utterly without merit and do not deserve to exist". Almost everything "might" be harmful to someone... so once you cease seeing value in other people's expression, you cease to be willing to support their freedom to express it.
You are SO caught up on "pervs" or whatever, that you completely fail to see the greater precident set by your belief, basically saying "anything that I do not personally see value in, is therefore intrinsically value-less" and that statement is tacitly false, from any angle. Some people see value to it. Therefore it has value. Period. Now, the burden of restricting it is on YOU to prove the harmfulness.
Prove the harmfulness for me.
Lay it out clearly with statistics that show artificial child porn causes children to be hurt and I'll bite.
But as you see here, clearly many people do not believe that connection exists and it is very possible that it is actually FALSE and could be proven to have no effect.
We do not have the *right* as individuals to put that restriction on other individuals until we *know*.
Just because it's "sick" to you.... and even to many people.... doesn't make it qualified to be illegal.
The great irony of this is that it's totally true, just like the parent.
I know a guy in college who was caught humping a sheep (no shit)... but he said he was doing it just because he was lonley, not because he was "attracted" to sheep.
But there are people who have a genuine attraction to animals (eww), but don't never actually "do it" because they can't get up the guts or whatever.
I think you were trying to refute, but you actually supported the article.
The crux of your argument is freedom, the crux of mine is potential harm. I don't see the motivation behind opening a Pandora's box of material that people are living without today just to provide so called "entertainment".
"Those who would sacrifice essential freedom for temporary security deserve neither freedom nor security"
There is no judgement being passed here regarding the relative social merits of virtual child porn.
In contrast, we are discussing the social ills that crop up when we begin legislating thing which offend us, rather than things which cause us harm.
The benefit is.... it gives some people enjoyment... just like football, beer, Allah or any number of millions of other things that we do simply because we LIKE it.
But when do we tell someone "you cannot do that".
Generally, when it directly hurts someone. Not when it "indirectly, might cause some influence toward" or "may tend to persuade" or "might someday result in a potential for".... no... when it directly removes someone's freedom to enjoy the things that they enjoy.
In this case, it is clear that *real* child porn does exactly that.... it removes the child's freedom and/or harms that child.
In the case of "virtual" porn, there is no such argument that does not include "indirectly might" or "could potentially influence" or "may tend to persuade"....
Restricting the influencing material is no difference than restricting website and media content under hate crime laws.
You are EXACTLY right!!!
This is why the government of the US cannot and will not restrict website and media content under hate crime laws. It is completely contrary to the freedoms of the US Constitution.
Private individuals are more than welcome to censor their viewing and their kids' viewing but the government cannot, by law, do this.
Nor should it be allowed to.
Thanks for proving our point accidentally.:-) Make it easier from this end.
The best part is... that this guy is totally making up his "rising statistics" argument... either out of thin air, or out of mis-information fed to him from the horse's (Nancy Grace) mouth.
"Think of the children" is not a specious argument used to argue unrelated issues.
It is a prevent-criticism "have you stopped beating your wife?" type of phrase that is impossible to ethically refuse and is therefore overused when someone wants to pass laws that have some peripherial relation to children. When a virtual image is created, it is an old bald guy sitting at a terminal in France. It is uploaded to a server in Russia that is run by an old bald guy and then downloaded by an old bald guy in New York. "Think of the children" is SO clearly applicable.
I apologize to old bald guys everywhere for this post.
Nobody is arguing against outlawing the abuse of children.
But outlawing virtual images depicting it....
Is much akin to outlawing fictional murder on TV. When someone is arrested for murder, they probably have watched many movies containing murder and perhaps played video games containing murder.
There is some circumstantial evidence that this can bias people toward murder.
But some people find enjoyment and stress release in watching movies that contain murder. You can find special effects shorts that are nothing but a graphic, bloody murder, with no story... made simply for "look, i did it" value of the special effects.
The only reason this is a hot issue is the percieved "specialness" of the whole category of crime.
People cite disparate statistics.... people say that 35% of women are sexually abused, but then cite that 90% of those abused have massive emotional trauma...... but population studies show us that less than 2% of women have 'massive emotional trauma'.... the numbers don't add up, there is a leap being made somewhere in there.
