×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Reddit: No More Suggestive Content Featuring Minors

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the ok-but-what-about-miners? dept.

Crime 722

First time accepted submitter say_hwat writes "Today Reddit announced that it has banned subreddits dedicated to posting sexualized imagery of people under the age of 18. Last year, the site came under fire for r/jailbait, a subreddit dedicated to posting images of people under 18. The subreddit was shut down, but many others, such as r/gaolbait and r/bustybait, continued existing or sprung up afterwards. The policy change today came hours after a thread on Something Awful called for a public campaign against Reddit's lax attitude towards the sexualization of children. The Something Awful thread creator claims that Reddit's administrators know about child pornography being traded, but refuse to act. Among others, the thread creator cites r/preteen_girls as being particularly egregious."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

722 comments

Lax attitudes toward child pornography (5, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015511)

Probably a lot of normal people's reaction to Reddit's policy change is "You mean sexual imagery of children wasn't already against the rules? How is that not firmly established from day one?" Unfortumately, the Reddit admins' bizarre six-year acceptance of child porn on its site is reflective of an overall lax attitude in online geek communities. Rather than seeing themselves as what they actually are--just nerds running computers--they like to perceive themselves as freedom fighters battling all forms of censorship in the world. This lack of practically toward obviously illegal stuff leads to a lot of eye-opening attitudes toward issues of sex and gender. For crying out loud, Reddit's statement actually refers to this new rule as a "slippery slope," as if it's somehow more difficult for them not to censor legitimate information if they can't have a subreddit named /r/preeteen_girls devoted to underage photos submitted by creepy Facebook stalkers.

The lax attitude toward this sort of thing even comes from community leaders like Richard Stallman, who wrote on his blog [stallman.org] that "[P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness." And he told an interviewer [arnnet.com.au] that people who redistribute child pornography are "not participating in the crime" and so shouldn't be censored. Hell, even bringing this up on Slashdot risks copious downmods from Stallman fans (it's happened in the past).

There has to be a line drawn between OMG-FREEDOM-AT-ALL-COSTS and posting sexual pictures of children. Living in a civil society requires some level of protection of the innocent. Reddit should shut the hell up about slippery slopes and do what it should have done six freaking years ago.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015557)

Could you provide the Stallman's full quote?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (5, Informative)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015625)

I gave links to both. First he wrote on his blog in 2003 [stallman.org]:

Dubya has nominated another caveman for a federal appeals court. Refreshingly, the Democratic Party is organizing opposition.

The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.

He also said this in an interview [arnnet.com.au]:

DR: So is child pornography not a good enough reason to censor the Internet?

RS: Certainly not, certainly not a good enough reason. There are videos I’ve seen that shocked and disgusted me, but I don’t want to censor them. I do not advocate censorship just because I or you find them disgusting. ...

But those who simply redistribute [child pornography] are in the same position of people who redistribute the collateral murder video. They’re not participating in the crime and there are a lot of films that depict murders except nobody really got killed. And there are a lot of films that depict the harm of animals except none really got harmed so if somebody was really torturing an animal, we would stop it. But depicting that without actually doing it we consider okaybut there’s no need to censor depictions of that.

And finally, he wrote on his blog in 2006 [stallman.org]:

I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.

Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia."

To be honest, it's surprising that more people don't know about Stallman's positions on these issues. You'd think such controversial positions would be more widely reported.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015705)

It doesn't surprise me at all. Stallman is a fanatic, and fanatics tend to lack that element of pragmatism that shows where a philosophical position may have necessary limits. I'm certainly not one of his disciples, that's for sure.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (5, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015795)

14+ is not pedophilia. Words have definitions.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015835)

And if you are beating off to pictures of 14 year olds the definition is "fucking sick"

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (4, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015889)

Who said anything about beating off to pictures of 14 year olds? I said that 14+ is not a pedophilia. It's not. A person who abuses cocaine is not an alcoholic. Someone that builds houses isn't a cobbler. Slashdot erupts at people calling crackers/hackers. This is the same thing. It's not the definition of the word. It doesn't fit the definition of the word. It's not the word to use.

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The child must be at least five years younger than the adolescent (16 or older) to be termed pedophilia.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015925)

Then I guess there are a lot of "fucking sick" people out there, because Hollywood loves dressing teenagers in provocative, sexual outfits. You have probably crossed paths with dozens of "fucking sick" people in the past week under your own definition of the term.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015799)

Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia."

Certainly at the extremes, but unfortunately there are places where an 18 year old can be accused of pedophilia because he (it is almost always males are the accused) has sex with a 17 year old. Nobody wants to see a grown man who raped a 6 year old walking free, but I think it is a stretch to say that someone is a pedophile if they had sex with someone who was only a few months younger. Unfortunately, attempts to add some sanity to these laws are politically difficult and open politicians up to accusations of not protecting children from pedophiles.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (4, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015811)

"Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia.""

They can consent, it is just that they law does not care if they do, in this case.
And I disagree, "voluntary pedophilia" seems like a completely reasonable term.

Lets try to get this straight. It is not that a 17 year old is not able to make informed decisions, it is just that the law does not care about their opinions.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015821)

So you categorically state that children (here assumed to be under the legal age) cannot legally (true in many countries) or emotionally (true in... wait, what???) consent to sex...

When did it become established beyond doubt that children can't consent to sex? What is this magical "switch" that gets flipped the day they turn 16 or 28 years old. Please provide some links to research that shows this change happening from one day to the next.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015851)

Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia."

As uncomfortable as this may make you feel, what you state is factually incorrect.

Legally, age of consent varies from roughly 13 to 18 around the world. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't consider someone 13 years old to be a child.

