Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Input Devices Your Rights Online

Rick Falkvinge On Child Porn and Freedom Of the Press 580

Posted by timothy
from the all-consuming-taboo dept.
bazorg writes "Rick Falkvinge of the Swedish Pirate Party blogs on the subject of freedom of the press and foresees how users of Google glasses could be charged for possession and distribution of illegal porn. 'Child pornography is a toxic subject, but a very important one that cannot and should not be ignored. This is an attempt to bring the topic to a serious discussion, and explain why possession of child pornography need to be re-legalized in the next ten years.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rick Falkvinge On Child Porn and Freedom Of the Press

Comments Filter:
  • by elucido (870205) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @10:14AM (#41279693)

    Possession of bits of any source or type out not be a crime. What you have here is a thought crime, and it doesn't actually deter actual abuse against children to criminalize or attempt to criminalize the thoughts or track down the bits. Chasing bits does not keep flesh and blood children safe from flesh and blood predators but I suppose it keeps pictures (bits) safe from creepy thinking adults.

    A lot of laws are going to have to change with the advance in technology. Neuroscience will soon reveal all about the brain, making our paranoid about child predators seem about as effective as the paranoia about witches or communists. It's 2012 and at this time Google probably has everyone's thoughts...*cough* search records in a database. At the same time with neuroscience and in specific FMRI we will know what other humans are thinking, this technology does exist and ought to completely change the justice system.

    The main problem with crime in the past is we assumed we would never know what anyone else is thinking, never have complete understanding of motives, never know the best forms of deterring certain events but imagine for a moment that its some point in the future and we know what everyone's thoughts were before they committed the criminal act? Would we view the acts in the same way if we knew the exact thoughts behind the act? If a criminal could not lie and an FMRI lie detector test has 100% accuracy could we change the justice system completely? What about detecting psychopaths, sociopaths, and others who aren't capable of remorse, empathy or guilt prior to sentencing? As far as I'm concerned we should be moving toward abolishing prisons altogether not because we wont have dangerous people but because eventually our understanding of human behavior will be such that we wont need so many prisoners and also if we wanted to we could probably just use house arrest on the non-violent.

    We have to do away with the concept of good and evil. There is no good and evil. There may be smart and stupid or competent and incompetent but there is no good and evil. A sociopath or psychopath is not evil, they are simply retarded in a particular physical area of brain development. It hinders their decision making in the same way that any other disorder can hinder decision making in that it makes them less emotionally intelligent. This has been proven by neuroscientists when under FMRI we can see sociopaths brains aren't capable of experiencing empathy, remorse, and have trouble detecting or interpreting fear in the face and body language of others.

    If we were talking about artificial intelligence we'd be talking about it like it's a bug that the AI cannot detect fear, or cannot properly make use of the empathy functions or subroutines, but because it's a human being we call the problem sociopathy and in human beings the problem is physical and not a matter of programming so it cannot be easily fixed. For these sorts of individuals we need prisons, but according to most estimates they only represent 1% of the general population yet 20% of the prisoners. This would mean 80% of prisoners aren't sociopaths or psychopaths, even if we assume 50% of that 80% are violent it still leaves 40$ or so of prisoners who aren't sociopaths or psychopaths and who aren't violent.

    The most radical idea I'm going to propose is that we get rid of the idea of criminal responsibility. This probably wont happen until far into the future but if we make it into the future with powerful AI and technology, and we understand human thinking and feeling, at least theoretically we will eventually know the true motivations behind all actions. If the universe is predetermined and a lot of actions are based on genes, consequences, what brain type you have, environment, and situations, none of which an individual has full control over, just what is responsible for crime? The role of suggestion, of subliminal triggers, the role of desperation and poverty, the role of lack of intelligence, a lot of different things can convince a person that

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09, 2012 @10:23AM (#41279751)

      Woah, I just got deja vu reading that post. It must mean some kind of plot development.

      "The most radical idea I'm going to propose is that we get rid of the idea of criminal responsibility."

      It's called mens rea, try to understand criminal law before you go about fixing it. Everything you babbled about is already handled by the present system.

