And the reddit response: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/duplicates/pmbyc/somethin....
Reddit is covering their legal asses, and I can perfectly understand that.
You cannot prove their age (I've seen 17 year-olds looking like they were 25) and you cannot prove they give their consent to have their seemingly private pic posted, but this can be said about almost any "mirror pic" or home pic. You also don't generally know when a picture has been publicly posted by the person in it, or not.
As soon as you put the burden of proof in the website, you start slipping into SOPA territory.
Not a good idea IMO.
However it's ironic that people rush to defend linking to cam-of-new-hollywood-blockbuster.torrent as "just a link", declaring it can't be illegal because it's just pointing to a file, it's not hosting it and only a fool lawyer or judge nestled warmly in the pocket of the RIAA/MPAA could misunderstand this.
But when that link goes to 13yearoldinabikini.jpg, a collection of 1s and 0s on someone else's server, suddenly this Link is a tool of evil and not only must it be removed, but the community celebrates the censorship and nominates more items for censorship.
Also reddit was holding copies (thumbnails) and so IMO should be liable legally as distributors of said material.
Child porn is probably the one subject that is so indefensible that no one in their right mind would consider it a great loss that a major distribution channel for it was turned off.
Not that I believe for a second that the degenerates won't figure out some way to either skirt the rules or find another friendly site to aid and abet them.
It's a good first step, even if it was made under extreme duress.
By the way, I'm not in any way supporting that opinion, just presenting the case that some people are making. I personally think there are probably better ways to combat child abuse than giving people lolicon.
The broader question is: how can we improve the pedophile situation? Banning "questionable content" is politically easy, but doesn't seem to do much to protect anyone; as long as the stuff is being produced, there will be way to obtain it. It would be nice if pedophiles could get effective counseling to minimize their chances of molesting children, but currently it's very hard for pedophiles to get any sort of counseling without being reported to the police. That hardly seems ideal.
Whether it significantly reduces the rates of child sexual abuse is besides the point. If someone thinks it's okay for one child to be abused so another may or may not be abused later, they need to check into the nearest psychiatric ward immediately.
We are human beings, for fucks sake. We should be holding ourselves to a higher standard than that.
Someone should make a site to permanently enshrine all the bugfuck insanity these people are trying to use to defend the indefensible.
Note that /r/lolicon is one of the banned subreddits.
Kind like what happens with industrial production, natural resources and democracy, then?
But there are definite flaws in the plan, especially when it comes to the rights of the victims.
The striking rise in reported child sex abuse depicted for the last half decade of the 1990s, according to notations and records in the Year Book of Ministry of Internal Affairs, do not apparently relate to the same types of child sex abuse recorded previously or afterward. They are believed to more closely reflect a concerted effort by the government to deal with a rise in child prostitution and the influx of foreign pimps, their prostitutes, and clients following the introduction of capitalism. This phenomenon seemed to be caused by the new economic situation and the society’s attempt to cope. Once the child prostitution surge was dealt with, the downward trend in overall reports of child sex abuse continued.
Fig 1 of the report shows a continual decline, then shortly after the liberalisation there is a 60-70% increase in child sexual abuse and massive rise in rape ...
I don't find that report's hypotheses well supported by the Czech Republic study. Will be interesting now they've de-liberalised to see how things pan out.
Reddit's got a lot of content that might be illegal, that few people would be sad to see gone, and that the community as a whole would be a better class of people without.
 Is this CP if it's submitted to reddit? http://www.teenvogue.com/style/market/feature/2011/05/tribal...
Not sure I agree there. A forum (non-tech, it's actually a model-specific motorcycle forum) that I'm involved in has explicit rules against discussion of "politics, firearms, and police", not because it's illegal, but because there's such a strong track record of well intentioned discussions of those topics degenerating into arguments and fights that are _clearly_ not worth whatever "benefit" the free and open discussion of those topics on a motorcycle forum might have.
Whether or not you agree that grey-area images of children are technically legal, the owners/admins of Reddit clearly have the right to say "legal or not, we choose not to host those images/discussions here." You wouldn't expect a church or McDonalds to feel happy with you arranging a group of friends to meet there and swap bikini model photos - even if they're completely legal images, they're inappropriate for someone else's venue and they've got every right to say "not here, please". (and have you moved along if you persist).
I think fears of "slippery slopes" here are unfounded.
Using your example: What about a follower of the religion that symbol was stolen from? Or a hard core gamer with image of a dieing SS member from Wallenstein.
As to Reddit, stock footage of Wimbledon can be less the wholesome content for people with a certain mindset. Let alone Posters from any number of bands etc. Personally, I would suggest playing it extremely safe, but at some point you need to find an arbitrary line based not one what's bad but something that says 'this' is OK. Or there is a steady march to ban an ever wider swath of content. How could she be so shameful as to show her wrists in public.
That would actually be alarming if it were a government we were talking about here. Who cares if some privately owned web site starts "censoring" (a ridiculous bastardization of what that word is actually intended to convey, btw) its users? Surf somewhere else.