Emotionally, the average age of first sexual encounter, world-wide, is 14. Being the average, a significant number (probably somewhere near half) would be younger than that. For your statement ot be true, one would have to believe that half, or more, of the human beings that have had sex did so non-consentually. That kind of claim would require some seriously well-researched evidence.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (5, Insightful)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015867)

Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia."

Setting aside the lack of distinction between pedophilia and pedosexual actions (hint: one is actually disgusting and illegal, the other is just incomprehensible (to me))...

While children can't legally consent to sex, at which point can't they emotionally consent to it?

Apparently children (and I'm using the legal definition of child here) can, in fact, emotionally consent to it - with other children. A lot of children do. Like it or not, statistically speaking, somewhere in that crowd of highschoolers in the school yard, is going to be at least one couple that has had sex with each other.
If they can consent to having sex with another child around their own age, then why not with an adult?

Similarly, some jurisdictions essentially say "the age of consent is 18" - leading to the oft-cited example of an 18-ear old having sex with their 17.997-year old SO potentially ending up being listed as a sex offender; of if only they had waited another day.. then that SO would have been capable of emotional consent, just like that, like magic.

Now don't get me wrong - I know a line has to be drawn somewhere and I certainly appreciate the fact that pedosexuals would use similar defenses and then try to extend them to suggest that having sex with a 6-year old is totally okay, too.

But just because the nuances are uncomfortable for us to even think about, doesn't mean they're not there.

Thus you can place Stallman's statements into a slightly less black-and-white context.
When he says that it shouldn't be illegal if nobody is coerced, take it exactly as such. Just because a child can 'voluntarily' have sex with an adult doesn't mean there wasn't coercion; they're just not mentally developed enough to recognize the coercion at play. In bestiality, the animal is practically always coerced. In necrophilic sex coercion is the default unless there was some manner of written contract that the deceased actually gave permission. In practice, Stallman is saying that in fact all of these things would still be illegal, except in those cases where it is demonstrably consensual. And in those cases, what would be the basis for it to be forbidden?

Similarly, child pornography is indeed not enough reason 'to censor the internet', as the question was. Keep in mind that in order to stop child pornography completely, you're looking at having to stop such things as TOR. This is actually a nice new hot topic in The Netherlands due to an investigative reporter going on TOR, finding plenty of child porn traders, and busting a guy who actively sought out children to pretty much abuse. So half the government cries foul and next thing you know it they'll be having a debate on whether or not TOR should be blocked - even though that very same thing is helping dissidents in IRAN to get around political censorship.

His statement regarding redistributing is another matter. Is the redistributing party aware of the content? If not (such as ISPs, TOR nodes, etc.) - how are they participating in the crime? If they are aware, however, then I very much believe they're participating in the crime by virtue of helping to sustain a market for the materials in question.

As for the lack of reporting.. not really - Stallman is a bit out there, after all. Remember him eating stuff off of his foot during a show? Yeah, the world doesn't generally pay attention when people like that make (seemingly) controversial statements. Outside of Slashdot and the IT world at large, I wouldn't imagine people to even know who he is.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (2, Interesting)

nightfire-unique (253895) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015887)

To be honest, it's surprising that more people don't know about Stallman's positions on these issues. You'd think such controversial positions would be more widely reported.

As you stated earlier in one of your posts, many of us are unusually logical/rational ("nerds"). Working with technical systems, day-in, and day-out, we tend to minimize the impact our emotions have on our thought processes.

As such, many of us, in fact, agree with him.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015585)

Reddit has huge communities discussing illegal activities, such as piracy and drugs. I think that the main point is that Reddit is not taking a legal position (since I imagine that any actual illegal pornography is quickly removed) or a position on freedom of speech, but rather the community/company is taking a moral position. Creepy pictures of children is something that we can do without and I agree is something that should have been dealt with a long time ago, but I think that we should recognize this move for what it is.

plz make another post like this (2, Insightful)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015591)

entitled "lax attitudes towards child labor", then we could throw in the entire tech industry and the mountain of factories in china.

Re:plz make another post like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015753)

Well, this certainly has anything at all to do with the topic. Way to deflect.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015609)

You obviously don't know what they mean by "Slippery Slope". The problem is when you start censoring stuff that isn't against the law technically, then you have people trying to do it more and more over stuff against their political, religious or moral codes irregardless of anyone else's. And from what I know (don't actually use Reddit but did RTFA from news.com) they already removed child porn when it popped up but only the stuff that actually could be classified as such, the problem is people kept trying to push the envelope as far as they could so they could post it and still keep it up. So they finally had to implement this to keep from having to dance that fine line over and over again and giving them headaches doing it and any legal risks that came with it.

There is a big difference between a 7 year old doing anal sex and a picture of Lisa and Bart Simpson having sex.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (0)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015691)

I don't think you realize what was getting posted to these subreddits. The reason /r/jailbait was shut down last year was because someone posted sexually explicit pictures of a 14-year-old girl. That is most certainly "against the law technically." The admin of jailbait was Violentacrez, the Reddit poster with friendly ties to the admins of Reddit as detailed in the SomethingAwful post. There's been a lax attitude about this on Reddit for years.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (5, Insightful)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015613)

Depends on what you consider kiddie porn. Way the hell back when, the JC Penny & Montgomery Wards catalogs used to print pictures of child models wearing underwear and pajamas. When the laws in the US started getting weird, those pictures disappeared. Seems somebody convinced the marketting department that said pics of child models could be used by pedophiles as porn. Being wary of their potential liability, the ads died. To me, it's all in the eye of the beholder. If you're searching out porn with a vengance, you'll find porn in anything you look at.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015879)

That's weird. For all the years growing up that we got those big fat Wards, Sears, and Penny's catalogs, I always skipped the underwear ads and went straight to the toy section !

