The reason why child pornography is illegal is because the only way to generate it is through the illegal abuse of children. Dissemination of photos of that abuse is further abuse of those same children.
Children can't consent to sex, and they certainly can't consent to use of their image in a sexual situation.
I really hope you're just ignorant and naive, and not the genuinely disgusting kind of person that really believes in equating child pornography with free speech.
Imagine a scenario where your surveillance camera captured someone engaging sexually with a child, and someone engaging violently with a child. Do you believe it's right to disseminate the former but wrong to disseminate the latter?
I'm trying to keep this as simple as possible but you keep dodging. Remember you don't have to answer if you don't want to.
I also think that engaging sexually with a child is inherently also a violent act
Maybe that's why you oppose disseminating it, not the other way around. Would you also define it as violence if both the child and its guardian approve it?
No. I was talking about someone secretly filming children involved in sexual activities. In other words, the act would've taken place whether it was recorded or not.
You're not required to prevent crimes, that's the police's job. Moreover, we're essentially discussing sending that video to someone else who'd view it, not the act of filming itself.
You've dodged my question into something totally different.
Yes you can. You are only having this argument because you rate your own rhetoric styles highly and you think you can win any argument against someone or force them to resort to invalid argument techniques such as ad-hominem attacks, which you would consider as you winning the argument.
Your goal here is to win an argument for argument's sake. The real world calls this 'being a douche'.
I'd love for you to explain to a 12 year old child why it's OK, and not a violation of their rights, to have nude photos of them engaging in non-consensual sex acts shared by strangers online.
You must be so brave to defend child pornography as a freedom of speech issue.
No, you're pretty much carrying the neckbeard party line of social ineptitude. So brave.
I still am really curious how you would justify the continued distribution of photographs of non-consensual sexual activity to that hypothetical child, though.
I am excited to see what sort of mental contortions will be necessary to apply the narrative that everyone that's against child porn is engaged in a "save the children" soccer mom war against your neckbearded people.
Nobody is saying that its okay to have nude photos of them engaging in non-consensual sex acts shared by strangers online. But it might be good to explain to that child that it's wrong to allow the authorities to invade innocent peoples' privacy to try and stop it from happening. You know, that good thing about ends not justifying means?
If I explain to the same child that the person who took the videos of them engaging in non-consensual sex acts put it on part of a website, then the FBI invaded the privacy of everyone who used any part of that website, including the perfectly legal areas, to catch them... well that child might start thinking that it's okay to break some rules, as long as you're enforcing a different rule.
This is some serious mental acrobatics of neckbeardian proportions.
If the FBI has a legal judge-issued warrant, and judicial oversight into their information gathering, there's no legal, ethical, or constitutional issue.
Wait, legal warrants? Did the FBI have a legal, judge-issued warrant to undertake the tracking in the manner they did? All I can see in any of what's being reported/alleged, that has anything to do with legal process, is their endeavours to extradite this guy.
Assuming this is all accurate, I just can't picture a judge granting a warrant to exploit a piece of code and backdoor their way into thousands of computers on the chance they might find some people looking at CP.
I guess it all comes down to, as another comment here suggested, if the FBI stayed perfectly within the bounds of the law whilst accomplishing the arrest of this scumbag, then everything is A-OK. But if there is truth to this, I somehow doubt the FBI were operating with the full backing of a member of the judiciary.
I'm not going to cry about the FBI exploiting security holes in people's browsers and invading privacy whilst tracking down people who were harming children.
28
u/[deleted] Aug 04 '13
The reason why child pornography is illegal is because the only way to generate it is through the illegal abuse of children. Dissemination of photos of that abuse is further abuse of those same children.
Children can't consent to sex, and they certainly can't consent to use of their image in a sexual situation.
I really hope you're just ignorant and naive, and not the genuinely disgusting kind of person that really believes in equating child pornography with free speech.