• Founder of the Swedish Pirate Party comes out in support of re-legalisation of child pornography
    105 replies, posted
-snip-
[QUOTE=dgg;37663687]No he doesn't. He wants things that are currently deemed child pornography despite not being child pornography to be legalised.[/QUOTE] No, he wants possession of child pornography to be re-legalised.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;37663712]No, he wants possession of child pornography to be re-legalised.[/QUOTE] Did you actually read the article? He wants the possession of child pornography to be legalised if it was by accident. If you have virtual headset in the future which records a live feed and happen to witness the rape of a child you would be arrested for obtaining and distributing child porn and the time you would be jailed for is longer than the molester, despite just having recorded some really good evidence that could get a child molester arrested by accident. If you have photos of your children nude (like any family does because they take snapshots of memorable and fun moments) you will get arrested for having child pornography. If a 16 year old takes photos of his/her boyfriend naked and keep it to themselves they would get arrested for having child pornography of eachother (or themselves for that matter) if found out. He wants legalisation of things that aren't actually child porn or are punished as child porn or a crime despite not being it.
[QUOTE=dgg;37663733]Did you actually read the article?[/QUOTE] Did you? the article clearly states "Possession of Child pornography must be re-legalised in the coming decade" He even encourages us to campaign for it: [quote] The overall freedom of speech is won or lost with restoring freedom of information and, as a result, re-legalizing possession of child pornography. Yes, it’s awful – but so is the video of a teenager being stabbed in the eyes with a screwdriver; that’s no reason to create a censorship regime. Today, we have an open wound in our constitutionally protected right to speak freely that is being infested again and again. We must heal that wound, exactly like the constitutional scholars warned when the child porn ban was first enacted. And that requires you, and every other information freedom activist, to let go of the stigma associated with this toxic subject and stand up for the enlightenment traditions. [/quote]
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;37663768]Did you? the article clearly states "Possession of Child pornography must be re-legalised in the coming decade" He even encourages us to campaign for it:[/QUOTE] I think you need to read THE WHOLE ARTICLE. Not just take out that one part that suits you from a sensationalistic and out-of-context manner. And I know you actually have read the whole article which baffles me why you can say this shit.
[QUOTE=dgg;37663733]Did you actually read the article? He wants the possession of child pornography to be legalised if it was by accident. If you have virtual headset in the future which records a live feed and happen to witness the rape of a child you would be arrested for obtaining and distributing child porn and the time you would be jailed for is longer than the molester, despite just having recorded some really good evidence that could get a child molester arrested by accident. If you have photos of your children nude (like any family does because they take snapshots of memorable and fun moments) you will get arrested for having child pornography. If a 16 year old takes photos of his/her boyfriend naked and keep it to themselves they would get arrested for having child pornography of eachother (or themselves for that matter) if found out. He wants legalisation of things that aren't actually child porn or are punished as child porn or a crime despite not being it.[/QUOTE] He points that out as a flaw in the current system but his overall goal is to return to the pre-1999 system in which all possession of child pornography, accidentally obtained or otherwise, is legal and protected under freedom of speech and information laws. [editline]14th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=dgg;37663851]I think you need to read THE WHOLE ARTICLE. Not just take out that one part that suits you from a sensationalistic and out-of-context manner. And I know you actually have read the whole article which baffles me why you can say this shit.[/QUOTE] Read section 3 again; does he make any mention of only certain things that are considered cp to be re-legalised or does he say that all cp should be re-legalised? [quote] If we lose the battle over freedom of information, we will lose it over the ban on possession of child pornography and infestations spreading from there until the open society has been killed. If we win it, we will win it over repealing the ban of possession of child pornography [as well as any other kind of information] and healing this wound. This is where the battle stands, this is where the war for freedom of speech and the open society is won or lost. This is the wound we must heal. [/quote] "repealing the ban of possession of child pornography [as well as any other kind of information]" Not just some things that currently considered child pornography.