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (5, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015883)

Depends on what you consider kiddie porn. Way the hell back when, the JC Penny & Montgomery Wards catalogs used to print pictures of child models wearing underwear and pajamas. When the laws in the US started getting weird, those pictures disappeared. Seems somebody convinced the marketting department that said pics of child models could be used by pedophiles as porn. Being wary of their potential liability, the ads died. To me, it's all in the eye of the beholder. If you're searching out porn with a vengance, you'll find porn in anything you look at.

The western fashion and glamor industries have spent the last few decades building an female ideal based on looking like a child. Models strive to have essentially prepubescent bodies, and wrinkles, even normal facial features that normal teenagers have, must be blurred out with Photoshop or Botox. If Reddit is doing something that encourages illegal and unethical behavior, I'm glad they're changing that, but I highly doubt Reddit is a root cause. The causes are legal and backed by lobbying power, and every time people buy an issue of Cosmo or a "Barely Legal" DVD they're paying to spread the same unhealthy sexual views. Media targeting both men and women emphasize the sexiness of youth - when magazines are telling 23 year old women secrets to look 18 and movies are telling men that 18 is hotter than 19, it's no surprise that some people extrapolate and get the sense that 17 must be better yet.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (5, Informative)

anonymov (1768712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015621)

You mean Richard Stallman, who quoted on his blog and then proceeded with sarcasm:

Dubya has nominated another caveman for a federal appeals court. Refreshingly, the Democratic Party is organizing opposition.

The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.

Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today.

For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).

Please, troll harder.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (-1)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015653)

Give me a break. He has stated multiple times that he doesn't believe in censoring child pornography or preventing its distribution (see links here [slashdot.org]).

Trying to dismiss his writing as sarcasm is absurd when he has repeated his views on so-called "voluntary pedophilia" and child porn elsewhere.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (4, Insightful)

anonymov (1768712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015709)

He has stated multiple times that he doesn't believe in censoring child pornography or preventing its distribution (see links here).

Yes, he also doesn't believe in censoring collateral murder videos and animal abuse videos in those same links. That surely makes him a latent pedophile, murderer and cat strangler.

Trying to dismiss his writing as sarcasm is absurd when he has repeated his views on so-called "voluntary pedophilia" and child porn elsewhere.

I thought "I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants)." is quite a giveaway. Your missing sense of humour aside, 'Richard Stallman, who wrote on his blog [stallman.org] that "[P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."' is quite a way to frame a quote, don't you think?

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015685)

Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse

-Richard Stallman

Rule 34. Get on it, Internet.

Re:Lax attitudes toward apostasy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015635)

"There has to be a line drawn between OMG-FREEDOM-AT-ALL-COSTS and posting inappropriate statements regarding Muhammad. Living in a civil society requires some level of protection of decency. Reddit should shut the hell up about slippery slopes and do what it should have done six freaking years ago."

Ever stop to think that maybe some people have given thought to this issue and just happen to share Stallman's opinion on this, even without knowing (or caring) that the great almighty Stallman happens to agree with them? You are welcome to voice and argue your moral beliefs, but nothing good comes from assuming by default that anyone that disagrees with you is evil / brainwashed / stupid.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015637)

So, in other words we should ban things because you don't like them?

Your logic is no different than the logic used to ban all sorts of things.

Living in a civil society requires some level of protection of the innocent.

Protection from what? Protection against someone looking lustfully at a picture? A picture that, in most cases, you took and posted on the internet?

If you want to talk about slippery slopes look at what you are saying, that a PICTURE is the same thing as actual harm. Laws against such things border on the absurd, for example the man who was convicted of photoshopping "pornographic" pictures that looked underage. Where was the crime there?

There is a pretty huge difference between the rape of a child to suggestive pictures (most likely) posted by a minor.

Possession of a picture should not constitute a crime.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015849)

Possession of a picture should not constitute a crime.

I agree, and (most) drugs should be legal, birth control shouldn't be a subject of national debate, and creationism should be kept out of schools. But unfortunately, America is a democracy and the moral majority would rather focus political and judicial resources on issues that strike intelligent people as trivial.

Americans are charged with producing child pornography for taking bath-time pictures of their own children. Teenagers are charged for taking topless photos of themselves. So, given that absolute fucking insanity of these laws and the people who enforce them, I'm glad that reddit is taking a sensible approach by purging material that is of no interest to 99% of its users.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015899)

Possession of a picture should not constitute a crime.

Neither should possession of a plant, but we have a long history of imprisoning people and increasing the power of the police over plant possession. The possession of child sex abuse imagery crimes are partially an effort to catch the truly dangerous pedophiles (there are certainly cases where children have been rescued from abusive homes during child pornography raids), but mostly an effort to further increase the power of the police, especially signals intelligence and surveillance power. It is telling that the justice department is trying to distract the public from the question of whether or not the goal is actually the protection of children by pushing the claim that people who look at child abuse imagery are themselves abusing children (as if victims can sense every time someone views such an image).

I am all for catching people who sexually abuse children, but the police tend to go after the low-hanging fruit, the people who stupidly download child sex abuse imagery and who are the least likely to be producing that material or abusing children. There are people out there who have been abusing children for years, and posting images of that abuse, and they take a lot of precautions -- catching those people requires substantial investigative work, large budgets, and often results in small numbers of arrests (thus making it harder for the police to ask for more money and equipment). It is hard to keep the public afraid enough to allow budgets and powers to continue to grow when you take 5 years to arrest less than 100 pedophiles; thus possession has become "abuse," and people are guaranteed to meet at least one pedophile as their go about their daily business.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (3, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015659)

If they banned all content that was illegal there would not be much/any left.
Of course it is a slippery slop. What happens when Muslims ask for all any anti Muslim content to be banned? What if Ireland asks for all any Christian content to be banned. What if China asks for all anti government content to be banned? What about gay porn?