      • by Taco Cowboy (5327) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @08:36PM (#41283979) Journal

        "The most radical idea I'm going to propose is that we get rid of the idea of criminal responsibility."

        It's called mens rea, try to understand criminal law before you go about fixing it.

        I beg to differ !

        Mens Rea - "The act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty"

        That alone does not proof anything, until the prosecutor can proof the validity of Actus Reus
         

      • by Shoten (260439) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @09:56PM (#41284367)

        RTFA. He's right: child porn is one of the situtations where mens rea is not necessary. You are absolutely 100% wrong on this one. Possession, regardless of means, circumstance or intent, is a criminal act. I know this first-hand, from engagements where we deployed network-centric DLP solutions in a consulting role and were briefed in advance by a law enforcement official AND a lawyer as to what to do if we came across child porn in our systems. It's you who needs to learn about criminal law, not him.

        • Possession, regardless of means, circumstance or intent, is a criminal act. I know this first-hand, from engagements where we deployed network-centric DLP solutions in a consulting role and were briefed in advance by a law enforcement official AND a lawyer as to what to do if we came across child porn in our systems.

          I think you are saying that they told you to report any child porn found to authorities no matter what the circumstances. They want you to do that so that someone with the proper qualifications can investigate to see whether a crime has been committed.

          There is a common mistaken belief that legal posession begins when the supposedly possessed object comes to be on the person or property of the possessor. In reality, possession referes to the control which the possessor excercises over an object. In other wor

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09, 2012 @10:27AM (#41279791)

      "there is no good and evil. A sociopath or psychopath is not evil, they are simply retarded in a particular physical area of brain development"

      I agree. I'd go even further: they are not retarded, they are just different.

      But at the same time, I'll say, put them away, preferably before they cause trouble.

      I'm thinking it's a mistake to give everyone full civic rights at 18 and then see where that leads. People should gain civic rights gradually and at an individual pace, much like your car insurance premiums.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09, 2012 @10:32AM (#41279823)

        I'll say, put them away, preferably before they cause trouble.

        Precisely. Just throw everyone in prison because they might or might not commit a crime in the future! Everyone in group X, that is. A foolproof plan!

      • by JustOK (667959)

        and depending on your zip code.

      • by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @11:05AM (#41280027)

        People should gain civic rights gradually and at an individual pace, much like your car insurance premiums.

        Sounds like a good plan if you're aiming for a police state.

      • by Jedi Alec (258881) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @11:10AM (#41280049)

        People should gain civic rights gradually and at an individual pace, much like your car insurance premiums.

        There is one major problem with this and other suggestions for ways of "earning" the right to vote. There's gotta be people who determine who passed and who doesn't, and those people will inevitably yield to corruption. And because their victims can't vote, there's no way to get rid of them.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          "earning" the right to vote

          Every adult should have the right to vote, even death-row inmates. Disenfrachasing felons is much worse then gerrymandering.

          But other rights like right to "hang," loiter, drive a car, stay outside after curfew, go to the shopping mall etc could be conditioned on good behavior, underwriters and such.

    • by dmomo (256005) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @10:36AM (#41279853) Homepage

      No. "technically" you are correct. Philosophically you are way off target. Philosophy requires that you think more deeply about imlications, causes and effects. You do know that child porn is created because there is a demand for it, right? Your argument about the flesh and blood predators is just wrong. Maybe not all, but children I deed ARE exploited because of that demand. One might not be paying for it, but by swapping, downloading, and arguably by mere possession, they are enabling contributing to the ecosystem that helps the underground economy thrive.

      • by elucido (870205)

        No. "technically" you are correct. Philosophically you are way off target. Philosophy requires that you think more deeply about imlications, causes and effects. You do know that child porn is created because there is a demand for it, right? Your argument about the flesh and blood predators is just wrong. Maybe not all, but children I deed ARE exploited because of that demand. One might not be paying for it, but by swapping, downloading, and arguably by mere possession, they are enabling contributing to the ecosystem that helps the underground economy thrive.