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;37663897]He points that out as a flaw in the current system but his overall goal is to return to the pre-1999 system in which all possession of child pornography, accidentally obtained or otherwise, is legal and protected under freedom of speech and information laws. [editline]14th September 2012[/editline] Read section 3 again; does he make any mention of only certain things that are considered cp to be re-legalised or does he say that all cp should be re-legalised? "repealing the ban of possession of child pornography [as well as any other kind of information]" Not just some things that currently considered child pornography.[/QUOTE] Well yes, you are right and I am wrong. He wants all obession of child porn to be legalised to avoid grey areas that become counter-productive in the search of the content producers and distributors. If certain things are deemed ok and certain things not, the problem is that there is no clear answer, which means that, depending on the judge he/she can twist the situation into what he believes should be done, sending an innocent person to jail for a crime he did not commit. It wouldn't really be possible to figure out if the person got child porn accidentally or wilfully on his computer (but of course, a person with tens, hundreds, thousands, etc, images or videos of child porn would obviously be a guilty man). And like there is arguing in this thread and in the article comments, do we actually have any proof that people just simply sharing child porn actually make child porn happen? What I imagine is that the ones that PAY for the child porn are the ones that create the demand that leads to the production of child porn. I don't think any paedophile would risk his/her life in order to fill a demand for child porn for free? If he/she distributed child porn for free I don't think the demand would have anything to do with it, but rather just sharing it for the sake of his/her own sexual gratification and enjoyment over other paedophiles being able to see what he/she did. The harm free child pornography sharing does seems to me to be the equivelant of the harm any file sharing over free channels like public torrents, kazaa, limewire, emule, open DC++ hubs and so on does. Absolutely none, someone buys a movie because they like it and decide to share it because they like it, not because people necessarily asked for it, but because they can. Most people then download and watch the movie, not because they really wanted to watch the movie, but because it was there and they had heard about it but doesn't want to buy it.
In some weird way, you could compare it to WikiLeaks. Possession of information is different to what the information is of. Of course, nobody's fuelling demand for war by reading WikiLeaks, but there are arguments that it hurts people. In the grand scheme of things though, having possession of child porn being illegal is leading to a slippery slope of censorship in its name. Maybe we'd be able to investigate more in to the subject of child pornography possession, but there's really nobody to get the test data from. It makes me sad that children go through it, but it makes me more sad that it as an idea is worth destroying freedom of information. It reminds me of the DMCA too. Anyways, if we can't get marijuana legalised despite the immense support behind it, there's no chance of this happening.
[QUOTE=Jookia;37665180]In some weird way, you could compare it to WikiLeaks. Possession of information is different to what the information is of. Of course, nobody's fuelling demand for war by reading WikiLeaks, but there are arguments that it hurts people. In the grand scheme of things though, having possession of child porn being illegal is leading to a slippery slope of censorship in its name. Maybe we'd be able to investigate more in to the subject of child pornography possession, but there's really nobody to get the test data from. It makes me sad that children go through it, but it makes me more sad that it as an idea is worth destroying freedom of information. It reminds me of the DMCA too. Anyways, if we can't get marijuana legalised despite the immense support behind it, there's no chance of this happening.[/QUOTE] It was legal in Sweden only 13 years ago, within most peoples life time, re-legalisation has support from the Swedish Association of Journalists and the Swedish Pirate Party, it has a reasonable chance of being re-legalised.
He's right, but it's not a "black and white" situation, it's a grey one. It's difficult to tell whether a person did download it with the intention of sexual gratification or not. I'm not going to deny the possibility of a person filming a rape to show evidence, but I'm also not going to deny that the person was possibly another participant.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;37665443]He's right, but it's not a "black and white" situation, it's a grey one. It's difficult to tell whether a person did download it with the intention of sexual gratification or not. I'm not going to deny the possibility of a person filming a rape to show evidence, but I'm also not going to deny that the person was possibly another participant.[/QUOTE] I think the point is it doesn't matter if the intention is sexual gratification or not, when an image/video is created the damage is done whether its seen and enjoyed by 1 billion people or 0 people.
Exactly. If a tree falls in a forest and rapes baby squirrels, does it make a sound?