I recognize that some cases result in massive trauma. I recognize that some girls are abused...
But... wait... you just made a huge local leap here (i just noticed it)
when someone is arrested for sexually abusing a child, they do not find pictures on their computer of rainbows and puppy dogs, they find child pornography in the form of pictures, video's, stories and probably computer or cartoon animated pornography that depicts young girls.
Yes, they occassionally do. Those are the stories you see in the media. But you have nothing but anicdote to show for it. In fact, frankly, I can't recall ever having heard anything more than anicdotal on this and i've done some extensive reading......
I'm calling BS on that "most who are arrested for abuse have pictures" claim. I don't think it's provable, nor do I think it's even true. See if you can prove me wrong. I highly doubt it.
I think you're inventing for the sake of proving your argument.
That is specious and presumptious at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.
As far as I know there have existed a number of socieities that have been quite permissive of pedophiles and in some cases made it socially expected.
This hardly indicates a hard-wired aversion.
It IS social conditioning of the strongest kind. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but you are inventing science to support your moral argument, which is disingenuous.
Ok, now lets actually address what you SAID.
statistics show paedophilia charges and convictions are on the rise.
The only thing that is "obvious" is that media reports of these charges are on the rise.
Please cite statistics that show charges and convictions are on the rise. Or you can simple let me illustrated that you are ignorant of the facts and are simply pontificating on moral grounds with your "epidemic" "on the rise" claims
There are an awful lot of "things" that a free society allows simply because some people enjoy them.
That's the nature of free society.
I'm glad you don't want to live in a free society.
Take your desire elsewhere, because I want to live in a free society.
A victim has to file a complaint. Your grasp of "victim" is deluded so much by your moral indignation at the topic being discussed that you simple shrug and decide to throw methodology and logic out the window in favor of your personal moral interpretation becoming codified in law.
I see only moderate social benefit to religion, for example, where I see a great deal of damage and strife caused by religions which procliam a "one, true" anything that is worth fighting for (islam, christianity, flying spaghetti monsterism)
That said, do I have a right, as a politician (if i were one), to ban religion outright because I believe it can be used in nefarious ways and does, in fact, hurt many people?
Legislate your morality elsewhere. I want to have 3 wives if i damn well please. And i want the government not to recognize marraige as a binding legal contract so they can't each steal half of my assets..... or so my sleazy neighbor can get his part-time-hooker benefits based on a Las Vegas priest's proclimation "I now pronounce you..."
I think the institution of marraige being codified into a legal contract system with a licence to practice..... that's a travisty of justice and immoral in my opinion.
We do not legislate morality. Legislating morality is not how our society was built and not how free thinking people would want to excercise their will. That is dictatorship or theocracy... or worse.
Society should do the minimum necessary to ensure basic freedoms. The more laws, the more corrupted they become.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting, but...
This leads into a story that was on slashdot a month or two ago about a canadian ISP who was shut down by their upstream provider for hosting sites that "discuss pedophilia openly". They were reviewed by the FBI and RCMP and found to be totally legal and protected by free-speech (so the government could not shut them down), however, none of the backbone providers in the entire province (Quebec) would host them. This is a canadian corporation... an ISP... last i heard they were left with no choice but to close their decade-old business, or move to Europe where some backbones would still have them.
The government cannot prohibit their speech.... but laws structring this protection were made when it was inconcievable that a single company (or small group of companies) would have border-to-border power over the dominant source of information in a society. It is now impossible (not illegal, but impossible) to run a legal ISP or website that exclusively hosts "discussions" of the rationale and legal issues surrounding pedophiles, provided your site gets enough exposure to be a PR risk to your upstream host. There is no solution under modern law, except to move to another country, or shut your doors.
The solution to speech you disagree with is more speech.... not silence.
Stew
So when a non-trivial number of people believe something should be legal, then it is the onus of the opposition to give empierical REASONS why it should not be allowed.
:-)
:-)
After all, in a free society, our default value is "allowed". You must specifiy an ACL in order to make it explicit "deny".
But arbitrary ACLs can break all of our RFCs....
and when there are no RFCs, everything is borked.