And who defines child porn? Even the US states cannot agree on a single age of consent and an age limit is not universal.

"[P]rostitution, adultery"
Adultery obviously should be legal, why involve the government in the affairs of a marriage?
Prostitution is legal in most countries.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015735)

And who defines child porn? Even the US states cannot agree on a single age of consent and an age limit is not universal.

Age of consent varies, but age for pornography performers is 18 across the US. Hence the occasional jabs at the absurdity of being legally allowed to perform sexual acts as long as they are not recorded. (Usually more along the lines of the age for sending naked photos of yourself being above the age for having sex.)

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015881)

There are places where you have to be 21 to purchase porn, which results in the absurdity that 18-year-olds who can legally perform for a sexually explicit video cannot buy it.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015681)

Never mind differences in jurisdiction or implementations. Can someone please, in a logical way, explain to me why it should be illegal to distribute images of fantasy children participating in sex?

It's not that I'm particularly interested in such images. I'm interested in the fact that they are illegal.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (4, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015683)

The attitude of 'online geek communities' is probably due to the fact that 'child pornography' laws are often quite ridiculous, especially given the degree that they conflict with age of consent laws and the behavior of minors. Teenagers now have easy access to cameras and the internet (often on the same device), and being packed with hormones, often share risque pictures of themselves, which likely makes up a significant amount of the content if not the overwhelming majority on this subreddit. In most of the western world, the age of consent is 16, so anybody above 16 and below 18 can engage in all kinds of crazy sexual acts with just about anybody else above 16, but if someone distributes a nude picture shot by the teen, it's possibly 'child pornography.'

Regarding Stallman's point, I'd say you pretty much have to be nuts to disagree. The question is that with necrophilia, bestiality, and underage sex, it is questionable whether or not one party is capable of truly giving consent, and if that is the case, then they would be considered coerced under all circumstances. Incest raises some questions regarding offspring, but I think Stallman was willing to have a condition that such couples must use birth control. Realistic studies of prostitution seem to suggest that at the very least, decriminalizing it leads to much better means of stopping sex slave trade and other abuse of prostitutes, because the victims are no longer criminals that take big risks in seeking help.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (1)

million_monkeys (2480792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015693)

Probably a lot of normal people's reaction to Reddit's policy change is "You mean sexual imagery of children wasn't already against the rules? How is that not firmly established from day one?"

That was absolutely my first reaction.

Unfortumately, the Reddit admins' bizarre six-year acceptance of child porn on its site is reflective of an overall lax attitude in online geek communities. Rather than seeing themselves as what they actually are--just nerds running computers--they like to perceive themselves as freedom fighters battling all forms of censorship in the world.

I don't think I've ever seen "an overall lax attitude" towards child porn in the geek community. I think most geeks understand that opposing censorship doesn't require supporting child porn. The few who believe otherwise are typically already regarded nutjobs due to their various other opinions.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (0)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015713)

I don't usually agree with your posts, but I do here.

I've been shouted at here on /. before for voicing similar opinions, to the extent that I've been told that not only do I not believe in free speech, but I should have no right to vote in a democratic country because of my opinions.

My opinions in that post were about freenet (for those not familiar, a darknet that uses some of your bandwidth and disk space to move content around, encrypted in such a way that even you can't tell what it is). Specifically that freenet was a technically cool idea, but having had a look at it and seen the prevalence of child porn on the system, I didn't feel I could run a freenet node in good conscience - I wasn't going to give my resources to support that sort of thing.

The geek-rage was immense.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (4, Insightful)

dbet (1607261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015739)

Except there was no child pornography. I never heard of this subreddit before the controversy yesterday, so decided to check it out. It was pictures of fully clothed children. The threads had lewd comments (like "mmm yeah") which gives it a sexual context. But where's the line? Is discussing the sexualization of children a crime?

I'm on Reddit's side because as a web site operator, you can't afford to be in the gray area opening yourself up to costly legal battles over issues you might not even care strongly about. I just don't think the content was as objectionable as actual child pornography would be.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (4, Insightful)

black3d (1648913) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015751)

Your comments pretty much prove exactly why Reddit calls it a "slippery slope". You talk of a "six-year acceptance of child porn on its site", with the example given being "underage photos submitted by creepy Facebook stalkers."

The issue is the two are not the same, yet many people like to treat them as such. The slippery slope is that sooner or later nobody (not even parents) will be able to post pictures of their own children on the internet. At many public events parents are banned from taking photographs of their _own_ children. With posting, the problem that arises is "what constitutes a sexual picture of a child?"

To some, perhaps even yourself, merely the context of the individual posting the pictures deems the pictures to be "child porn". They believe if someone's posting in alt.preteen.hotties (not a real newsgroup), then its child porn, no matter the content.

Does any aspect of nudity make a picture pornographic, in which case are pictures of your kids playing in the pool topless, child porn? Or the many millions of parents who've taken pictures of their childs first bath - are they porn producers? If it's not porn, then someone gets that picture and posts it on alt.preteen.hotties, is it NOW porn all of a sudden?

Is it the pose? In which case, if a girl is posing on her back with her undergarments exposed, it's pornographic, but if there's a photo of a girl whos fallen over backwards and her undergarments are exposed, is it also pornographic?

As I explained before - the slippery slope is that soon nobody will be able to post any photo of a child on the internet, because of fear-mongering by think-of-the-children bleeding hearts who don't even understand their own position.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (5, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015759)

There's a decent argument for most (not all) of Stallman's position. The essential problem with pedophilia is that children can't consent in an informed fashion. But that's not much of an issue for most of the rest of that list. If someone states in their will that people can use their body for necrophilia, then why should society have a problem with it?