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;37665473]I think the point is it doesn't matter if the intention is sexual gratification or not, when an image/video is created the damage is done whether its seen and enjoyed by 1 billion people or 0 people.[/QUOTE] You're right, no damage is done, but it does affect people who view it. Some might find it intolerable, some might like it. What most of the politicians, who are against it, are concerned about is the fact that people may take inspiration from those videos and may act on them. I'm doubtful that most do, but there is a possibility that it may occur.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;37665473]I think the point is it doesn't matter if the intention is sexual gratification or not, when an image/video is created the damage is done whether its seen and enjoyed by 1 billion people or 0 people.[/QUOTE] A good way to look at it. Watching a video of child molestation does not molest the child nor affect demand and production. - It's uncomfortable. Downloading the video of child molestation is morally wrong, shows a form of demand, but logically speaking (since there is no realiable statistics you can really trust one way or the other) it should have no effect on the production of videos recording child molestation since there is nothing for the producer to gain from risking his life making it. - It's uncomfortable but in 99% of the cases should not harm children. Paying or trading for a video of child molestation is morally wrong and increases the production of video records of child molestation. - It harms children. [editline]14th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;37665589]You're right, no damage is done, but it does affect people who view it. Some might find it intolerable, some might like it. What most of the politicians, who are against it, are concerned about is the fact that people may take inspiration from those videos and may act on them. I'm doubtful that most do, but there is a possibility that it may occur.[/QUOTE] This is the same argument they use for movies, books, cartoons, games, newspapers and whatnot. It's an "what if..." argument with no basis in anything and is only used to spread fear to mindless people that doesn't think twice (if even once) about what people tell them. How do you get inspired to do something? It needs to be within your interest in the first place, the basis of the act (in this case raping a child, in other cases, murdering someone, stealing money, etc etc), then the only thing the video/image/article/book can really do, is giving your inspiration for the details. (Raping them in the woods, smashing their skulls with a hammer, robbing a bank, etc etc). You don't want to commit something because of something you've seen or heard. You want to do something and then get presented an idea of how to do it. That's the only way it could work. It's like people sharing a really good recipe. The other partner likes making food, gets a good recipe and thinks "wow, this sounds really good, i should do that THE NEXT TIME I COOK". A.k.a a new twist on an action that was supposed to happen anyways.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;37665589]You're right, no damage is done, but it does affect people who view it. Some might find it intolerable, some might like it. What most of the politicians, who are against it, are concerned about is the fact that people may take inspiration from those videos and may act on them. I'm doubtful that most do, but there is a possibility that it may occur.[/QUOTE] Those few people that actually would be "inspired" would be dangerous people and would inevitably end up doing something like it in either case. You know, just like those who get inspired by violent video games or movies or what-not. It's not actually the stuff they saw's fault, it's just that those specific people were nutcases. Following this mentality would lead to banning damn near everything, because there will always be someone out there getting "inspiration" to do crazy shit from something. [editline]14th September 2012[/editline] And by the way, in case people hadn't noticed, there's a follow-up article where he points out some instances where crazy charges actually [I]have[/I] happened, instead of just having his kind of odd imaginary scenario. [url]http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/11/child-porn-laws-arent-as-bad-as-you-think-theyre-much-much-worse/[/url]
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;37665920]Those few people that actually would be "inspired" would be dangerous people and would inevitably end up doing something like it in either case. You know, just like those who get inspired by violent video games or movies or what-not. It's not actually the stuff they saw's fault, it's just that those specific people were nutcases. Following this mentality would lead to banning damn near everything, because there will always be someone out there getting "inspiration" to do crazy shit from something. [editline]14th September 2012[/editline] And by the way, in case people hadn't noticed, there's a follow-up article where he points out some instances where crazy charges actually [I]have[/I] happened, instead of just having his kind of odd imaginary scenario. [url]http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/11/child-porn-laws-arent-as-bad-as-you-think-theyre-much-much-worse/[/url][/QUOTE] Thanks, I'll add the article to the OP.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.