

Rick Falkvinge: Child Porn Laws Are Worse Than You Think - PaperclipTaken
http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/11/child-porn-laws-arent-as-bad-as-you-think-theyre-much-much-worse/

======
pserwylo
I applaud Rick for having this discussion. Normally I (perhaps like many
others) would be turned off reading about a topic like this. When the first
thread [0] came up, I ignored it. However, as it slowly accumulated more votes
on HN, I felt a desire to challenge myself to read it and see how it
constructively discussed the issues around child pornography.

Sure enough, I found it a very well put together piece.

I think the same can be said for this follow up article.

The discussion reminds me of the discussion around the Australian artist Bill
Henson [1], who got in strife for photographs of a 13 year old. I personally
don't have strong opinions one way or the other as to the rightness or
wrongness of this type of art, but it was interesting to have the debate blown
so widely open in the mainstream media here. Having said that, the debate was
more about "Art" vs "Child pornograhy" and didn't touch on the additional
areas that Rick discussed.

I do think that one point Rick may want to touch on is also the slippery slope
to do with your own young children. When they are one or two years old, it is
fine to take photos of them playing in the yard naked for the family album.
Hell, its even frowned upon if there aren't photos like this to embarrass a
child at their 21st birthday. Just as this is ok, it is also not okay for a
parent to take photos of their 17yo child naked for the family album.

It seems that it would be difficult to legislate the specific point at which
it is no longer okay to partake in this type of photography, but it is
interesting to consider these things.

[0] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4495914>

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Henson#Images_seized>

~~~
385668
I think the most compelling argument made in this article is that a law that
by it's nature is only going to do what it's supposed to if applied
selectively is a bad law. The manga image posted in the article looks more
like art to me, but in the US is probably CP, though it's hard to tell at this
point.

The article also touches on a more widely applicable idea that we should all
push for more evidence based law making. In this case, continually making
harsher punishments for simple possession, disregarding any evidence that
those punishments may in fact be detrimental to preventing child molestation.
More widely, I think it should also be easily applied to internet piracy law
and drug decriminalization to take the low hanging fruit of evidence free
lawmaking.

I'd also like to say that I appreciate a politician actively making a choice
to talk about an inflammatory topic, taking an unpopular position, and risking
his career to stand up for what he believes. Whether you agree with his
interpretation or not, that's something I'd like to see more of.

~~~
learc83
>The article also touches on a more widely applicable idea that we should all
push for more evidence based law making.

This is why I've always said laws should always be passed with a probationary
period.

After a law is enacted, it would have to be voted on a again, after a few
years have passed or it would automatically expire.

\--Obviously there would be some exemptions, such as annual budgets.

------
csense
It's illegal to commit murder in real life, but a large fraction of very
popular novels, movies, and TV shows are about fictional murders -- Macbeth,
Sherlock Holmes, CSI -- there are literally thousands, or maybe millions, of
examples.

As long as no actual murders took place in its making, art about murder is
perfectly okay.

It seems logically inconsistent to be okay with artistic depiction of one
crime but not another

------
rprasad
At one time, I may have agreed with the spurious claims in this article. Then
I worked for the public defender, and some of my clients were pedophiles. Now
I firmly believe that child porn laws are about where they should be, and
possibly may even be too lenient (in the US).

The fundamental, overriding justification for child porn laws is that in most
of this filth, _an actual child is being raped_. In the minority of this
filth, the sexual imagery is faked or animated. The fake filth exists only
because those perverts cannot get their hands on the real stuff--it's not an
alternative, it's a temporary stopgap.

I know that the HN crowd is treating this as some sort of abstract,
hypothetical discussion of freedom, but _if you actually talk to pedophiles_ ,
you will quickly realize why child porn laws exist.

