Beta
×

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!

Rick Falkvinge On Child Porn and Freedom Of the Press

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the all-consuming-taboo dept.

Crime 580

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.'"

cancel ×

580 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

On a philosophical level its just bits (5, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#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 a criminal act is right and in some cases it is ethical for themselves based on their ethics to commit a criminal act but unethical by the conventional ethics of society. For this reason we have to develop a system of law and justice which doesn't focus so much on punishment and responsibility but on deterrence. An example here would be that you have a lot of states which think it's an excellent idea to drug test welfare recipients and then if they fail a drug test cut them off, but a neuroscientist, psychologist, or anyone who just has enough experience dealing with drug addiction and poverty will be able to tell you that policy is a recipe for disaster. To make a law such as that ought to be a criminal act because it renders crime deterrence ineffective and actually encourages criminal acts, if you look at the brain of a drug addict and lets assume for sake of argument many of those drug addicts are also sociopaths and you cut them off of their supply how would their brain react and who is responsible for that?

Some resources
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmKqnS4OSmk [youtube.com]
http://www.neulaw.org/ [neulaw.org]
http://www.livescience.com/13083-criminals-brain-neuroscience-ethics.html [livescience.com]

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41279733)

Also on a philosophical level, rape is just the deposition of a little bit of matter. It's just atoms.
Philosophy is borked and can be used to support ANY point of view.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (1, Redundant)

shobadobs (264600) | about 2 years ago | (#41279815)

No, that's the physical level.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41280133)

False analogy.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#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!

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41279901)

Everyone in group X, that is.

While more fine-grained and scientific criteria should be developed, all males between 15 and 24 years of age would be a sensible approximation.

I don't like prisons, though, nor do I like the idea that the problem people form their own distorted society. Being under guardianship (probation if you will) would probably be a better way.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (1)

JustOK (667959) | about 2 years ago | (#41279861)

and depending on your zip code.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41280009)

Or give them an outlet through virtual content and teach them that it is horribly wrong to defile an innocent child.
That would work in almost every case.

Of course, there are people who may be turned on by it and people who are just perverted in general, similar to the differences in the brains between people who would kill someone and someone who is psychotic.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (4, Interesting)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (5, Insightful)

Jedi Alec (258881) | about 2 years ago | (#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:On a philosophical level its just bits (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41280195)

"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.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (1)

Bert64 (520050) | about 2 years ago | (#41280089)

Car insurance premiums generalise too much too.. You are punished because you fit a certain profile, and you can only earn some level of relief from that punishment over time...
For instance as a young male driving a powerful car, i was screwed by insurance companies... I have never made a claim or had an accident in over 10 years, and yet my insurance costs are still higher than some others would be.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41280219)

Of course. That's how insurance works. It's a broad brush but justified nonetheless.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (0)

noh8rz9 (2716595) | about 2 years ago | (#41280189)

I say eff them, throw them in a hole. or cut off the nuts. there is no "reforming" a pedo. this isn't about criminalizing "bits" it's about criminalizing possession. which has a rich legitimate legal history. possess drugs? go to jail, do not pass go. posess stolen merchandise? (as opposed to the act of stealing). jail. posess an unlisenced gun, or one used in a crime? jail, unless the tea tards get their way about the second amendment. this is the kind of society we live in, and the kind of society i want, despite the ranting of some freetard in norway. maybe norway wants to legalize pedos so they'll all leave US and move there.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (4, Insightful)

Golddess (1361003) | about 2 years ago | (#41280255)

The problem with your analogies is they are not equivalent. You're not coming into possession of a bag of coke, or a stolen stereo, or an unlicensed firearm. You're coming into possession of a picture of a bag of coke, or a stolen stereo, or an unlicensed firearm. And I'm fairly certain that there is nothing illegal about possessing such pictures.

Now maybe the answer isn't to legalize CP completely. Maybe it's simply to revise under what conditions possession of CP is a chargeable offense. But to say that possession of a physical object is equal to the possession of a recording of a physical object is just wrong.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (3, Insightful)

dmomo (256005) | about 2 years ago | (#41279853)

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.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (2)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#41279923)

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 mean the vast majority of these crimes work that way and it doesn't mean there is some organized pedophile cult or ritual child abuse going on.

If it were going on in that matter they'd simply stream the bits over webcam making it next to impossible to trace them and if that is the case the solution would be technical. Make it possible to trace any image or film from any camera in the same way we can trace bullets back to any gun and to who purchased it. None of this requires criminalizing bits. So your argument isn't based on any real evidence and if it were then you'd show at least a few cases where there is an active child porn eco-system on the internet because I've never seen that and I've been on the internet for almost 15 years.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (4, Interesting)

Teun (17872) | about 2 years ago | (#41280181)

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.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41280107)

Philosophy doesn't cover instinctive urges, except to rationalize their suppression. A person will satisfy their desires, no matter what. Those desires become distorted and perverted when puritanical prohibitions against normal, healthy sex, including play 'sex' amongst the kids, are imposed. Prohibition against regular sex actually aids and abets kiddie porn, makes the desire stronger, because of the religious guilt imposed on adults, and they pass it on to the kids. We need more intimate conjugal visits in the work place, seeing as they can always call you at home during suppertime...