        You're assuming there are child porn sites selling child porn for a profit. In that case yes it would be produced on demand to meet the supply in a very business oriented manner. The pedophile child molester on the other hand is not doing it for business reasons, they are doing it merely to get off. There is no reward for them to share it with others and risk going to prison. Yes there are child porn rings in existence and there are also serial killers who film it and put it on the internet but that doesn't

        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09, 2012 @10:57AM (#41279977)

          Make it possible to trace any image or film from any camera

          Worst. Idea. Ever.

          Well, not the worst, but just... no. This is the exact same reasoning as strip-searching everyone at the airports or the government putting cameras inside your house filming everything you do. Because if it's not illegal you've got nothing to hide, right?

          And criminals *will* find a way to strip that information from their videos. Does that flag it as illegal? Sure. But it was already illegal to begin with.

          All this will do is take away the privacy of legitimate users.

        • by Teun (17872) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @11:30AM (#41280181) Homepage

          There is no reward for them to share it with others

          But of course there is a reward!
          You said it yourself, they are sharing, i.e. they expect something in return which is a form of trade.

          Because it's implausible these paedophiles would/could be forced to only share already existing depictions without new ones, = new abuse taking place, such a system is doomed to fail.

          Compare it to the world wide ban on trade in Ivory, even though there is an excess of elephants in S. Africa we need to ban all trade to protect the elephants in areas where they are still threatened by extinction.

      • by Znork (31774)

        As with alcohol and narcotics, the result of banning is massive financing of the illicit industries. IE, the ban on cp is what actually creates a huge profit incentive where there may have been little to none before. Non-payers reduce that financial incentive.

        The only sort of coherent argument for banning possession that I've heard is that the existence of the images themselves can in some cases conceivably be traumatic for those exploited, and thus can be regarded as some form of perpetuation of the abuse.

    • by cdrguru (88047)

      We have to do away with the concept of good and evil. There is no good and evil.

      Only someone that has never experienced evil could possibly say something like this. Oh, I assure you there is such a thing as evil, although that is perhaps a euphemism for the phrase "conscious intent to do harm". Some people are simply astonished to realize that there are people that wish them ill and do so on a scale that is difficult to imagine. We have a tradition of calling such people "evil".

      We aren't talking about people with difficulties relating to others or to the real world. We are talking

    • by s.petry (762400) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @02:46PM (#41281681)

      The main problem with crime in the past is we assumed we would never know what anyone else is thinking, never have complete understanding of motives, never know the best forms of deterring certain events but imagine for a moment that its some point in the future and we know what everyone's thoughts were before they committed the criminal act? Would we view the acts in the same way if we knew the exact thoughts behind the act?If a criminal could not lie and an FMRI lie detector test has 100% accuracy could we change the justice system completely?

      This should never happen because anyone in their right mind should be fighting against someone being able to probe their thoughts. Evidence is one thing, however what you suggest is far worse than evidence. Better stand up now, make sure you keep the separation or else we are doomed.

      What about detecting psychopaths, sociopaths, and others who aren't capable of remorse, empathy or guilt prior to sentencing? As far as I'm concerned we should be moving toward abolishing prisons altogether not because we wont have dangerous people but because eventually our understanding of human behavior will be such that we wont need so many prisoners and also if we wanted to we could probably just use house arrest on the non-violent.

      This statement reeks of the same issue we have with "Monitoring tweets to detect sociopaths" and "DNS testing to determine future crimes". We see both already being discussed and both are rather poor attempts at Eugenics. A person's psychological state is not determined by DNA, or any what they may be typing now, but rather a result of sociological impact. Ever see the movie "Trading Places"? This would be a good start, but remember something. Eddie Murphey's character would have been jailed long before he was on the sidewalk by Eugenics if they could have tested his DNA. Walt and Mortimer would still be making $1.00 bets at the expense of fellow humans.

      This brings me to your next point.

      We have to do away with the concept of good and evil.

      Absolute idiocy. Those two concepts are how we have, and maintain, sociological morals which are required for us to survive as a society. Without those two concepts we would still be running around with sticks trying to steal each others women and food, and would have never progressed to the point we have. Does that mean perhaps that "Good" and "Evil" should be defined in to something more socially acceptable to atheists like yourself? I'm okay with that, but you can't do away with morality and maintain society. If you believe it's possible, I will simply point you to the US's decline. Since it's ugly to look at and you may see nothing wrong, how about Rome? Greece? Germany? The UK? Pick a history to study, and you will see that when morality no longer addresses "good" and "evil" even (and perhaps especially) for some people, society begins to decline in all areas. Remember that the goals of Governments for over 3000 years was setting and maintaining a set of morals and virtues, which in essence _are_ good and evil.

