[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /civ/ - 2378

File: 1476915459295.png (30.33 KB, 300x167, thinking-anime-girl.jpg)



This person argues for child porn on the grounds that banning it is "unconstitutional" and goes against the US's 1st Amendment and that anyone in support of criminalizing child porn is a fascist.

I personally disagree with his stance, for a number of reasons but what are your opinions? Do you think something like a ban on child porn is against the first amendment?


Our current laws are letting nonsense like this happen: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161011/07143735770/stepdad-goes-to-police-with-stepdaughters-sexts-asks-them-to-intervene-is-prosecuted-child-porn.shtml but the general principle of not sexualizing that which we should not fuck is pretty agreeable. If our laws are going to prohibit an action, it only makes sense to prohibit material made by that action. Mere nudity or even non nude photography is a blurrier area but I'm feeling gross now so I'm going to stop talking about it. I'm glad it's illegal but don't have a particularly strong case against it regarding the first amendment. You can say it promotes an undesirable culture, but you can make that argument about a lot of things that I wouldn't want to see banned.
Forgive me for posting itt without watching the video. Maybe someone braver than me can do that and have a more direct refutation.


the thing is, its a strange area. on one hand, the banning of child porn is not due to free speech or obscenity laws. its to protect minors from being exploited on film in underground rings. i wholeheartedly agree that in the case >>2378 cited, the man should be completely innocent, but the thing is, the law, while not "philosophically" perfect, has a reason for existence, and it is to protect children. not from viewing CP, but from being coerced to participate in it, and for people to legally make money off of the distribution of it.


Well, you really should watch the video there's nothing graphic besides the guy's language, but to sum it up;

He argues that children are capable of content to sexual activity including the filming and that there is no basis to the argument "Children's brains are not fully developed" when we allow the mentally disabled (he cites retards and people with depression) to have sex and film porn. Also, not all sex between an adult and child is automatically rape.

In addition, he argues for giving children full responsibility for their actions, "If you make a decision that you regret, well tough shit" kind of mentality even for really young children.

That said, the example you posted is crazy stupid. That guy sounded like a concerned parent, I don't understand how a man trying to protect his girl means he has to be charged with child porn.

Well, your point is one of the main reasons why I disagree, because it's there to protect a child from being preyed on.


this guys sixteen...

cmon he's testing boundaries, in a odd manner, but ye..
nothing to worry about.

probably got addicted to the attention, not actually saying anything rational.
he's probably backtracking the way society as it is, was formed, not really proposing any serious changes onto society.

if he would be actually in charge, the responsibility would probably crush him within weeks. and about trivial stuff. just talking shit like young people tend to do... nothing special about it.

he just talks about his progress in understanding the world in public instead of shutting up and lurk more.

it's more a way of expressing his anger about the felt repression about free speech than an actual thought out opinion regarding the facts.

like "fuck you" and "what you gonna do about it"
on literature level it would be put on the same level as
sturm und drang. less thinking more doing


I haven't seen the video, will watch later and comment on it.

But for now just some food for thought. I am generally against prohibition in most forms as it rarely manages to cease or even control what it aims to prohibit. All that happens is the act or item in question becomes demonised, taboo and driven into the underground. Here the things tend to become more extreme and unpleasant. I know it may seem odd but I do believe that bringing something into the light and making it fair topic for conversation would in the long term have a more positive impact on reducing harm.

This knee jerk reaction of slamming down on what deem unpleasant is retarded. To progress we need to open our minds and allows those who are drawn to these unsavoury acts the ability to come forward and divide their urges without fear of being becoming the target of witch hunts.

Ramble over.


Obvious tyops are obvious. Just wanted to apologise and blame my phone!


Children can't consent, it has shit all to do with free speech. I say this as somebody that's generally against prohibition in all forms.


>he cites retards and people with depression

Retards and children cannot make informed consent but there is NO grounds for an argument that the same is true for depressed people. The chronically depressed have trouble getting laid for social reasons anyway but denying them the right legally is just giving them one more reason to think "suicide" is a friendly word.


> there will come a time when it isn't "I made typos on my phone" but "my phone is making typos".