So, emperical data. Prove your point, otherwise its just an opinion... and we know what people say about everyone's opinions.
Stew
AHHHHH!! wtf?
The whole "if just one...." argument. I frickin hate those.
I don't care what the topic of this thread is, the "if just one..." argument is always bunk.
If just one person is saved by making automobiles illegal, its worth it.
if just one person is saved by outlawing air travel, it's worth it.
if just one child's life is saved by replacing teachers with robots, it's worth it.
Blah...
blah...
blah...
the world is a risky place. I prefer freedom over the complete removal of risks.
"He who would trade temporary saftey for essential liberty deserves neither saftey nor liberty"
Stew
I could say "eating meat should never be legal and nothing anyone says could convince me otherwise"
:-)
wouldn't make it true...
but i could say it.
Stew
You have the right to give up your things to protect your kids. Don't sign up for internet. Move to Manitoba (or Montana).
what you DO NOT have the right to do is give up MY rights... or HIS rights to protect you children.
Big difference.
Stew
This is false and misleading.
Statistics reveal there is only a small statistical coorilation.
Studies that show otherwise are usually taken from clinical (mental hospital) or incarcerated (long jail sentences) populations.
When you use actual "population" samples such as college and/or random area samples, there is little coorilation. However, the media is not smart enough to recognize that and folks like Nancy Grace (plus, people who get funding by claiming this for whatever reason) still spout it as gospel.
It's not. It's mostly false. It has a shred of truth, but only a shred.. a few percentage points but nothing substantial.
Stew
If you had read the discussion more carefully, you would have noticed that it was clearly qualified with a "direct, or likely harm". If an action causes, or is likely to cause harm to someone else, it is no longer protected.
If someone shows me that 90% (or even 75%) of people who view virtual porn are *going* to go rape a child now (when they wouldn't have before) then I will absolutely support bans on it.
That simply is not the case... it's not even close to the case. In fact, it might be the opposite of the case.
Therefore, a free society has no grounds on which to ban this material at this point, other than "moral indignation".
That is the core of my argument.
Stew
Nor is "hate speech" then, frankly, by your merits. The most educated interpretation of the word "essential" is that it is a modifier of freedom (all freedom is essential), not a qualifier (only certain freedoms are essential).
But feel free to continue shaking your head.
Do you believe anti-government speech is essential? Do you believe anti-semetic speech is essential?
Do you believe violent fiction is essential?
Once you decide, arbitrarily "we can't prove this is dangerous, but we think it might be and I personally don't find value in it, therefore, it is now illegal and carries a 25 year sentences and a lifetime of public shame on the 'registry'" Don't you see how utterly ABSURD that is?
Just becuase YOU believe something doesn't make it right. When you set the precident that "things we (any group) don't like and don't find personal value in, are utterly without merit and do not deserve to exist". Almost everything "might" be harmful to someone... so once you cease seeing value in other people's expression, you cease to be willing to support their freedom to express it.
You are SO caught up on "pervs" or whatever, that you completely fail to see the greater precident set by your belief, basically saying "anything that I do not personally see value in, is therefore intrinsically value-less" and that statement is tacitly false, from any angle. Some people see value to it. Therefore it has value. Period. Now, the burden of restricting it is on YOU to prove the harmfulness.
Prove the harmfulness for me.
Lay it out clearly with statistics that show artificial child porn causes children to be hurt and I'll bite.
But as you see here, clearly many people do not believe that connection exists and it is very possible that it is actually FALSE and could be proven to have no effect.
We do not have the *right* as individuals to put that restriction on other individuals until we *know*.
Just because it's "sick" to you.... and even to many people.... doesn't make it qualified to be illegal.
Stew
The great irony of this is that it's totally true, just like the parent.
:-)
I know a guy in college who was caught humping a sheep (no shit)... but he said he was doing it just because he was lonley, not because he was "attracted" to sheep.
But there are people who have a genuine attraction to animals (eww), but don't never actually "do it" because they can't get up the guts or whatever.
I think you were trying to refute, but you actually supported the article.
Good work
Stew
The crux of your argument is freedom, the crux of mine is potential harm. I don't see the motivation behind opening a Pandora's box of material that people are living without today just to provide so called "entertainment".