The issue of possession of child porn is a really interesting case. What actual benefit comes from having laws against possession of child pornography? One can argue that exposure to child porn will make people more likely to go out and molest children. That's an interesting argument, but there's nor real evidence that exposure does make it more likely. Moreover, one could easily make an argument in the other direction- that people with pedophilic tendencies will be less likely to act on them if they have outlets in the form of porn. There's some corroborating evidence- in general rape levels go down when internet access goes up- http://www.toddkendall.net/internetcrime.pdf [toddkendall.net]. Now, you could argue that the continued distribution of child pornography will further traumatize the children who were abused to make it. But if one believes this argument, then one shouldn't have any problem with porn that has been digitally altered to look like it is child porn, something which is currently illegal. And one shouldn't have a problem with child porn when either the children are dead or as adults they've stated that the material's continued distribution doesn't bother them. Yet, again, the law doesn't allow this.

In the case of the subreddits this is particularly interesting in that according to the people who actually spend time in these subreddits, these pictures aren't taken in any coercive fashion but are often simply found on the internet, taken from Facebook profiles, or taken at public beaches and the like. There's no real difference then than creepy individuals watching teenagers in public locations. Creepy and disturbing but not illegal. Moreover, this sort of thing runs into serious issues of legality between countries. While pretty much everyone agrees that a 12 year old can't consent, the actual age of consent varies a lot from country to country, and many are much lower than those in the US. So using a standard of 18 years essentially forces the US standard on an international internet community. In any event, it is very difficult to argue that anyone is being actually harmed by this content.

The behavior in question is sick, disturbing and morally repugnant. But the actual measure of how much one really allows freedom of speech and tolerance is not what one allows that one doesn't mind, it is how much one allows that one does mind. In a similar fashion, one isn't demonstrating incredible tolerance when one supports gay marriage if one doesn't have a moral problem with gay marriage. The individual who has a moral problem with homosexual activity but still supports it being legal is exercising tolerance. The situation is similar in this case. The fact that we find these people to be sick and morally repugnant is all the more reason that we need to think very carefully before we say that this behavior isn't protected as free speech and basic autonomy.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015763)

And yet disgusting material like /r/picsofdeadkids is still up and running.

They are also banning drawings and text material, i.e., creative work that never actually happened in the real world. If anything this is the type of material that shouldn't be banned, since it might actually help satisfy the needs of the pedobears and prevent the real life offence.

The problem is not reddit or the internet community. The problem is the lack of a fair and concrete legislation towards children rights. When the law allows pics of dead children with their guts all over the street to be posted on the internet without the consent of the children or their relatives and hunts down people posting some sketches of sexual acts that never happened, I just can't take this law seriously.

Don't get me wrong, while I don't condone drawn porn, I totally disagree with Stallman's views on the criminal sex acts, including CP and pedophilia and I think this crap shouldn't be on the internet as much as it shouldn't be IRL (except for prostitution which, like the drug problem, I think should be legalized and regulated because I don't think it'll ever disappear and keeping it illegal will just make the problem bigger).

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (2)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015773)

Reddit admins' bizarre six-year acceptance of child porn on its site

Now I don't go on reddit, but I am pretty confident this is exaggerating reality.

For website policies, this is a fairly safe thing to restrict that falls well within the site operators rights. What concerns me is when laws start getting passed that make everything a minefield.

Often it seems pretty blatant, but at other times the difference between an innocent and sexualized image is arbitrary and subjective. The more abitrary and subjective stuff codified into law, the more frightening it is to be a citizen. You are a doctor who pissed off someone important, can they classify some contents of anatomical texts as child pornography? On the other hand, you have someone enticing a minor into an extremely sexually suggestive pose, but leave the bikini on and magically it is ok? However remove the arbitrary 'nude/non-nude' criteria that is often applied to catch the binkini workaround, and then you have a new problem. if there are certain fetishist circles that ascribe a particularly sexual connotation to a scenario, if both photographer and subject are completely unaware of that and portray that scenario, should the photographer be in trouble if that picture starts making the rounds in that fetishist community?

This is a tough societal problem with a lot of room for gray areas. People who should get criminal charges who don't because they avoided overt nudity in images they took or was able to defend their content as art even though intent in some 'artistic nudes' is likely sexual. There may or may not be significant cases of undeserved criminal charges, but I'll at least wager that some custody battles have been lost over innocent pictures taken the wrong way.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015805)

Somebody call the Waaaambulance.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015859)

The reason most often given for blocking child porn is it creates a market, leading to further assaults against children. Most people believe that reason, and therefore accept blocking child porn. The government frequently uses "think of the children" as justification for their latest nefarious act/censorship. You have to draw the line somewhere, we just can't seem to agree where.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015893)

Frankly, I'm disappointed that the Something Awful campaign seems to be motivated by a desire to act as the moral police, rather than a desire to help victims.
What makes me say this is the fact they in their post, they made 2 lists of channels/boards/groups (whatevery they are), one for "borderline" content and one for "worse things". That last list included a reddit group dedicated to drawings of children.

Here's why I take issue with this: drawings are fictional. There's no actual victim. I have a problem with including this sort of content in the Something Awful campaign for two reasons:

First, we don't want a moral police. People should be free to enjoy the sex life of their choice, provided any real people involved are consenting adults. It's like free speech, if you want to be able to say acceptable things you like, you have to let people say bad things too. If you want the right to enjoy oral sex, well you have to let people have foot fetishes and even jack off to drawings of children.
Again, a drawing makes no victim, so it's hard to explain why it should be banned with anything else than "it's just wrong and disgusting". Yeah, I agree that it is, but that's arbitrary judgement. If I ban drawings because I find them disgusting, how do I know tomorrow somebody won't make oral sex illegal because they find it disgusting? At least "consenting adults" is a clear line and isn't so arbitrary.