      Again, you are plain old telling a fable with your comment "A sociopath or psychopath is not evil, they are simply retarded in a particular physical area of brain development.". This is not true at all, since anyone is capable of being either of those, and worse. This is based on evidence, not speculation. Why do you neglect the impact society has on a person's psychological state, except that it would harm your argument?

      If you understood this, your next statement of " This would mean 80% of prisoners aren't sociopaths or psychopaths, even if we assume.." would be completely unnecessary. Society creates way more sociopaths and psychopaths than birth order. People are not always psychopaths or sociopaths, people do have the ability to repair damage caused by society and be "normal". This again is verifiable and well documented in psychology and sociology. You

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ezakimak (160186)

      I agree with some of your arguments.

      Thoughts should *never* be a crime.
      Child porn that already exists is just bits--the crime of creating it has already been committed.

      Here's what I see with having possession of child porn illegal:
      1) some people will have a fettish/fantasy of sex with minors--you *cannot* change that in them and hoping to do so is futile--and like you said, it's not a crime to think it.
      2) I'd much rather those people satisfy their urges in private with porn, leaving actual children safe
      3) i

  • Aren't there existing protections limiting prosecution to knowingly and intentionally committing crimes? I can't see how legalizing possession completely will "fix" the "problem" of accidental prosecution in an effective way. Baby/bathwater and all that.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09, 2012 @10:26AM (#41279781)

      Aren't there existing protections limiting prosecution to knowingly and intentionally committing crimes? I can't see how legalizing possession completely will "fix" the "problem" of accidental prosecution in an effective way. Baby/bathwater and all that.

      FTFL:

      UPDATE: Some people have complained that no court would ever convict in this scenario, since you also recorded your unintentional approach. But possession of child pornography is a strict liability offense, like possession of cocaine, at least in the entire United States, as well as several other countries. Intent, mens rea, is irrelevant: if you have it, no matter why, you're guilty.

      • by Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @10:56AM (#41279967) Journal

        One likes to think the person would be considered a hero rather than be charged, but I can see it going wrong for them.

        These are the same people who brought you marijuana residue on walls not being evidence of past use or possession, but the vanishingly small amounts of THC in the wall residue was possession in and of itself.

        These are the same people who, when presented with more intrusive powers to track terrorists, claimed, golly, no, we will never, ever, not no way, not no how, ever use it for anything but terrorism, then, immediately after the law was passed, started using it against drugs, saying, "The law doesn't specifically state terrorism only, sorry!" They didn't even bother trying to conjure up the meme that drug selling is "a kind of" terrorism. They didn't have to.

        These are the same people who are trying to get teenagers registered as lifelong felony producers of child porn who must register as sex offenders wherever they go for the rest of their lives because they took a nude shot of themselves and sent it to friends.

        So...with these common horror stories as the tip of the iceberg, I wouldn't put it beyond some prosecutor to try to jail a guy who accidentally filmed a child rape then took it to police as a producer of child porn.

    • by elucido (870205)

      Aren't there existing protections limiting prosecution to knowingly and intentionally committing crimes? I can't see how legalizing possession completely will "fix" the "problem" of accidental prosecution in an effective way. Baby/bathwater and all that.

      No there aren't. Lets say you didn't know the law prior to committing the crime so you didn't even know you were breaking a law? You'd still be convicted.

    • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @10:47AM (#41279919)

      Just possessing it, regardless of the reason, intent, etc is criminal. The law is very unbending on it. It gets applied pretty draconian at times too. A good example is a teenage couple sent naked pictures of themselves to each other via e-mail. They got out, and both were tried and convicted of child porn charges (and it was upheld on appeal). Doesn't matter that the pictures were of themselves, it is illegal, intent and any other factors are just not part of the law.

      • by Teun (17872)
        You do realise TFA was written by a non-US person?

        What you describe is a broken legal system that needs fixing because the world cannot be painted in black & white alone.