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (4, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#41280175)

Philosophy doesn't cover instinctive urges, except to rationalize their suppression. A person will satisfy their desires, no matter what. Those desires become distorted and perverted when puritanical prohibitions against normal, healthy sex, including play 'sex' amongst the kids, are imposed. Prohibition against regular sex actually aids and abets kiddie porn, makes the desire stronger, because of the religious guilt imposed on adults, and they pass it on to the kids. We need more intimate conjugal visits in the work place, seeing as they can always call you at home during suppertime...

A psychopath will satisfy their desires no matter what. Most people aren't psychopaths and do suppress the vast majority of their subconscious urges.

You may have had a dream about murdering your boss but it doesn't mean you'll go do it because you'll think of all the risks and consequences and weigh it out. A psychopath would be unable to resist the urge and would go do it without any thought for the consequences and the lack of empathy would make it much easier for them to enjoy the nature of the act.

So once again I don't think you're correct. I don't think prohibition is correct either because suppressing peoples urges can bring risks of its own, this is why we have violent movies, video games, combat sports, so people don't have to kill their boss.

Choices can be made: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41279993)

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

There's a link in the article that shows three Russian kids brutally murdering someone - graphically. You can even see them poking the guy's eyes out with a screwdriver.

Even though they had no moral problem with what they did, they knew they were doing wrong by their society's standards.

They made the choice to brutally murder that man and they have to live with the consequence of that choice - like we all do.

At the same time with neuroscience and in specific FMRI we will know what other humans are thinking, this technology does exist

No it does not. The only thing that can be seen with an MRI and that technology you speak of is which parts of the brain consume more glucose when having certain thoughts - that is all. You CANNOT discern what a person is thinking or what mental illness they may have from those scans.

Re:Choices can be made: (1)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#41280091)

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

There's a link in the article that shows three Russian kids brutally murdering someone - graphically. You can even see them poking the guy's eyes out with a screwdriver.

Even though they had no moral problem with what they did, they knew they were doing wrong by their society's standards.

They made the choice to brutally murder that man and they have to live with the consequence of that choice - like we all do.

At the same time with neuroscience and in specific FMRI we will know what other humans are thinking, this technology does exist

No it does not. The only thing that can be seen with an MRI and that technology you speak of is which parts of the brain consume more glucose when having certain thoughts - that is all. You CANNOT discern what a person is thinking or what mental illness they may have from those scans.

I think you need to catch up with the science because if you just Google you'll see that FMRI can be used to literally detect the inner speech in a persons head with a relatively high degree of accuracy. It can also detect lies as lies require more brain utilization than telling the truth. It's detecting more and more every day and it can detect blood flow patterns to areas of the brain associated with certain emotions or thought patterns and while you can say some people might have brains which process thoughts in different areas of the brain so that this might not reveal precisely what they are thinking, that is a matter of software algorithms adapting to the specific brain being analyzed to figure out which portion of their brain is used for different thoughts.

Fact of the matter is, the brain to computer interface is here now. It's time to discuss reforming the justice system now because the technology is only going to become more accurate over time. You can try and delay it by saying those teenagers had free will but you cannot prove scientifically how much free will they really had. Considering they are teenagers and in all probability psychopaths, while they may have free will in the same way a drug addict or starving person has the free will to decide not to eat, provided with the right set of circumstances they may binge, may not be able to resist their urges, and the inability to resist urges is a physical problem in the brain and not something which a person can just solve. Some people don't and will never have the ability to resist urges and all people have different degrees of this ability which is associated with the frontal lobes. Psychopaths have less of this ability and children have less of this ability.

Really?! So, let's google, shall we .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41280211)

From here [berkeley.edu] :

However, researchers point out that the technology is decades from allowing users to read others’ thoughts and intentions, as portrayed in such sci-fi classics as “Brainstorm,” in which scientists recorded a person’s sensations so that others could experience them.

From what I'm seeing, there is no technology that can do what you said it can do in your original post.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 2 years ago | (#41280025)

Possession of bits of any source or type out not be a crime.

Bits can represent anything. For example, bits can represent a sum of money in a bank account. Possession of bits in that case is possession of money. And money can represent anything. For example, money can be stolen. Ergo, possession of bits can be proof of some crime.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (1)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#41280033)

Possession of bits of any source or type out not be a crime.

Bits can represent anything. For example, bits can represent a sum of money in a bank account. Possession of bits in that case is possession of money. And money can represent anything. For example, money can be stolen. Ergo, possession of bits can be proof of some crime.