Second, and I think this the most important reason why I don't like what they're doing: I've been a victim of a pedo. Not a day goes by that I don't think about it. I don't want to get all emotional and go into details, so I'll just say this: it's awful and hard to live with that.
And for this reason, I'm absolutely offended that drawings are considered as awful as actual rape and abuse of children on camera. The guy at Something Awful behind this campaign has really offended me there. I think what happened to me is a thousand times worse than any cartoon could ever be. Comparing the two and using real victims to try and fight cartoons is just wrong.
I think the people at Something Awful are just being self-righteous - they don't care about protecting anyone, they just want to look like they're better than everyone else because they fight against something terrible. As a victim, I don't want hypocrites like this trying to defend me, thank you very much. They're just using what people like me have been through to look like heroes and to push their moral agenda. Disgusting.
And don't tell me cartoons encourage pedos to attack children! The internet did not exist when I was assaulted, and I've never heard that any cartoons were found when the guy was arrested! I think maybe my life would be different if he actually had cartoons to jack off to. In my opinion, those who would argue otherwise are also guilty of trying to push a moral agenda instead of genuinely caring about victims.

Let's stop focusing on sexual morality when we bring up the topic of child abuse. Let's put aside the fact that it's disgusting and wrong. Instead, let's focus on the reasons why it's wrong and disgusting: the actual harm that is done to real children. Child porn needs to be banned because of the victims it creats, not because it's immoral or disturbing to most people.

A sick and tenous link to kick free software (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015929)

Look, just get your own site if you are going to be paid to write editorials here pushing an agenda and leave the posts to those of us who don't get paid to do it. It's a very annoying subversion of this site akin to a pimp parading his girls through McDonalds to get some extra trade.
Your little PR propaganda pieces were merely annoying the first dozen times, but now it's getting truly bizzare and disgusting.

Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015939)

Hell, even bringing this up on Slashdot risks copious downmods from Stallman fans (it's happened in the past).

It happens to YOU because you bring it up at every moment, even at times that are completely unrelated. It's annoying, I wish you would stop it.

Jeans (5, Insightful)

erick99 (743982) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015539)

Now, if we could get the folks who market jeans and other clothing to teens to stop using sexually suggestive images of people under 18 . . .

Re:Jeans (4, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015607)

Now, if we could get the folks who market everything to anyone to stop using sexually suggestive images . . .

Sadly I have to go with FTFY

Re:Jeans (4, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015747)

Now, if we could get the folks who market jeans and other clothing to teens to stop using sexually suggestive images of people under 18 . . .

...or get the parents to stop letting their kids dress that way. We're not talking about kiddie porn here where someone is being abused. We're talking about idiot teens dressing like hookers by choice, posting pics of it, and then everybody getting all up in arms because those pics get spread around. Don't want those sorts of pics to be so common? Try telling your kids "no" once in a while. Just saying.

Treating the symptom doesn't cure the disease. The pictures are the symptom.

Moral Panic (4, Insightful)

Nicknamename (2572429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015541)

Re:Moral Panic (-1, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015575)

Yes, banning the posting of sexual pictures of kids is a moral panic. Sorry you can't have /r/3DBabyWieners anymore.

Re:Moral Panic (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015733)

Kids? Sorry. 17 is not a "Kid". In almost every century of human's existence this was considered an adult. You think the "Virgin Mary" was 23? She was most likely 14/15.

Not to mention the double standards of arbitrary age that is defined at 18. I wish I could find the exact quote but it essentially goes like this: "The age of consent in most states is under the age of majority as defined by the feds. If you were were to have sex with a 16 year old it would be legal in numerous states. If her friend was there she couldn't watch, but could join in. Nothing could be video taped as it would be 'making child pornography'. However if any of the 16 year olds involved were to murder or rape any other person in the threesome they would be tried as an adult."

Lets just make anything under 30 child pornography. Move the drinking age and smoking age to 45, since that will fix everything. Americans parents can keep sticking their heads in the ground about everything and that'll solve everything. Vs say the Dutch [bostonglobe.com] who accept the fact that teens are going to act like teens and consequently have a lower pregnancy rate.

i can't believe Something Awful has (4, Funny)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015571)

finally done something productive and contributory to society. i am gobsmacked.

Re:i can't believe Something Awful has (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015645)

Actually, it was mostly just because they don't like reddit.

Re:i can't believe Something Awful has (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015865)

Or you know, sane normal people hate child porn and want to eradicate it.

Dickhead

Re:i can't believe Something Awful has (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015697)

Consider it making up for giving the world /b (which began as an offshoot of the FYAD subforum).

Re:i can't believe Something Awful has (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015857)

Fighting child pornography, or getting Reddit "banned?" It's obvious from the thread that they primarily hate Reddit, for various reasons. And that while most material posted to the subreddits in question are legal if reprehensible, some user-posted material is not, and this is a handy attack vector against the site.

Re:i can't believe Something Awful has (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015911)

Actually, they likely haven't.

All they've done is highlight an arena to shut down under social net pressure. A portal, that was probably a resource for law enforcement agencies to locate and prosecute those actually doing the child exploitation and posting the pictures. Or, at least a trail to them. Now, they will just go back to the hidden seedy parts of the net that it crept out from.

It will be missed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015577)

...by the FBI (honeypot) and your boss (honeypot?)

Sexualization of busty teens?!? (5, Funny)

QCompson (675963) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015581)

How dare these creeps sexualize teenage girls with big firm full breasts? That sort of sexual attraction is completely unnatural and twisted. I'm glad reddit has taken the step of eliminating these pictures of fully clothed busty girls.

