I really don't like it when people take the few, narrow exceptions to free speech in the US, and try to expand them: https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-t...
If we empower an elite to censor information or have any other power over us they will use it to further their own agendas even if that means inhibiting the freedom of millions of people.
As in life, our actions should never deprive another of their rights to live and pursue their non infringing rights.you have a right to self, your property, and the efforts of your work. we balance some of the latter in order to provide a more orderly society and benefit those who cannot fully sustain themselves.
A simplistic view I admit but it is when people start having exception after exception we end up with no real liberty but a tyranny of violations. Every thing you do would bound to be covered to where even no action is a wrong.
You should go to jail if you do actual crimes, you know, with real victims. Not imaginary victims that don't know when you see a video in the first place.
Those same “ones and zeroes” could cost someone their life as much as a mal-designed truss on a bridge could. That is not a new phenomenon.
The same applies to childrens’ safety.
Childrens' safety is not a digital thing in a computer, and AFAIK nothing suggests childrens' safety is more at risk right now than from other forms of violence that seem to be perfectly tolerated and celebrated in books, movies, music.
If I'm trying to make a business out of child porn, sure try to prosecute me. I believe selling other peoples' pictures without consent should be illegal in any case, specially if in demeaning circumstances. If I'm just sharing it, though disgusting it may be, the law should not stick it's nose in it. Just like it's legal to share books on how to make bombs and poison people.
So you're saying that having illegal material on your computer is not a problem because, well, it's "your property"? Like, it's fine for you to have child porn (or pirated software, or illegally downloaded copyrighted music or movies) because hey, it's all zeroes and ones, and you're not "making a business out of it"?
I empathize with the argument of some free speech advocates that it's complicated to find the right balance on where to draw the line in terms of censorship, but frankly the argument that you can do anything you want just because "it's zeroes and ones" and that is not "the real world" is plainly ridiculous. Thankfully what you propose is clearly against the law in most countries.
What separates a simple file host from a complicit active member? I think at that point you're one in the same.
This matter isn't about an isolated machine; it's about a networked machine.
And to the rest of what you've said... I can't do anything but disagree with you.
And if the idea is that the public is too dumb and easy to influence and therefore cannot be shown child porn or killings in New Zeland etc then it doesn't make sense at the same time for me to be advertised violent movies in the cinema.
How is it that people who become interested in and start to collect CP would ever become involved in its production, in your model? Having gained access to a product they desire, those people seem to follow the same pattern as enthusiasts of any other taste, and develop an interest in creating their own material, as opposed to being satisfied with that already available.
People, generally, watch video of a terrorist attack to be informed about threats to them or their country, a direct first amendment concern.
There is a direct connection between the consumers of child porn and its production that is absent in the other.
CP is shared with the intent of reciprocity for more CP; hence sharing existing CP promotes future CP.
Violent/hateful content is shared with the intent to encourage/persuade others to perform similar acts, or to dehumanize the victims.
CP, violent and hateful content are shared for a myriad of reasons, some for profit, like the documentary on the Bataclan attack on Netflix, some for sharing with fellow pedophiles. I don't see why I can't see 9/11 footage because someone else might feel different about it.
No, it should be based on actual research and statistics. For example, many supposedly reasonable people assumed that violent computer games promote criminal/antisocial behaviour, but they actually don’t.
That said, the sharing of the video in that thread is something I think we can all agree is 0’s and 1’s that should be attempted to be prevented.
The media will come and share these videos for clicks and that’s a separate issue. Initially, this guy is knowingly becoming an Internet celebrity for murdering people. This part of the culture has to be addressed. I am worried this kind of meme-heavy killing is opening up a sickening can of worms.
It seems sad to think people need social pressure to be against it, but I’m not sure how else to reconcile people who condemn the spread of one, but defend the other.
Yes.
It's all peer-to-peer and onion routed. The only one who can censor things is the owner although moderators might be able to curate content on their boards (similar to what HN does). Oh, and if the owner throws away his private key then it will keep running just without new updates to the site.
People are afraid of freedom but it all works pretty well in the end.
Also, I agree with the Ayn Rand definition of free speech, i.e. the term censorship only applies to governments. When a company (such as Facebook) censors something they are really just expressing their private property rights.
Arrest the shooter, the child porn producer (unless victim==perpetrator), and the person making the threat. It is fine for others to keep and share the video, photos, text, etc.
If it spreads around, then somebody might recognize a perpetrator. I suppose we could get fancy, with a rule that you can keep it if you register it. That would make it far easier to track things back to the source and then see if anybody is getting harmed.
Then how am I able to provide you with data collected by law enforcement authorities demonstrating decade-long trends, along with information on the methodology employed to collect it?
The interesting numbers are how many cases of abuse are hidden from law enforcement because:
1. people won't recognize abusers they know because they won't dare look
2. people would rather destroy a computer than deal with unfriendly police procedures
Oh, BTW, one other problem I didn't mention. The current situation is very easy to use for framing a person. This has been determined to be the case in some divorce cases, and of course an unknown of innocent people were unable to prove that they were framed.
You haven't provided any evidence for your claim about discouraging people from reporting things. I think most police departments have a procedure for dealing with the situation where someone calls to say 'hello I bought an old laptop/hard disk/whatever and it seems to have child porn on it, please advise.'
Waht do you know, there is even an official tipline specially set up for that purpose in the USA: https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/report-violations#repo...
By all means continue to explore your imagination unencumbered by facts, but don't be surprised if people who live in the real world end up drawing different conclusions from yourself.
What about the privacy rights of so many kids on album covers? (Nevermind, Virgin Killer, Blind Faith...)
It doesn't seem that society demands such a right.
> If you want to make the case for no censorship at all then you need to use the most extreme examples of what will be shared and consumed because that's what will happen
No free speech advocate worth their salt EVER demanded anything illegal to not be censored, including threats, CP, etc.
Absolutely no one should entrust private corporations with the power to decide what is and isn't extreme, or acceptable speech. Because it will immediately be abused (as is happening right now) to censor speech that companies, mostly based in left leaning blue cities with, overwhelming employee bases leaning towards one ideology (hint: left), to spread their worldview to the REST of the world. US law sets clear definitions on free speech, and is a lot more reliable than the "moral" compass of a few individuals at companies.
For instance, the very legal and harmless "learn to code" meme was only considered offensive by a very small monitory of silicon valley Twitter censors, but anyone who tweeted that got an immediate temporary suspension.
I also think that this is a stupid argument this footage is not illegal and can be considered by many newsworthy hence should be protected at least in some narrow context.
Child pornography on the other hand is illegal. Broadcasting or displaying child pornography has no newsworthy or any other value in any context other than the pornographic one.
What if we just oppose continuously expanding the types of content that can be censored?
I really don't like when people talk about "censorship in general" when they really mean "This is below my line for what should be censored".
If you want to make the case for no censorship at all then you need to use the most extreme examples of what will be shared and consumed because that's what will happen.