You're saying that in the case of encrypted or protected bits that possession should be a crime so that digital currencies can be implemented. In that case I'd agree with you that we'd have to at least consider some technical and legal protections but even in those cases, if you lose your wallet in the physical world or in the virtual world you lost your money. It should be illegal if someone robs you of your money and we find them but the level of offense for robbing a bank is less than the level of offense for possession of child porn. That means it's smarter to rob a bank than to possess child porn.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (2)

tmosley (996283) | about 2 years ago | (#41280267)

So having someone's bank statement is the same as having all the money in their bank account?

I don't think so, Tim.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (-1, Troll)

foma84 (2079302) | about 2 years ago | (#41280061)

You had me interested until "There is no good and evil".
VERY elaborate troll, good work.

I hope you don't actually want me to elaborate, since you're so much off on so much levels; I'll just point the most obvious:
Pedo material (on a computer) are just bits => pedo material on a printed medium is just paper? Oh, have I already mentioned that to have pedo material on your pc someone, somewhere a child has been harassed (at the least), AND someone, somewhere has harassed a child? There is still "no good and evil"?
2nd: If someone exterminated your family that would be bad, wouldn't it? Still no good and evil? 3rd: Choice. You're ignoring the very root of human nature. "Getting rid of the idea of criminal responsibility" is like removing human nature from human beings. What's left are automata (which is in line with your post)
Bonus Ponts: "Neuroscience will soon reveal all about the brain" HAHAHA! No. Don't count on it anytime soon ("soon" as in my "grandchildern lifespan"). It actually might be impossibile, but who knows.

Anyway, a very good troll, cheers.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41280101)

You had me interested until "There is no good and evil".

VERY elaborate troll, good work.

It's not a troll it's moral relativism, which is a philosophical standpoint on morality that was studied long before any of us were born.
Someone expressing an opinion you strongly disagree with does not make them a troll. (I'm not the OP, by the way.)

Not a troll (3, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#41280127)

You had me interested until "There is no good and evil".

VERY elaborate troll, good work.

I hope you don't actually want me to elaborate, since you're so much off on so much levels; I'll just point the most obvious:

Pedo material (on a computer) are just bits => pedo material on a printed medium is just paper? Oh, have I already mentioned that to have pedo material on your pc someone, somewhere a child has been harassed (at the least), AND someone, somewhere has harassed a child? There is still "no good and evil"?

2nd: If someone exterminated your family that would be bad, wouldn't it? Still no good and evil?
3rd: Choice. You're ignoring the very root of human nature. "Getting rid of the idea of criminal responsibility" is like removing human nature from human beings. What's left are automata (which is in line with your post)

Bonus Ponts: "Neuroscience will soon reveal all about the brain" HAHAHA! No. Don't count on it anytime soon ("soon" as in my "grandchildern lifespan"). It actually might be impossibile, but who knows.

Anyway, a very good troll, cheers.

There is no scientifically objective basis for determining "evil". We can say destructive and replace that with "evil" in our discussion if you'd like. In that case psychopaths are more destructive not because they are "evil" but because their brains are literally retarded in areas which would prevent them from being destructive. They lack the ability to resist their urges, lack inhibition, lack remorse, guilt, empathy, compassion, pity. Their frontal lobe development is like that of children and in some cases they have less impulse control than children yet our society treats them as adults.

What I'm saying is there is competent and incompetent, smart and dumb, but there is no objective good or evil. A smart or competent person is a person skilled at making decisions which are in their self interest and in the best interest of the group. None of us are perfect in this but we strive to be as smart or as competent as we can, as smart as our brains and knowledge allow. Just as some people are never going to be good at mathematics or at many different intellectual pursuits because they are less intellectually inclined, the same can be said with regard to decision making/ethics. Some people are simple ethically retarded and when you understand that then you know they aren't evil.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41280201)

Your comment appears to be a rationalization of a pedophile.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#41280265)

A pedophile could make the same argument as you did; therefore, you're a pedophile! A homosexual could make the same argument as you did; therefore, you're a homosexual! I hope that's not what was meant. Not that it invalidates someone's arguments, either.

Re:On a philosophical level its just bits (-1, Flamebait)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#41280233)

Hey mods, this isn't flamebait. Crazy, perhaps, but not flamebait.

Please try to avoid using that mod so much.

Is this really a problem? (1)

radiumsoup (741987) | about 2 years ago | (#41279749)

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.

Re:Is this really a problem? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Is this really a problem? (5, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#41279967)

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.

Re:Is this really a problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41279783)

You didn't read the paragraph about "strict liability" di you? There is NO defence against "strict liability" offences

Re:Is this really a problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41280021)

This is why twelve good men and true are needed.

Re:Is this really a problem? (1)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#41279817)

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.