Next challenge: prevent men from looking at busty teenage jailbait out in public. These perverts must be stopped.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!? (-1, Troll)

multiben (1916126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015689)

Unless you too are under age, then you just pretty much planted yourself in the 'creepy' category. The deliberate distribution of images of under age girls, in particular r/preteen_girls, is nothing short of despicable. If you get your kicks from looking at sexually and emotionally immature girls then you need to see someone. The effects on girls who suffer from this kind of exploitation are huge and can last a lifetime. Next time you are checking out some hot children for your own seedy satisfaction, I suggest you think about what events have preciptated their need to sexualise themselves for the predators amongst us.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015749)

1) Find pictures of busty 17-year, 11-month old wome...err, "girls" fully-clothed.
2) Post on reddit
3) Get multiben's panties in a twist
4) Trollface

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!? (2)

multiben (1916126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015787)

The term pre-teen girls means 12 or under. Clearly that is what I'm talking about here. RTFA properly.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015875)

I would suggest you do the same, preteen_girls was the only subreddit closed that I noticed that specifically mentioned preteens.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!? (2, Interesting)

QCompson (675963) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015761)

If you get your kicks from looking at sexually and emotionally immature girls then you need to see someone.

I agree. These teenage girls with big firm perky breasts are obviously sexually immature and it is "creepy" for any human male to look at them in a sexual context.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!? (0, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015861)

Picture it being your daughter, and some creepy motherfucker eyeing her up. Put yourself in someone else's shoes.

Shitting is a natural function as well, but that doesn't mean you take a crap in the middle of the street.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!? (5, Interesting)

QCompson (675963) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015905)

Picture it being your daughter, and some creepy motherfucker eyeing her up. Put yourself in someone else's shoes.

Males looking at my fully clothed daughters? The horror! This is why all my daughters must wear burkas in public until the day they reach 18. Once they're 18 though, it's fair game for pervs to check them out.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!? (3, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015791)

So, everyone who was aroused by the music video for '...Baby One More Time", featuring a sixteen year old Britney Spears, is creepy?

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!? (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015841)

He did explicitly call out the subset of anatomically mature 'girls' and you explicitly called out the subset of prepubescent children. It may be creepy if he is in his 50s and looking at 17-year-olds, but shouldn't be any more creepy than looking at 19-year-old girls. If there is no anatomical or emotional way to tell and you have to bust out a birth cirtificate to be sure, it seems kind of arbitrary. I'm pretty sure 19-year olds are rarely ever substantially more ready to deal with these circumstances than 17-year olds. No one was claiming that there was anything particularly normal or acceptable about preteen material.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!? (1)

ChinggisK (1133009) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015707)

I would point out that TFS clearly states that one of the subreddits was " pre teen_girls"; as in, not even teenagers yet.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015891)

/r/teen_girls has been removed as well

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!? (1, Flamebait)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015723)

You sound like all the other creeps who were ranting and raving about this on Reddit. Naked pictures of a 14 year old girl are illegal. Sexual imagery of preteen girls is child porn. The main subreddit in question was called /r/preteen_girls for god's sake. One of the subreddits was devoted to encouraging underage girls to submit photos of themselves to the site--you okay with that?

Hell, you're creepy just for using the word "jailbait" to describe underage girls.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015765)

Who said anything about naked pictures? /r/jailbait and the others explicitly outlawed pornography.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!? (2)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015819)

but what about all the preteen boys who want to look at like aged girls???

and besides, since when do people over the age of 16 use reddit???

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!? (3, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015895)

Naked pictures of a 14 year old girl are illegal.

I don't think that's so simple. I never did medical school, but I sure hope my kid's pediatrician had an education that included anatomical texts with nude underage people. I'm also pretty sure there exist nudist colonies where children are allowed. Also who doesn't have parents with embarassing childhood pictures that include nudity? 14 may be a bit old for the childhood pictures bit, but the other two scenarios seem likely enough.

Other than that, I agree. The only exception is how people pining for 17-year olds are horrible people but people pining for 18-year olds are not. Any delineation must unfortunately be arbitrary, but some people embrace that delineation with an inappropriate degree of zeal without recognition of the situation as a continuum rather than a step function, with immature people over 18 and mature people just shy of 18.

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!? (2)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015729)

Let's just have all minors dress as nuns until they turn 18. Not only will this remove the possibility of jailbait, but it means that if someone is wearing normal clothes you'll know they're legal and can go about things without worries.

(What was that quote? "The best thing about teenage girls is that they remain the same age as I get older"?)

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!? (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015831)

the quote was

"the best thing about high school girls is while i keep getting older they stay the same age...yes they do yes they do.."

Re:Sexualization of busty teens?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015809)

I think the issue becomes blured, As we were growing up the internet was just begining to take off (im 26 now I got on prodigy somewhere around 92 or 93), when i was 15 and 16, I wanted to look for other people my own age and I am sure a lot of other teens do the same.

the issue becomes how do we really know that the person looking at 15 year olds is also in that age range and not some 55 year old perv.

2 like aged, but under 18 year olds looking at each other is normal

It wasnt really CP (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015587)

I mean photos like : http://imgur.com/d4Ymc [imgur.com] dont qualify as CP do they? cause thats what most of the content was
Oh, and thanks SA for pushing people who watched photos minors willing took and posted of themselves towards the darker parts of the net where actual children would be being exploited for photos

Reddit is the new USENET (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015619)

Except now it will be like a moderated USENET.

Something Awful put a user for 3 days as a example (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015631)

No one sees anything fishy.