    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @01:07PM (#41280839)

      Aren't there existing protections limiting prosecution to knowingly and intentionally committing crimes? I can't see how legalizing possession completely will "fix" the "problem" of accidental prosecution in an effective way. Baby/bathwater and all that.

      Unfortunately, possession of child pornography is a crime regardless of the reason you have it, regardless of whether or not you intended to possess it, regardless of whether or not you were even able to access it, regardless of whether or not you even knew you had it. Even cartoon depictions of child sex abuse are illegal in the United States.

      As for prosecution, the point here is that possession alone should not be a crime at all -- the original concept was to attack the producers of child porn by attacking their customers, since the producers themselves were so hard to find. The Internet has changed things: people can just download child pornography without paying for it. The law should at least be revised to reflect that fact, perhaps by making it a crime to pay (by money or by barter) rather than to possess. Yes, that means the police will have to actually gather evidence that a person was paying i.e. encouraging child rape, otherwise known as doing their jobs.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09, 2012 @10:25AM (#41279767)
    CP enforcement is an absolute rats nest of problematic issues. The real pain isn't coming from people deleting evidence of child abuse, it's the edge cases where law and common sense contradict. Throw in trans-national companies being expected to police their networks and varying national laws, you get a recipe for serious problems. As a flavor of what can happen, some parts of the world (like the UK and some states in the USA) have different definitions of what a child is for the purpose of CP law vs age of consent law. So you can have sex at one age, but not film yourself doing it until a later age. Another issue is that some countries don't criminalize CP possession at all (Japan, Russia). So if an American company finds CP in the possession of someone who lives in Japan, what happens? What about the case where the person is of legal age in one place but not another?
  • by elucido (870205) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @10:27AM (#41279793)

    For all who support the current child pornography laws which criminalize possessions of bits, is there a significant difference between that and a thought crime?
    If you still support the ban on child pornography then why isn't there a ban on obscene "teen erotica" literature? Why not ban text descriptions, or ban stories which encourage child abuse?

    Lets say for argument a corporation decided to produced a hand drawn manga series of lolicon (child porn) erotica and marketed it to an adult population, should the behavior of this corporation be banned? Should purchase or distribution of this material be criminal? Should the website be shut down and all the visitors raided?

    Why or why not?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by clorkster (1996844)

      If you still support the ban on child pornography then why isn't there a ban on obscene "teen erotica" literature? Why not ban text descriptions, or ban stories which encourage child abuse?

      No actual people are physically harmed.

      • by elucido (870205)

        If you still support the ban on child pornography then why isn't there a ban on obscene "teen erotica" literature? Why not ban text descriptions, or ban stories which encourage child abuse?

        No actual people are physically harmed.

        Who is harmed when bits are exchanged over the internet? Possession of child pornography doesn't do any direct harm to children just as possession of virtual child porn, lolicon or whatever else doesn't do any actual damage to children. So what exactly makes images and video so different from text descriptions or stories? To computers both are just bits.

      • by ArsonSmith (13997)

        what if the stories were graphic true first person accounts of the events? How would that story differ from a photo of the event?

    • by grumbel (592662) <grumbel@gmx.de> on Sunday September 09, 2012 @11:50AM (#41280293) Homepage

      Why not ban text descriptions, or ban stories which encourage child abuse?

      They are already banned, see Manga Collection Ruled “Child Pornography By US Court [io9.com].

    • by thesandtiger (819476) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @02:54PM (#41281749)

      The main distinction is that one of them is proven to create victims and one of them is not.

      Creating child porn by actually filming/taking pictures of or otherwise documenting the sexual abuse of a child absolutely is not just a thought crime. A real child is being victimized. Some people who create child porn do so because it gets them off, but some others do so for financial gain to be had from selling it to people who like viewing it. Because of that, simply owning it means that it is possible that one owning child porn is contributing to the financial incentive behind those creating it, and adding to the problem. The main point here is that a direct causal link can be reasonably drawn: If you have a real photo of a child really being sexually abused, it is absolutely the case that a child was sexually abused to create that photo.