"Those who would sacrifice essential freedom for temporary security deserve neither freedom nor security"
'nuff said, i'm done.
Stew
There is no judgement being passed here regarding the relative social merits of virtual child porn.
In contrast, we are discussing the social ills that crop up when we begin legislating thing which offend us, rather than things which cause us harm.
The benefit is.... it gives some people enjoyment... just like football, beer, Allah or any number of millions of other things that we do simply because we LIKE it.
But when do we tell someone "you cannot do that".
Generally, when it directly hurts someone. Not when it "indirectly, might cause some influence toward" or "may tend to persuade" or "might someday result in a potential for".... no... when it directly removes someone's freedom to enjoy the things that they enjoy.
In this case, it is clear that *real* child porn does exactly that.... it removes the child's freedom and/or harms that child.
In the case of "virtual" porn, there is no such argument that does not include "indirectly might" or "could potentially influence" or "may tend to persuade"....
Do you see the clear and obvious difference?
Stew
Wow this guy is a quick one... lol
mmm "put the children in a DMZ"...
rock.
I'm doing a network design now and i pictured a bunch of kids huddled around my web servers with ethernet jacks in their toes.
mmmmm networks.
Stew
Hahahahahahahahaha .... two words for you.... PRONOUN PLACEMENT
sicko A has a child, a camera, and a computer. He wants to make child porn.
Maybe it's not as bad as my first reading... but i read it saying that there is a sicko and a child... and the child wants to make child porn... lol
sorry gah... gramatically, the "he" pronoun is ambiguous and my brain attached it to the closest personal noun, which was "child". hmpf.
stupid brain.
lol
Stew
Wow, I think you just revealed your total and complete ignorance for *blaming* slashdot for this discussion.
:-)
We are all slashdot drones and you are the only human here. Congrats on your psyche being the lone beacon of sanity in the cold, cruel Internet.
If I called you a fucktard, should i go to jail?
You're going to draw a picture of my daughter getting raped? Ooooo that's classy. But not illegal, nor should it be.
By the way, what's wrong with the ACLU? I mean NAMBLA... sure... but the ACLU? Are you a gay evangelical?
sometimes i make myself laugh.
Stew
Restricting the influencing material is no difference than restricting website and media content under hate crime laws.
:-) Make it easier from this end.
You are EXACTLY right!!!
This is why the government of the US cannot and will not restrict website and media content under hate crime laws. It is completely contrary to the freedoms of the US Constitution.
Private individuals are more than welcome to censor their viewing and their kids' viewing but the government cannot, by law, do this.
Nor should it be allowed to.
Thanks for proving our point accidentally.
Stew
The best part is... that this guy is totally making up his "rising statistics" argument... either out of thin air, or out of mis-information fed to him from the horse's (Nancy Grace) mouth.
Stew
It has not... this is FALSE information fed by the sensationalist media.
d =17243204
Read this:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=211770&ci
Thanks,
Stewed
Why does everyone assume "the stats are rising" constitutes a conclusive point.
Read my post below.
Stew
Oh.. and by the way...
"Think of the children" is not a specious argument used to argue unrelated issues.
It is a prevent-criticism "have you stopped beating your wife?" type of phrase that is impossible to ethically refuse and is therefore overused when someone wants to pass laws that have some peripherial relation to children. When a virtual image is created, it is an old bald guy sitting at a terminal in France. It is uploaded to a server in Russia that is run by an old bald guy and then downloaded by an old bald guy in New York. "Think of the children" is SO clearly applicable.
I apologize to old bald guys everywhere for this post.
Stew
Nobody is arguing against outlawing the abuse of children.
But outlawing virtual images depicting it....
Is much akin to outlawing fictional murder on TV. When someone is arrested for murder, they probably have watched many movies containing murder and perhaps played video games containing murder.
There is some circumstantial evidence that this can bias people toward murder.
But some people find enjoyment and stress release in watching movies that contain murder. You can find special effects shorts that are nothing but a graphic, bloody murder, with no story... made simply for "look, i did it" value of the special effects.
The only reason this is a hot issue is the percieved "specialness" of the whole category of crime.