Hit piece (0, Offtopic)

trolman (648780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015679)

Looks like a hit piece from Slashdotters that are loosing the techies to the Reddies. Slashdot rarely has an interesting discussion about tech and when it does there are many politico non-techs. The poor moderation just makes it less tolerable.
I have been in IT for 30 working years. I want to talk/read tech and maybe have some politics thrown into the mix. I have spent much more time commenting and voting on Reddit in three months than I have the past 14 years on Slashdot.

Re:Hit piece (0)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015839)

reddit is miserable, it makes 4chan look like a decent site. We all hate the slashmod system but at least the site is clean, reddit is like someone threw up on the screen

Reddit has hit the fan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015743)

It has hit it's peak of popularity already. Just like Digg, Myspace and Slashdot before it. Only the weirdos are keeping it afloat now. Also this highlights the unconfortable truth that reddit is cool with piracy and drugs but won't let pedos have their kicks.

Touchy subject... (4, Interesting)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015757)

But you have to admit, parents LET their kids dress and act like this, and the market caters to it, whether it is right or not, I will not enter into that debate right now.
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/05/09/nearly-onethird-of-childrens-clothes-sexy-study [torontosun.com]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/16/children-clothing-survey-bikini-heels [guardian.co.uk]
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/08/19/french-line-offers-lingerie-for-girls-as-young-as-four/ [time.com]
http://www.playpink.com/games-for-girls/sexy-dress-up.html [playpink.com]

This was just 5 minutes with google.

SA versus reddit; truth on both sides (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015767)

The SA thread reads like a campaign more concerned about destroying reddit (the OP telling people to contact local churches and family organizations to convey how reddit is a platform for pedophiles, apparently to get reddit under as much public pressure as possible) than the actual moral crusade itself. On the other hand, reddit does appear to have had a real problem regarding underage content and I don't feel the core of the criticism is unjustified.

As someone occasionally active on reddit (not not a fanatic or anything), I don't feel it loses anything of worth by being a bit less lax about this. I understand the ideal of 'we're just a platform and we don't give a shit as long as we're stay within the laws', you won't be that platform for long if you let things slip out of control like this on a regular basis, potentially turning yourself into the next megaupload.

orly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015783)

people need to mind their own business and stop acting like the morality police.

Restrict ALL Criminal Images and Videos (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015815)

All explicit images and videos of crime should be restricted for the same reason. Snuff, animal cruelty, beating people, fight videos - all of it is exactly the same - someone is getting off on it and it's perpetuating the crimes themselves.

I Left Today (4, Interesting)

deweyhewson (1323623) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015855)

I'm one of the many who deleted their accounts at Reddit today, not just over the admins' lax "oh-noes-censorship!" policy, but due to the sheer number of Redditors there actively defending pedophiles and their crimes under the guise of "free speech". I had over 10,000 karma there, as well, which means really nothing other than to say I wasn't just a random lurker on the site.

The front page stories at the moment don't even begin to tell the story of the stuff that goes in in the nether regions of that site, and the fact that so many members there not just defend, but seemingly embrace, those who perpetrate it - look up a guy named violentacrez if you don't believe me - is beyond disgusting. The number of members there who seem to base their morals on whether something is legal or not (unless the matter relates to pot, prostitution, or any of the other activities they like) is disturbing, as well, and I'd finally had enough.

Reddit didn't care at all about any of this stuff until suddenly they were at risk of a major media campaign against them - organized by Something Awful - then suddenly they went into full defensive mode, not out of a sudden concern for the actual children being exploited, but for their own reputations for allowing it. A good move overall, but hardly noble. It's the same tactic they eventually were forced to use when the r/jailbait scandal hit the mainstream news.

The bottom line is that Reddit has been, and can be, an interesting site full of interesting content. But the willingness of the admins there to allow such abhorrent (and clearly illegal) content until publicity won't allow them to continue to do so is a glaring flaw in the organization of the site, and I'd rather not be associated with such a wild west approach to such things, especially when their morals seem to be dictated more on whether something will affect their reputation than whether or not it's right.

Re:I Left Today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015919)

You left with 10.000 karma?

How brave you are. And your stance is very corageous. You are an example to follow!

Fucking idiot.

As long as they leave r/tailbait alone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39015871)

With only adult animals, no minors.

Some Context from a Redditor (5, Informative)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#39015933)

Being between jobs, I've spent a crap load of time on Reddit lately, so I'll try to give you some better context than you're getting from the other posts, which are almost all random speculation.

This isn't just about seeing sexuality in children or people fapping over misappropriated but otherwise innocuous pictures of other people's children.

The largest of the sub-reddits at issue, preteen_girls, featured a posting from a man attracted to his daughter (I would provide a link to this thread, but reading it once was enough; I ain't going back there). He received advice about how to get her drunk, how to gradually introduce her to some physical intimacy via backrubs and neck massage, and gradually escalate to fully sexual encounters. This is exactly how things unfolded when my wife was raped as a 12 year old. They're not just trading pictures, they're trading time-tested advice on seduction and child rape.

Oh, and the advice I described came from the moderator of the page.

That's the kind of stuff that's going on here. I don't give a flying fuck how you feel about free speech, or even child porn: giving advice on intoxicating, seducing, and fucking people is wrong. Setting aside the serious question of whether children can give consent in the first place, these people think it's fine to seduce and drug kids until consent is no longer an issue. This kind of stuff is wrong whether your target is 12 or 42. Knowing that people meet and give one another advice about such things in public on these sub-reddits, to say nothing of what goes in private between people who connect via these sub-reddits (because most people are still smart enough not to collude in raping a child or sharing true snuff on a public forum), gives Reddit both the moral authority and the legal imperative to shut those forums down.

Seriously, raping 12 year olds. Intoxicating and fucking your own daughter or niece. As I've already had to say once this month on slashdot, sometimes 'think of the children' is a valid concern.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...