      So, with real child porn it absolutely is not a thought crime - it's an actual crime, and people who possess it should be charged with a crime because they are to some extent intentionally facilitating the abuse of children. It may be an incredibly slender connection, but it is absolutely a connection to a child being sexually assaulted.

      With fictional stuff - drawings, photoshops, stories - there is absolutely no proven causal link between people writing and consuming those things and actual children being abused sexually. It may be that drawings, photoshops and stories about child sexual abuse encourage some people to do it, but it can't be proven because there are no children directly involved in the creation of those things. It would be roughly the same as saying that violent video games lead to murder sprees and as such should be banned. The problem here is that some people think that their own personal distaste for such things means that there must be a direct link between those things and children being hurt - that is not so. The main point here is that if you have some fiction about a child being sexually abused, you cannot say that absolutely a child must have been sexually abused to make that fiction.

      So, because there is no direct link between fictional child porn and children actually being hurt, THAT would be a thought crime. It would be roughly equivalent to putting someone up on charges of attempted murder because they spent all day playing Call of Duty and so clearly they must be about to kill someone. There's no actual child being assaulted/no person being killed, so there's no actual connection to a child being assaulted/person being killed. No link.

      There's also a grey area: Does fictionalized child porn create a culture in which child sexual abuse becomes more acceptable or more likely? Proponents of bans on fictionalized child porn say yes it does, while opponents either cite free speech or theories that fictionalized child porn reduces the likelihood of people seeking real child porn or actually abusing children themselves. Depending on how convincing one finds the arguments, one could go either way.

      Personally, I find any kind of representation of child sexual abuse presented as a form of sexual gratification (fictionalized or real) to be disgusting, but I'm at least willing to acknowledge that my being disgusted by something doesn't mean it should be criminalized if it can't be shown to actually cause harm to innocents. That's something all too many people who are on a "think of the children" crusade don't get: their personal distaste doesn't automatically change the facts to suit their opinions.

  • by Elbereth (58257) <krachtm@yahoo.com> on Sunday September 09, 2012 @10:33AM (#41279827) Homepage Journal

    Some of his arguments are good, while some of them are stupid. Yes, I admit that, in a moment of weakness, I actually read the linked article. I promise never to do this again.

    His first point is probably his weakest and stupidest. It's a paranoid fantasy (involving some kind of uber-nerd/uber-hipster cross) about the government coming down harder on witnesses of a crime than the actual perpetrator. He also loads it with emotional appeals. It's not really very compelling, and it almost caused me to stop reading the article right there. It reminded me of the over-the-top, paranoid fantasies and fallacies that were popular during the time of SOPA. Anyone who dared to call people out on that was labeled a fascist sympathizer, or sometimes just a "concern troll". It bothered me a lot more to be labeled a "concern troll", because the underlying message was that it was perfectly OK to use logical fallacies and propaganda in the service of a greater good. I reject this, and I think using these techniques just hurts a movement. There's always a better argument against authoritarianism than simplistic logical fallacies, such as the slippery slope or appeal to emotion. It's lazy.

    The rest of his arguments were actually a lot better. He made some pretty decent points, including the fact that free speech necessarily opposes censorship of even the most offensive speech. He also brings up age of consent laws and the recent spate of "no tolerance" cases against teens who have sent naked pictures to each other. Obviously, there are some problems with the law here. My own personal solution is to lower the age of majority, but I think that's going to be way too contentious. Since nobody is likely to support that, I'd say that we should enact so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws, which allow teens to screw around with each other without fear of being charged with rape or child porn.

    Anyways, it's pretty much standard for progressive politics, and I've seen the same arguments from many people. As a progressive, I generally agree. This wasn't a particularly insightful or well-written example, but it's still good to see that there are progressives out there, spreading the message.

    • by Jiro (131519) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @10:56AM (#41279965)

      It's a paranoid fantasy (involving some kind of uber-nerd/uber-hipster cross) about the government coming down harder on witnesses of a crime than the actual perpetrator.

      If you also read the comments they mention two cases where this actually happened. They are in Swedish, but Google Translate does a fairly good job on them.

