Re:Microsoft Bing not only shows child pornography, it sugge...
by cataphract on Thursday January 10, 2019 @03:59PM
(#18878091)
Are you seriously suggesting we should preemptively lock people up, before they even attempt or conspire to commit a crime? Surely there are less drastic actions — increased surveillance and offers of psychiatric help, for instance, just like there are special programs in high crime areas (which I think we can agree shouldn't include arbitrarily harassing and arresting people).
Re:Microsoft Bing not only shows child pornography, it sugge...
by rabidrat on Thursday January 10, 2019 @05:40PM
(#18879088)
Reread, I made no such suggestion. In our black-and-white culture, though, we don't have much of a bin for "that's not illegal but it's societally risky so we're going to have to keep an eye on you". Which is why we've made "simple possession" illegal, so we don't have to manage that nuance. My point was just that making it legal isn't the right move either.
Re:Microsoft Bing not only shows child pornography, it sugge...
by cataphract on Thursday January 10, 2019 @06:47PM
(#18879668)
I'm not much more comfortable with your response. You seem to be saying "simple possession" is not really harmful, but we'll pretend that is (and that's how the courts treat it — in fact, victims can recover damages from people in possession of their materials) in order to preemptively punish people that may actually do real harm.
Re:Microsoft Bing not only shows child pornography, it sugge...
by mooseburger on Thursday January 10, 2019 @03:28PM
(#18877749)
Yes I would. Answering otherwise leads straight into Minority Report.
I think we should view "simple possession" of society-harming materials as a health issue and not a criminal one; same as with drugs of all kinds. Pedophiles have a mental disorder and if we as a society believe in the ability of individuals to overcome their primal predilections and behave legally, then we need to help them do so and not punish their thoughtcrime. But it's difficult for most people to stomach the risk that an innocent person will be hurt because we didn't take drastic measures to eliminate holders of drastic thoughts.
I don't know the actual chance that a pedophile-in-thought will become a pedophile-in-action, but consider: if it was a 50% chance, would you be okay letting a demonstrated pedophile-in-thought run free, until they actually demonstrated their inability to restrain themselves? Knowing that at least one (and probably more) vulnerable persons would be irreparably harmed before the damage could be contained.