People cite disparate statistics.... people say that 35% of women are sexually abused, but then cite that 90% of those abused have massive emotional trauma...... but population studies show us that less than 2% of women have 'massive emotional trauma'.... the numbers don't add up, there is a leap being made somewhere in there.
I recognize that some cases result in massive trauma. I recognize that some girls are abused...
But... wait... you just made a huge local leap here (i just noticed it)
when someone is arrested for sexually abusing a child, they do not find pictures on their computer of rainbows and puppy dogs, they find child pornography in the form of pictures, video's, stories and probably computer or cartoon animated pornography that depicts young girls.
Yes, they occassionally do. Those are the stories you see in the media. But you have nothing but anicdote to show for it. In fact, frankly, I can't recall ever having heard anything more than anicdotal on this and i've done some extensive reading......
I'm calling BS on that "most who are arrested for abuse have pictures" claim. I don't think it's provable, nor do I think it's even true. See if you can prove me wrong. I highly doubt it.
I think you're inventing for the sake of proving your argument.
Stew (who likes a good debate now and then)
*grins*
:-)
this post made me LOL
Stew
Where do you assume this is physically hardwired?
...
That is specious and presumptious at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.
As far as I know there have existed a number of socieities that have been quite permissive of pedophiles and in some cases made it socially expected.
This hardly indicates a hard-wired aversion.
It IS social conditioning of the strongest kind. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but you are inventing science to support your moral argument, which is disingenuous.
Ok, now lets actually address what you SAID.
statistics show paedophilia charges and convictions are on the rise.
The only thing that is "obvious" is that media reports of these charges are on the rise.
Please cite statistics that show charges and convictions are on the rise. Or you can simple let me illustrated that you are ignorant of the facts and are simply pontificating on moral grounds with your "epidemic" "on the rise" claims
Here, let me do it for you
Statistics show a decline in child abuse and neglect
The decline in child sex abuse cases
national child abuse and neglect statistics continued to decline
Child-Abuse and Neglect Cases Decline for Fifth Year, HHS Says
national child abuse and neglect statistics reported by states continued to decline
Statistics Show Decline in Child Abuse
national child abuse and neglect statistics reported by states continued to decline
total decline of 39% in identified sexual abuse cases over a 7-year period
New Child Maltreatment Statistics Show Continuing Decline
Department of Justice: CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASES FALL 31 PERCENT OVER SIX YEARS
he hotline has seen a 24 percent annual decline in child abuse reports
I'm sorry, that's just the first two pages out of about 40 in my google search.
Speaking of head in the sand...
Stewed
There are an awful lot of "things" that a free society allows simply because some people enjoy them.
That's the nature of free society.
I'm glad you don't want to live in a free society.
Take your desire elsewhere, because I want to live in a free society.
A victim has to file a complaint. Your grasp of "victim" is deluded so much by your moral indignation at the topic being discussed that you simple shrug and decide to throw methodology and logic out the window in favor of your personal moral interpretation becoming codified in law.
I see only moderate social benefit to religion, for example, where I see a great deal of damage and strife caused by religions which procliam a "one, true" anything that is worth fighting for (islam, christianity, flying spaghetti monsterism)
That said, do I have a right, as a politician (if i were one), to ban religion outright because I believe it can be used in nefarious ways and does, in fact, hurt many people?
Legislate your morality elsewhere. I want to have 3 wives if i damn well please. And i want the government not to recognize marraige as a binding legal contract so they can't each steal half of my assets..... or so my sleazy neighbor can get his part-time-hooker benefits based on a Las Vegas priest's proclimation "I now pronounce you..."
I think the institution of marraige being codified into a legal contract system with a licence to practice..... that's a travisty of justice and immoral in my opinion.
We do not legislate morality. Legislating morality is not how our society was built and not how free thinking people would want to excercise their will. That is dictatorship or theocracy... or worse.
Society should do the minimum necessary to ensure basic freedoms. The more laws, the more corrupted they become.
Stew
But being a racist and a warmonger is not illegal, nor should it be.
Perpetrating genocide is.
Glorifying genocide is not.
Simple.
Thought vs action. Speech vs movement.
Stew