Not in the case of child porn (5, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Not in the case of child porn (2)

Teun (17872) | about 2 years ago | (#41280213)

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.

No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41279759)

We have to ban the possession of images... for the images! What if someone makes money off of it or someone is goaded into making more? Sure, it would be entirely the fault of the person who actually makes the images, but... children! Quickly, resort to censorship! We have to stop those image-viewing assholes!

Since people who say otherwise aren't as illogical as me, they can't be true parents. And not being parents magically invalidates all of their arguments for no reason!

Child exploitation (-1, Flamebait)

zitsky (303560) | about 2 years ago | (#41279761)

Oh, please. Give me a break. Virtually all child pornography involves exploitation of a child. How can anyone say that this should be legalized?

Re:Child exploitation (4, Insightful)

G-forze (1169271) | about 2 years ago | (#41279801)

Did you even read the article? One of the examples is young people taking pictures of themselves, which makes them child pornographers in the eyes of the law. Is that reasonable? How is that in any way exploitation?

Re:Child exploitation (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41279803)

He didn't say that (intentional) production should be legalized, just possession. Laws against possession of anything are ridiculous, because someone can just mail the offending item to you and suddenly you're a criminal even though you didn't do anything.

Re:Child exploitation (4, Interesting)

Cederic (9623) | about 2 years ago | (#41279845)

Given most child pornography being produced these days is probably kids sending naked pictures of themselves to each other, I'm struggling to understand the exploitation element.

Anyway, the article didn't demand the legalisation of creating child pornography. It demanded the legalisation of possessing it.

How about you read, understand and discuss the arguments being made, not dismiss it based on your prejudice and ignorance?

Re:Child exploitation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41279987)

It also implies the creation of child pornography. If the desired effect is to decriminalize kids possessing photos of each other, then you have to decriminalize the creation of that same pornography as well.

Otherwise we are saying "we won't prosecute you for having a photo of your girlfriend, but we will send her to prison for taking the photo & sending it to you."

Re:Child exploitation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41280287)

Still an improvement over sending both to prison.

Re:Child exploitation (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41279903)

Because trying to hide it behind a curtain isn't helping anyone, and attempting to do so gets hundreds of innocent peoples lives ruined every year, if not more.
Because every time some random idiot posts child porn on a forum or youtube or imageboard, a child gets raped.
That's not how things work.
Nobody is saying legalize child exploitation. You are changing the subject.

From teens getting labelled as sex offenders and child porn producers for sharing nude pictures of themselves with each other WHILE IN A RELATIONSHIP at the age of SEVENTEEN to teens themselves using their age as a weapon, I can safely say any child porn laws are plain retarded, if they even exist.
Let's not even get in to the fact that they aren't even CHILDREN in these cases, they are TEENS. But nope, who cares about logic, "they are my CHILD, not my TEEN"...

Don't even bother citing those times where "oh but these people had those charges dropped against them" stories, their lives in every single case have already been ruined simply by the ACCUSATION of it.
Even people who have been accused of murder get less of a beating about it.

He is completely right. Distribution should be illegal, NOT the possession. Possession laws are always awful since they are open to interpretation in every single case. (while some judge might be sane and view a stupid drawing of Lisa giving it to Bart just as something obscene, another would probably want to kill the person drawing it with their own hands. Interpretation from 1 persons opinion should never be in law. Ever. Exact rules or back to the drawing board, DSM isn't exact in the slightest, so don't bring it up)
The laws need to be tidied up, things need to be done to limit damage simply from the accusation itself, and anyone ever abusing their position should be punished severely.
As someone who has a "cousin" who abused her age to lure people in, I speak with experience in saying that people like her deserve to be locked up.
Sadly she got off with it because those people are shit-scared for their own lives to even come forward. Another sex-fiend age-abuser gets off yet again.
She has been disowned from the entire family.
The law IS THE PROBLEM. It lets people like this get away with shit while innocent people get wrecked or scared in to submission.

Actual child porn with actual children is barely within the scope of this. (by children I mean pre-pubescents, the actual definition that law seems to have forgotten)

More complex than even he makes out (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#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?

Incredibly badly written.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41279771)

The piece starts off with a hypothetical situation about "having a walk in the park and suddenly seeing someone raping a kiddy on front of you". Yeah, it's almost an everyday occurrence isn't it. No one really believes if you 'accidentally' filmed this event the witness would automatically be implicated. More than likely they would end up in court: to give evidence.

The next argument he makes, about teenagers being criminalised by their own bodies, is perfectly sound but clumsily put across, funnily enough it almost reads like it was written by a teenager.

The final argument about draconian CP laws being a threat to the wider freedom of society and just another tool to bring in more control, surveillance and censorship, it probably the most important one, but again badly explained in this article with the strange writing style.

Overall I don't think many on /. will disagree with the general intent, but coming from such a prominent figure in the Pirate Party this will probably do more harm than good in the fight against creeping totalitarianism.

Re:Incredibly badly written.. (2)

Cederic (9623) | about 2 years ago | (#41279857)

A good lawyer could indeed argue that the filmed rape in the park is not pornography at all, but instead a dispassionate capture of evidence of a crime.

And the violent intrusion of the person recording it into the scene, as they forcibly remove the rapist from the 12 year old.

In the UK they wouldn't get charged with possessing child pornography.

(They might get charged with assault if they hit the rapist).

Subjectivity (3, Informative)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#41279989)

The problem is who decides what is or isn't pornography? It's entirely subjective. It's based on how we think the person interprets the information, it's basically about what we think the viewer is thinking. A child could be naked in one context, hell a baby could be naked, and it's not considered child pornography but then in another context viewed by a different set of brains and it's child pornography. It's entirely subjective as to what is art and what is child pornography.

For example if a child actress plays out a rape scene in a movie that is not child pornography. If a child models in a beauty pageant that is not child pornography even if the child is dressed like a hooker on a street corner. If a child is in the "sexual positions" and naked then it's child pornography. How do we decide on those "sexual positions"? That part is subjective. Obscenity laws in general are subjective and different communities find different words, body language or levels of nudity as obscene.

Re:Incredibly badly written.. (2)

tmosley (996283) | about 2 years ago | (#41280291)

Good lawyers cost money. Justice should not be only for the rich.

lolwut? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41279789)

"...you turn a corner, and to your shock, see a 12-year-old being brutally raped right in front of you.
WHAM. You are now a criminal, guilty of recording, distributing, and possessing child pornography."

Because, like WHAM, we can not make a distinction between being witness to a crime and being participant in a crime? When did that happen?

Re:lolwut? (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 2 years ago | (#41279871)

Because, like WHAM, we can not make a distinction between being witness to a crime and being participant in a crime? When did that happen?

It's because it's a "strict liability" offence, like speeding. You might be doing 90mph up the high street to get a little old lady to the hospital, but you're still going to get done for speeding.

Re:lolwut? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41280019)

Because, like WHAM, we can not make a distinction between being witness to a crime and being participant in a crime? When did that happen?

There's no distinction to be made. There are two separate offences:

Rape - to which you're a witness

Recording and distribution of child pornography - for which you're the offender.

The cynic in me thinks the today's law enforcement will jump at the chance to get two convictions to boost their stats.

Re:lolwut? (4, Informative)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#41280257)

It happened when they made the law that was poorly worded to do exactly this.

Sure, judges will sometimes be smart enough to realize the law is wrong. But consider this ...

I read about a case many many years ago when PCs were just becoming common, and some internet thing was just emerging. A man had trouble with his PC not working so it takes it to the PC store to have it fixed. They find his hard drive died so they put in a replacement. Being cheap bastards they grabbed a HD known to be working from another PC (not sure why) and put it in the PC to be repaired. The man got the PC back, and there was still another issue, so he went for repairs again. This time they detected child porn on the HD that had been replaced in the previous visit, and called police (as the law required them to do). This man's life was ruined. He wife divorced him. He lost his job. He spent a few weeks in jail. His finances were wiped out by legal fees. In the end after a couple years the judge cleared him of all charges. He never even saw the child porn until a printed copy of one was shown in court. He never even accessed the files involved. He didn't even know they were there.

It is wrong to have a law that even allows this to begin to happen, since we can't have a law that makes everyone forget that it did. There are real things that are wrong enough that we do needs laws against them. But the laws need to be written by people who can thoroughly figure out all the effects. Our existing politicians aren't spending the time to even try, if even they were smart enough to do so (I'm absolutely certain 99% of them are not).

Philosophical thought experiment (4, Interesting)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#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:Philosophical thought experiment (3, Insightful)

clorkster (1996844) | about 2 years ago | (#41279847)

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.

Re:Philosophical thought experiment (1)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#41279863)

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.

Re:Philosophical thought experiment (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41280013)

Are we really arguing that no actual people are being physically harmed when children are being forced to engage in sexual activity?

Has slashdot really dropped to the level where child pornography and rape is considered acceptable?

Re:Philosophical thought experiment (3, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#41280045)

Are we really arguing that no actual people are being physically harmed when children are being forced to engage in sexual activity?

No. Only in the making of the child pornography is a child actually harmed.

Re:Philosophical thought experiment (0)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#41279851)

Because they can be created without raping an actual child.

Re:Philosophical thought experiment (1)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#41279953)

Because they can be created without raping an actual child.

So target the actual molester and not the bits. Someone could tell stories about how to molest children and maybe they write from experience and heck for sake of argument lets say a prisoner in prison for serial child molestation writes stories and books, should those books be banned?

My point is the event already took place. The crime was already committed. The bits on the computer at best are digital representations of evidence of the crime but they aren't the crime. The bits did not molest the child.

Re:Philosophical thought experiment (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41280221)

Because they can be created without raping an actual child.

So target the actual molester and not the bits. Someone could tell stories about how to molest children and maybe they write from experience and heck for sake of argument lets say a prisoner in prison for serial child molestation writes stories and books, should those books be banned?

My point is the event already took place. The crime was already committed. The bits on the computer at best are digital representations of evidence of the crime but they aren't the crime. The bits did not molest the child.

The bits DO molest the child in a non-physical way. Lets say something horrific happens to you, such as, oh I dont know... rape? it is horrible and traumatic, but it is over and you are healing. Then the rapists put it on youtube. Now people can watch you get raped over and over and over. When you walk into the office everyone stops and looks at you and then tries to pretend to be busy. They don't say "Hey Bob, watched your rape video today!" but you know they did. It's on the internet for anyone and everyone to see, and anyone you meet in your life may or may not be thinking "I saw the guy once... where was... oh SHIT it's butt-rape guy from youtube!"

But that's not realistic, right? Because your rape video couldn't be on youtube, it would be illegal.

Re:Philosophical thought experiment (4, Funny)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#41280299)

Then the rapists put it on youtube.

I don't think that type of content is even allowed on Youtube.

Oh no! I can magically feel when each person is looking at a video, and with each view, a part of my soul is stolen! I'm entitled to censor content because I don't like the way people are looking at a video!

That said, your comment needs to be censored. I can feel myself getting violated just reading it.

Re:Philosophical thought experiment (4, Interesting)

Stiletto (12066) | about 2 years ago | (#41280051)

So can "simulated," entirely computer-generated CP, yet that's also illegal. Explain THAT one!

Re:Philosophical thought experiment (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#41280173)

It makes it difficult to do their jobs.

Just like due process and requiring them to present evidence before allowing a conviction. Get of it all!

what he means and what he said are not the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41279811)

parent takes a pic of a kid in a tub its cute right
BUT posting that image to a place where others might see it and possessing that image is technically illegal.
this is what he means but what hes trying to say is messed up
what most dont get is most of the actual child porn is done agaisnt the kids will and is more akin to slavery.
its wrong , its evil its harmful to society and must be punished and eliminated when found.

He cannot argue the above is ok?
And proposing an end to criminal responsibility....OOPS sorry i smashed your window i'm not responsible
oooops i cut your head off and sent body parts about im not responsible.....
haha
this just shows me again that the real people behind hte pirate party are NOT even true pirates....better to tackle your issue from a librarian and archivist role then this ....you will freak 7 billion people out and this loses you support.

Re:what he means and what he said are not the same (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#41279841)

OOPS sorry i smashed your window i'm not responsible

Yes, that's exactly what was being argued. People who are directly responsible for the damage shouldn't be punished. That was surely it.

Re:what he means and what he said are not the same (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 2 years ago | (#41280083)

And proposing an end to criminal responsibility....OOPS sorry i smashed your window i'm not responsible

So you are saying that everyone who accidentally smashed a window is a criminal?
Yes, you are supposed to cover the cost of replacing that window. But that's a civil matter, not a criminal one.

Some good arguments, some bad arguments. (3, Insightful)

Elbereth (58257) | about 2 years ago | (#41279827)

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.

Re:Some good arguments, some bad arguments. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41279927)

Speak of yourself when you think of his first example as a paranoid fantasy. I've made plenty of photos where I was focusing on something and later when I looked on the PC I found the weirdest stuff I couldn't even imagine. Photobomber websites are a testament to this, either intentional (hey, he's taking a picture, let's strike a stupid pose!) or unintentional (woah, a child in the background is being hit by a parent). I've had even a film taken with such a detail before. And I don't usually record anything, but guess what, I took it on the phone, because it was there with me available at all times. Technology makes this possible.

So it will take more time or less, involve google glasses or not, but this is already happening and not a fallacy at all (don't know where you get that from).

Re:Some good arguments, some bad arguments. (4, Informative)

Jiro (131519) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Here's an example in english (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#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

Re:Some good arguments, some bad arguments. (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#41280005)

It reminded me of the over-the-top, paranoid fantasies and fallacies that were popular during the time of SOPA.

Saying that a law will most likely harm innocents is hardly a fallacy (if that's what you were referring to). The government is made up of imperfect human beings; given that, it's not far-fetched at all to suggest that such a law would be abused.

The enemy of your enemy is not your friend (3, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#41279839)

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

Re:The enemy of your enemy is not your friend (4, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Good luck with that (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41279955)

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.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#41280007)

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.

If their brain shuts off it doesn't make them right just because they are loud and passionate. People are also loud and passionate about the death penalty or abortion or gay marriage.

Re:Good luck with that (3, Insightful)

cpghost (719344) | about 2 years ago | (#41280015)

When children are involved, people shut off their brains.

When children are involved, most animal species shut off their brains; why should homo sapiens be an exception? This is pure instinct at work, instinct that developed in millions years of evolution. Without it, we wouldn't belong to the survivors of Nature, and wouldn't even be here. Of course, this deeply rooted instinct is easy prey for populist politicians and a prime tool of political manipulative scare tactics. It has always be, it will always be.

brave new world (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about 2 years ago | (#41279995)

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.

Why!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41280001)

I cannot think of anything worse than someone having Child porn. Why!? your supporting legalizing pictures of children being exploited? their innocence can never be regained. Seriously pedophiles need to be locked up without the key. Its sick and disgusting. Obviously this guy doesnt have children. These people are sick and need help, not sitting there getting off on nude pictures of children. (although the help usually doesnt solve it)

Re:Why!? (3, Interesting)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#41280087)

Well, those are the arguments I'd expect. "If someone disagrees, they're not a True Parent! If someone isn't a parent, their arguments are incorrect because ad hominem attacks are arguments now! Also, I don't like it, so the images themselves should be banned!"

I cannot think of anything worse than someone having Child porn.

What about murder? Then they're dead forever, and they'll have no 'innocence' (whatever that ambiguous term means).

What About The Gov't Possessing This Stuff (1)

MMacFadden (1947514) | about 2 years ago | (#41280017)

The Gov't seizes computers and hard drives with this content on it. They present it as evidence. Are they breaking the law by merely possessing the data? If not then aren't we back to the idea that it is not the information or data itself that is criminal, but rather the circumstances it was obtained / created and the intent behind the possession? Circumstances and intent are for courts and juries to assess. Laws are to inflexible to unilaterally consider the complexity of intent.

Absurd (1)

Eric Damron (553630) | about 2 years ago | (#41280075)

From the article:

It would not be effective, and possibly counter productive, in catching child molesters.

This statement starts with a false assumption and ends in an erroneous conclusion. The assumption is that the ultimate goal is to catch child molesters. It's conclusion is that it is not effective and may actually make it harder to catch child molesters.

The laws that make child pornography illegal is a separate but related issue to child molestation. It is related because in order to create child pornography a child must be molested. It is separate in that it can stand on its own. The idea that for child pornography to be illegal it must aid in the apprehension of child molesters is absurd.

The author then invents a fairy tail where a person with eye glasses with a built-in camera turns a corner and records a child being raped. He then makes the erroneous conclusion that video recording a crime in process would be a crime itself. It would be illegal if the person who caught it with his camcorder just walked away and didn't report it or worse yet posted the recording on the Internet. People on this guys web site have brought this to the authors attention but he chose to double down on dumb by saying that child pornography is illegal no mater how you get it period. However, if turned over to the police it would NOT be pornography it would be evidence of child molestation. It would only become pornography if it were kept by the individual.

Even if this guy were correct the law could be changed to exempt those situations. Again using this fairy tail as an excuse to legalise child pornography is absurd!

The entire article is filled with this pseudo logic and erroneous conclusions. Not really worth the read IMHO.

Re:Absurd (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41280153)

Let me give you another "absurd idea".

    In the last 10 years, porn to suit every possible desire has become widely (and very easily) available online.
    In the last 10 years, the incidence of rape [i'm talking about the crime, not the conviction rate] has fallen.
Is it just possible that these two might be correlated?

What does this suggest about the crackdown on "child pornography", even of the teenage-consensual variety, or of the purely digital animated variety? Is it just possible that it's going to *increase* the rate of child abuse, rather than reduce it?

Problems with Canadian Child Porn Legislatoin (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41280099)

Here are a couple of the issues that I am aware of with the current Canadian child porn legislation.

1) Anything sexual produced for youth, is considered child porn. So if a Doctor write a guide on safe sex, and it is targetted to high school sex ed classes - that doctor has created child porn. Under the verbage of the legal document, he is technically a sexual offender.

2) Those photos in your family album of the twins Julie and Mat playing in their wading pool at the cabin when they were 6 months old. Remember how they were both wearing swimming diapers, but the rest of them was naked? Well - you possess child porn. Any photograph (or ther media) of a naked or partially naked child, is considered child porn. Same thing goes for that photo of your 2 year old niece swimming at the beach - on your iphone as you walk through Canadian customs.

I am sure there is much more. These are the two bizarre sitautions that I know of.

The root of the problem (as I see it) is:
- We write laws that are either so vague that anything even remotely similar to the offence they want to stop becomes criminal as well.
- We never go over the old laws to clean out the outdated. We just pile it all on whatever is already there.
- We label a law that is extremely overzealous or totally out to lunch with labels such as 'Child Porn' so that if you say no to it, you must be one of them. Not many of us are for Child Porn, but how many of us do things that are legally speaking, thanks to bad laws, actually considered to be child porn?

I make a point of putting my camera away, if either of my girls (2 and 4) decide they want to run around naked. I have had to tell my wife to do the same, and delete all those cute videos of the baby chasing the balloon across the room...

Re:Problems with Canadian Child Porn Legislatoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41280193)

Remember how they were both wearing swimming diapers, but the rest of them was naked?

Swimming diapers? In my day we didn't have swimming diapers. We frolicked naked, and if our parents happened to take pictures, they would eventually become treasured family heirlooms.

same justfication airport scanner (1)

fermion (181285) | about 2 years ago | (#41280129)

this guy is takin an extremely low probability risk, and converting it into a reason to limit the privacy of other. It is like the Us governmnet using 9/11 as an excuse to hire perverts to fondl;e our genitils as we get on a plane.

Here is the thing with child p0rn, and I am not just talking about parent filming thier kids playing, If I were wearing google glasses and I did see a rape of some small child, first I presume that I would not be in posession of child porn, but in posession of evidence. Second I would hope that any google device would automatically strem all content to the world, but wouldhave some timel delay. Third I would hope that there would be a way to at least delete content ffom the google servers. From that point on possesion would indicate intent. I know these last two are antithetical to googles modus operandi, they want to keep and know everything, just look at the WiFI snooping which required at least two governemt requests to delete, data that they said the did not even want.

In any case the issue here is not the adult that might get caught up in an unfortunate sitation. We are adults, we can and do make decisions, and we know how to deal or not deal with the fallout. We know that we may see things we don't want to see and those of us who are mature and sane simply deal with it. We may choose to put explicity content online, and we deal with it. But a child is not in control and if we allow possesion then we implicitely allow distribution and this is a problem. Imagine a child is raped at 10. The footage is caught and not actively destroyed. 10 years later it reemerges and the adult has to deal with graphic images of his or her violation as a child. this is the violation of privacy to which I previously refered. Posesion of child porn promotes a double crime. It not only promotes the violation of the child, but also promotes the violation of the privacy of the adult.

Legalize It (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41280147)

My predictions [randi.org] about "child porn" prohibitionism turning the Digital Age into a Gulag are gradually coming true... I wrote about billions of children over generations having ever-increasing access to digital equipment and producing ever-more "thought-crime" content to potentially put anyone in prison for decades if not for life!

"Did you really think we want those laws observed? [...] We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt." -- quoth Dr Ferris, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

Rape should most obviously be illegal, but it should be up to the victim and/or his/her parents/guardians, not power-hungry government thugs, to determine what constitutes rape. The punishment of victimless crimes, including "thought-crimes", always constitutes tyranny! One needs to separate thought/speech from action, and there should be absolutely no limits to free speech [freestateproject.org] !

Having CP is not a crime - raping a child (or anyone else) is. Likewise, reading Karl Marx and dreaming about raping and pillaging like the drunken sailors of the Russian Revolution is not a crime - but actively supporting a revolutionary communist movement should be.

(Signed: Alex Libman's sockpuppet.)

Re:Legalize It (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#41280209)

but it should be up to the victim and/or his/her parents/guardians, not power-hungry government thugs, to determine what constitutes rape.

I'm not sure leaving it up to emotional, paranoid parents or the actual 'victim' is a good idea...

Kiddie porn is a result of the War on Sex (2, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41280161)

This is no different from all the other 'prohibitions' we live through. Religious prohibition on sex is what makes kiddie porn and other perversions an issue. Societies with the strictest rules are often the most perverted. They may hide it from the outsiders pretty well, but inside the castle, a bigger orgy you'll never find.

It's very simple, no - really - it is! (4, Interesting)

MindPrison (864299) | about 2 years ago | (#41280185)

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...

FUCK YOU MISTER PIRATE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41280231)

Sometimes, people's ideology (free information, etc.) becomes obsession - the over appreciation of the idea leads to fanaticism that leads to delirium.
When referring to child pornography as (from TFA:) "this type of information" [IT IS NOT INFORMATION ... IT IS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY] the rest of that delirium is easy to predict : the criminalization of "this type of information" [I.E., THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY] it's not effective in catching child molesters [WRONG - IT'S VERY EFFECTIVE], it leads to censorship [OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ... SURE], it undermines journalistic freedom and free speech/expression tradition [YOU ARE IN A DELIRIUM !].
Watching the rape (it is rape!) of children is not "the battleground for free speech itself" (yes ... from TFA !).
The "serious discussion" that this guy wish for has already been discussed - in a more serious way ... by more serious people.

demand side vs supply side in economics vs crime (1)

magarity (164372) | about 2 years ago | (#41280237)

I'm always amazed at how people on whichever side of demand vs supply economics are on the opposite side when it comes to crime. For example, conservatives want to influence the economy by rewarding or punishing producers of good more than paying attention to the consumer side. They then want to influence crime by punishing the consumers more than the producers. Modern liberals are the exact opposite.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?