A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

Re:A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS by magicalhippo on Wednesday April 07, 2021 @05:22AM (#26722248)

Not really. Here's the context:

This "child pornography" might be a photo of yourself or your lover that the two of you shared.

Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone, so and if you or I think it is disgusting, that is no excuse for censorship.

Having a photo of you out there, shared to people you did not intend or want to have it shared with can most definitely hurt someone.

I can't find the quote right now, but there was an interview in the news here last year with a woman who's dad had taken and sold explicit images of her as a child, and she said a major part of her issues as an adult was that a mere glance from a stranger could trigger a crippling fear that the stranger had seen those photos and had recognized her. Let alone a proper look from someone.

Even though the images might have been taken with consent, unlike my example case, they might later have been spread without consent as in the numerous "revenge porn" cases. Again this can inflict real hurt to those depicted.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS by simion314 on Wednesday April 07, 2021 @08:14AM (#26723701)

Can you explain how a drawing of imaginary person hurts somebody? What about texts? the characters in some books like the ones used in Game of Thrones TV series are very under aged, do you accuse the readers of the crime ? if yes who was hurt ?

I understand the point about hurting children or adults by the porn industry but I would hope we can find better methods to stop this crimes , social media justice is not the way,,, I read about under cover cops catching soem criminals so let's fund them to do their jobs ... and I also read about some teens killing an old man because someone accused him to be a pedo

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS by magicalhippo on Wednesday April 07, 2021 @03:52PM (#26730214)

I can come up with some scenarios where it might lead to someone getting hurt, but IMO drawings of imaginary persons is one of the least interesting subset of possible cases.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS by drenvuk on Wednesday April 07, 2021 @06:02AM (#26722620)

Even in the case that you bring up having the photo in your possession should not be illegal. Distributing it or producing it without the consent of the ADULT subject should be illegal. That's where the damage is being done. Every new set of eyes that sees the photo makes it worse.

In other words if:

1. someone already has a photo.

2. No one interacts with it besides the current owner

3. Nobody knows or will ever know about it but the current owner

Do you think there is damage being done? Right now I don't think so. I think all of the damage is done when material is produced and spread, and then spread again.

I dislike talking about this subject so I'm alright with disagreeing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS by magicalhippo on Wednesday April 07, 2021 @06:24AM (#26722781)

I don't disagree entirely with your post, as with most things legal it comes down to a balance of many aspects.

I also don't disagree entirely with the point RMS is trying to make regarding unmotivated searches of property and person. I do disagree with the specifics of his argument though.

Child pornography is in many cases indeed a heinous offense, however blanket searches of person and property is also a grand invasion of privacy.

[ Parent | on HN ]