>If our laws are going to prohibit an action, it only makes sense to prohibit material made by that action.

And yet, snuff films are legal. ISIS videos are taken off of Youtube because Google doesn't want to host it, but it's not illegal to host them. Were someone in the United States to make a film of someone getting killed, they would be found and prosecuted, but not future distributors of the film.


Banning the distribution and possession of child pornography is merely a means to the end of preventing the sexual abuse of children. By merely possessing or viewing child pornography, you are not harming a child -- the child has already been harmed. Thus, the possession of child pornography is a victimless crime, and only the creation of child pornography is a victimful crime.

HOWEVER, the possession and distribute of child pornography is still a crime, because if it's legal to possess and to distribute, then there will be a market for it, and if there's a market for it, more of it will be made, bringing more suffering to more children. What's more important, the pristine inviolability of one's right to possess information, or the safety and well-being of millions of children?

Now, stuff like the FBI setting up a dark website that offers child porn and then hunting down people who take the bait is unacceptable. That's hunting down pedophiles because they are pedophiles. Pedophiles are sick, and I mean this in a very literal way. They suffer from a pathological condition. They need counseling and treatment.

It's true that most of the people who accessed Playpen probably already had some child porn on their computers. But there's a distinct possibility that some of them didn't. With that possibility in mind, what message do you think that's going to send to other people struggling with their attraction to children, but who have not yet acted on it? Is that going to encourage them to seek help, or is that going to make them even more afraid to open up and reveal their problems?


> Is that going to encourage them to seek help, or is that going to make them even more afraid to open up and reveal their problems?
I once read a story of a woman on vacation in Dubai who was raped by 2 other tourists they were also on vacation. She reported it to the officials there and was actually charged with a crime (pre-marital sex is illegal in Dubai).

Now, unless there is some pedo outreach program I doubt any of them would come forward. The risk of persecution is high in the west unless they are from some cesspool where pedo soykaf is acceptable. Maybe in some liberal utopia they may have a chance at getting help but from what I've seen, these people only ask for it after they've been caught.


File: 1479700045331.png (1.35 MB, 200x150, Cairo_View_from_Qaitbay_Mosque_Jan_2006.jpg)

you forget that no government in the world actually has it in its interests to help people, but only to enforce compliance.


I can see the logic behind arguing that child porn is protected by the 1st Amendment. After all, gory images and other horrifying visuals aren't illegal, so why is child pornography? The issue is that the production of child porn and the consumption of it are connected, and the production is inherently criminal.

Let's say I have a business where I record videos on a dashcam and sell videos of the interesting things I see when I drive. (Sound lucrative, right?) If I'm driving down the street and my dashcam catches a guy getting run over by another car, my production of that video is not inherently criminal. I did nothing to cause the event. I may sell the video to interested people, but it's not like their demand for the video in any way increases the likelihood someone could get run over by another car.

Instead, if I take a video of someone raping a child with the intent to later sell the video, I am participating in a sex crime against that child. The people who buy that video from me are indirectly participating in the crime because they are funding it. Furthermore, in paying me for this production, they are incentivizing me to continue raping children and filming it for profit. Even if they aren't paying for it, consuming this sort of media violates the rights of the children involved, since these "performers" cannot reasonably be said to be acting as both free and rational agents. The only scenario where watching this video would not be exploitative would be in trying to pursue justice for the people involved. Unsurprisingly, that is the only way one can legally distribute and watch child pornography in the US.

I was going to say that example is massively retarded, until I got to this part:
>The police apparently warned him to delete the images or risk prosecution, before reportedly failing to do much at all to address the behavior about which Ortell was concerned. Because of that, he kept the images, ostensibly so that he could address the behavior with other parties that might help him intervene. And that's when he was prosecuted for child pornography.
The key here is that he was warned by police that if he did not delete the images, he would be committing a crime and could face prosecution. He then proceeded to not delete the images. I get that his intent may have been benign in this case, but what did he think they meant when they told him "If you don't delete these images, you could be charged with a crime?" I get that it sucks, but this seems to be another example of a person playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes.