Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

"Secure Email As a Potential Terrorist Indicator" ??!

<< < (2/3) > >>

CWuestefeld:
@Renegade - I'm not disagreeing with you, but at first this may sound like it does:

What about kiddie pr0n?

This seems to be the ultimate sacred cow in America, where virtually everyone agrees that free speech stops before it gets to this, and that virtually any amount of encroachment is justified in preventing this.

So, two questions:

1) How confident are you that this type of speech is fundamentally different? Or are we just like every other society on the planet, just setting the line a bit differently?

2) Can you see any way to avoid the abuse of children in this manner, while not explicitly attacking the speech that communicates it?

4wd:
What about kiddie pr0n?-CWuestefeld (January 19, 2015, 10:48 AM)
--- End quote ---

But does that actually fall under the umbrella of "free speech" ?

CWuestefeld:
What about kiddie pr0n?-CWuestefeld (January 19, 2015, 10:48 AM)
--- End quote ---

But does that actually fall under the umbrella of "free speech" ?
-4wd (January 19, 2015, 05:07 PM)
--- End quote ---

Yes, as long as people are prosecuted for just being in possession of a photo, absent any evidence of being involved in any actual abuse. Heck, you'll get prosecuted for photos of adults made to look sufficiently like children, or photos that are pure CGI.

And I think that you asking the question proves my point. It seems that *everyone* draws the line somewhere, and to that person (or to people from that culture), that line is obvious. "Well, sure we want free speech, but *that* is just so far beyond the pale...").

Every culture has their sacred cows. And from their own perspective, they don't look like cows at all.

And since we can see that we ourselves fall victim to this, we need to be careful when criticizing other groups who just choose different cows.

Renegade:
@Renegade - I'm not disagreeing with you, but at first this may sound like it does:

What about kiddie pr0n?

This seems to be the ultimate sacred cow in America, where virtually everyone agrees that free speech stops before it gets to this, and that virtually any amount of encroachment is justified in preventing this.

So, two questions:

1) How confident are you that this type of speech is fundamentally different? Or are we just like every other society on the planet, just setting the line a bit differently?

2) Can you see any way to avoid the abuse of children in this manner, while not explicitly attacking the speech that communicates it?
-CWuestefeld (January 19, 2015, 10:48 AM)
--- End quote ---

Good question.

It isn't speech. It's a spectator event. The audience is spread over time and space by the recording. The audience are participants in the event in the same way that spectators at a football or soccer game are participants.

The same can be applied to other events. However, there is still a very large difference between seeing a journalist having his head hacked off and kiddie porn. The first is a news worthy event, and generally the decapitation is left out. The second, while being a new worthy event, is so horrific that no part of it can be watched by anyone with even a smidgen of empathy in their selves without scarring the person.

If there were gladiatorial fights to the death fought with slaves, those (and recordings) would be similarly illegal for the same reasons - they are events with participants spread over time and space. They're not "speech". Now, if the gladiators are all participating freely, and all adults capable of making their own decisions, then that's a different story. Children on the other hand are not capable of making informed decisions with an understanding of the consequences.

Gore porn differs in that the images are taken by reporters, investigators, etc., and not staged/managed.

The possession of recordings (photos/video/whatever) of children being raped is in itself participation in the event, although removed by time/space, and those in possession are guilty of being accomplices/complicit.

SeraphimLabs:
What about kiddie pr0n?-CWuestefeld (January 19, 2015, 10:48 AM)
--- End quote ---

But does that actually fall under the umbrella of "free speech" ?
-4wd (January 19, 2015, 05:07 PM)
--- End quote ---

Free speech + freedom of expression.

In fact the only thing really wrong about it is the fact that it is produced by the victimization of another person who either is not old enough to give consent, or simply has chosen not to. That fact alone is the one solid handle you can get on it to make it illegal in the way it is. Its illegal because it violates somebody else's rights.

That's just how it works. When you start assigning guaranteed rights to people, people almost always find usage cases that the majority will not ever agree is acceptable and will seek to do something about even if it means that the expected rights are no longer inalienable.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page