      Relying on government's discretion to prevent people from being prosecuted for something that the law says is illegal will only work until you run into someone with an agenda, or a mindless bureaucrat. or a fanatic who happens to be in government.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09, 2012 @11:10AM (#41280047)

        Simon Walsh: How bodged arrest and 'profoundly damaging' false charges have ruined my City Hall career

        http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/simon-walsh-how-bodged-arrest-and-profoundly-damaging-false-charges-have-ruined-my-city-hall-career-8046087.html

  • by Hentes (2461350) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @10:35AM (#41279839)

    Defending child pornography will just make it easier for copyright lobbyists to claim that all pirates are pedophiles. This is a bad strategy.

    • by elucido (870205) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @10:42AM (#41279889)

      Defending child pornography will just make it easier for copyright lobbyists to claim that all pirates are pedophiles. This is a bad strategy.

      Pedophile has become communist. It's like being a witch. You're guilty until proven innocent and it can be used as political weapon to oppress all sorts of different groups of people. If you're part of Occupy Wallstreet, Anonymous, or just a rogue journalist you can be framed by a child porn virus and made to look like a pedophile.

      So if the fear is you can't be an activist because you fear looking like a pedophile, you're appealing to fear and basically saying don't fight for free speech at all because they'll make you into a pedophile. Of course they can also make you into a rapist or make you dead given the right set of circumstances and if they knew how to get away with it.

  • by Hatta (162192) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @10:54AM (#41279955) Journal

    We can't even get Cannabis legalized here, and the arguments for that are much more overwhelming. When children are involved, people shut off their brains.

  • Unlimited power like this is an important part of implementing a global police state controlled by criminal banks and other unaccountable megacorporations. That is all.
  • by MindPrison (864299) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @11:31AM (#41280185) Journal

    You may not like the answer, but it's very straightforward and logical, some may even call it cynical:

    Child porn, as defined, a naked child depicted on a photo, drawing, animation or film in a sexually provoking pose or situation is illegal in most of the world because of religious beliefs, nothing else. And if you imagine that 95% of the population is religious, then you can forget about this becoming legal at any point soon.

    You may even think that the picture of a naked child is totally disgusting, immoral, horrible, or the fact that someone out there are "having a good time" imagining or watching an image depicting your or anyone's child, even a fantasy child that doesn't exist, simply because you find it so disgusting. Some think it's the most natural thing in the world, but not for others to see etc.

    Fact is: It's a human body, yes, it's young, and vulnerable. And here is where the two world splits and unfortunately combine because of religion and moral to a sort of smorgasbord of "take whatever you feel is right, and so it shall be and make it law", even though it doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever.

    Fact is: If you sexually abuse anyone, be it a child, animal or fully grown human - it's abuse. It isn't more or less terrible if it is a defenseless child. You are defenseless if you where raped anyway, why is another human more or less worth than you?

    Fact is: If you "please" a child, and the child was not hurt, but enjoyed it - then you have not per see hurt the child. However - the child is in a learning stage of life, and because we see this as immoral and it's against our religious beliefs or otherwise, the child will come to know this when the child grows up, and therefor the risk is there that the child will at a later stage in life - feel abused and dirty, and thus have it's life "mentally" destroyed and disturbed.

    So you see, even though this may have felt right for the both of you - at the time - time and moral and religion both can and will make this a crime and destroy lives. So for that reason alone, this is dangerous.

    However, in a perfect flawless world where people have the capacity to think for themselves, where love is favored in front of war and hatred, where being nude is as natural as eating food, where masturbation whether mutual or mono is as natural as a kiss or a greeting, then no harm will come of this - it is ALL mental.

    Depicting such fantasies, dreams, wishes (to some) or horrors, infidelity, abuse (to some) on pictures, spreading them around the world, is of course dangerous because of this.

    In reality, unfortunately - there are a lot of people making child porn for profit, actually abusing kids for real, and we're talking taking kids from poor families, taking pictures of them against their own will, abusing them, and depicting this with REAL kids with REAL suffering, now THAT IS HORRIBLE, and it happens much more than you may want to think.

    Why? Because of money!

    If this "nude" hysteria wasn't so blown out of proportions that half the planets a-sexual people have to go undercover just to keep their jobs (and no, not with kids) but just to survive in a hostile territory, there would not be such a demand for it, and a picture like that would be worth no money at all, because it was easily available.

    So you see, it's very simple. How can something that feels good, and is good be so bad? Read the above, and put it into perspective, then you can easily see how it could be so bad, and how it could be good. Not that complicated really...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I was taught that the most essential role of government was to protect the rights of the minorities against the will of the majority. I have also understood the smallest minority to be the individual. If 95% of a population can get their way, then so can I, just without them and their support. The government is there to stop them from taking away that right, not to join in on the madness in order to curry their favor by tacit support through inaction.

      If I wanted to be ruled by a majority, I would just join

    • by Razed By TV (730353) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @02:41PM (#41281629)

      Fact is: If you sexually abuse anyone, be it a child, animal or fully grown human - it's abuse. It isn't more or less terrible if it is a defenseless child. You are defenseless if you where raped anyway, why is another human more or less worth than you?

      I'd like to take issue with this point. While it is a fact that "if you abuse someone it is abuse", it is much more a matter of opinion the severity of its horror. You can pretend this isn't true. You can pretend that the act of abusing an adult, who has better means of resisting as well as an understanding of what abuse is, is the same as abusing a child, who is easily exploited due to reliance on adults and in many cases is unable to communicate that they have been abused. Also, you can pretend that all rape victims were "defenseless" leading up to the moment of their abuse, but this is another fallacy.

    • Fact is: If you "please" a child, and the child was not hurt, but enjoyed it - then you have not per see hurt the child.

      I'd really love to see if you have studies that address this issue. Because it sounds like you are 'guessing' on a lot of things there.

  • by maryland157 (2726023) on Sunday September 09, 2012 @01:09PM (#41280849)
    I was raped as a child at the age of 7 and I am also a victim of child pornography as well. Chances are they're those images/videos of me being raped floating out there somewhere on the internet. Knowing that there are people pleasuring themselves to images and videos of me being brutally raped gave me extreme PTSD as a teenager. Actually this is something that still bugs the heck out of me every time I see something on the news about someone being caught with child pornography and still makes me physically sick. First off he is dead wrong about child porn laws being counterproductive. A high percentage of sexual abuse crimes committed against children are never reported. What happened to me was never reported. Also a high percentage of people charged with child pornography crimes are also found to have sexual abused a child at some point. When you take these two facts into account, chances are when someone gets caught with possession they also sexual abused a child at some point as well. I used to have a co-worker who got caught with a simple possession charge. After the police finished their investigation they found that he was also manufacturing and distributing as well. I've also seen multiple cases were the same thing has happened. So possession of child pornography laws do help to catch child molesters. Plus who the heck would be possession of it if they were not pleasuring themselves to it. And people who would pleasure themselves to it are pedophiles!

    Another thing is how the heck do these laws prevent the media from reporting? Gee you never hear some journalist say something like "Oh man I really wanted to show some B roll of some nude 13 year old in this story but I can't because of these laws". Really??!?! This is just nonsense. The part about the Google Glasses was also a bunch of nonsense as well. The only thing I agree with him on is the teenagers sexting part. I think that teenagers shouldn't be charged with a crime for victimizing themselves. Because once these images get out there on the internet, all of the sudden these kids have pedophiles stalking them. Instead parents and schools need to teach kids about the risks associated with sexting. Other than that, what a complete loon this guy is. I've never really thought much about the Pirate Party before this. Mainly because they're not that big here in the US, I think the Libertarian Party(Which I gladly support) covers most of their views. But I've just lost all respect for the Pirate Party.
    • by Pseudonym Authority (1591027) <SammyKake@gmaiCOLAl.com minus caffeine> on Sunday September 09, 2012 @02:40PM (#41281609)

      A high percentage of sexual abuse crimes committed against children are never reported.

      I've always wondered... How the fuck do they gather statistics about how many unreported crimes occur, if they were never reported? It's this kind of bullshit that has idiots claiming that 1 in every 3 children will be molested! The average child molester molest over 300 children in his career!. It makes no fucking sense. They've got to be just assuming some number occurs, then throwing in a Coefficient of Molestation or something until they get what they want, or what will alarm Senator Hardoncrime the most.

Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.

Working...