PS: There are literally people that will be offended from pictures of female wrists, others get offended if your not willing to show such things. So at some point you need to say _ people will be offended and that's OK.
It doesn't have to be balanced or even consistent, if people think reddit is getting to oppressive they can start using (or create) a different site. I don't see them loosing many users over this, at least not the kind of users you want to have.
Unless you're satisfied that the occasional "false positive" is an acceptable side effect. Sure, a "no swastika tattoos in my house" rule _might_ mean I (or the OP) end up not becoming friends with an edge-case - and that might be sad, but if the flipside is having to go to a lot of extra effort to find some more specific way of screening the neo-nazis who outnumber the edge-cases 1000:1, maybe that's a choice I'd reluctantly make.
Sorry strange-religion-guy and artisticly-dubious-gamer-dude - you might just end up "collateral damage" in my fight to simplify my life.
(But I also fail because of the "not every neo-nazi has a swastika tattoo either" thing...)
 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
Unfortunately, as the Reddit post describes, dealing with case-by-case analysis of pornographic material posted to reddit was simply consuming too much time and attention from the admins. They could either scale up their staff for dealing with grey-area cases, at the expense of other activities they might undertake to improve the site, or they could simply no longer permit grey-area material outside a certain boundary to be posted on the site. They chose to do the latter.
Also keep in mind that there are no safe harbor provisions for CP as there are with copyright infringement. It makes no sense to flirt with illegality regarding CP, since one photo judged to be illegal kills Reddit.
Also: Are you really outraged by that? What is wrong with you?
† I make exceptions for critical communication infrastructure that is owned by a single or a small number of private organizations. Reddit is not that. Not by a long shot.
Not all elimination of speech is censorship, only if they target content that is consider "objectionable" or "inconvenient". Other reasons for eliminating speech (like not reporting the news that they were supposed to report) are not censorship.
If an editor eliminates content from an opinion piece simply because they consider it "objectionable", then it's censorship.
Are you really outraged by that?
Outraged? No. Who says I am? I do find it sad that Reddit isn't a place of free speech (as in, everything-except-illegality), but considering the subjectiveness of the Dost test, I can't say I blame them.
What is wrong with you?
CP is illegal...
Can you explain what you mean by "predatory"? I understand that it gives you the heeby jeebies. But what predation is taking place?
a : an animal taken by a predator as food
b : one that is helpless or unable to resist attack : victim <was prey to his own appetites>
Here's what is interesting about this: in the last year, 3 other people from my area at work (about 10 people) have also been called to jury duty--and ALL of them were child sex cases. Two were also "first degree rape of a child under 12", and one just recalled that it was child molestation.
Two things astounded me about this.
1. That there were so many child rape and molestation cases. I had never though of this area as some kind of hotbed of child sex (Western Washington, across Puget Sound from Seattle), but it seems kind of high to have all 4 people called to jury duty in my office in the last year be called for this kind of case.
2. There was nothing in the news. The defendant in the case I was on had an unusual name. I googled for it, and the only things that show up about him are things like his entry in the county jail booking records:
and his upcoming court dates on the county court calendar. Not a single newspaper story of his arrest, or his conviction, or of his earlier trial that ended in a hung jury.
If a 40+ year old man raping a 6 year old girl is not newsworthy, that leaves me wondering what other horrible crimes go on around me that do not make the news.
I bet if you took a survey, people would think the opposite is true.
While all child molestation is vile, it's more vile for it to be committed by a supposed loved one (at least in my eyes)
So "Joe Bloggs was convicted of molesting his niece" would not be able to be reported, since it could identify the victim.
And "A man was convicted of molesting his niece" isn't really news - if it's all anonymous, then it probably needs to be a trend story. And thankfully the trend seems to be downwards, though I suspect there's still a tragic amount of unreported crimes of this nature.
TLDR: The market standard of waxed in phonograph movies , confuses the evolutionary trigger that protect adults having desires for females that are not sexually mature.
As the post said, we follow NCMEC reporting procedures.
However, addressing this type of content was taking up
more and more of our limited time. Also, none of us
were particularly keen on analyzing this content and
trying to determine what was and was not illegal.
Whenever flair-ups like the preteen mess occur, it adds
a tonne of stress upon us. We've been pouring over
these decisions all weekend. It became clear that
unless we addressed this content with a new rule, we
were going to continue to drown in the minutia of what
is child pornography, and what is not.
Most of them seemed to be girls photographed at home, probably by family members. I suspect they were shared on the net with relatives, by people who did not know they were making them publicly available. There were also quite a few that seemed to be girls photographed in public who were not aware they were being photographed.
On the other hand it might be more a personal thing against Reddit for freeriding/pretending ownership of ideas with might have originated in other places.
Of course, the nice thing about the internet is that we can route around these issues. The fact that the software powering Reddit is open source only makes it easer.
There's a significant difference between protected speech and illegal material. Reddit (finally) cracked down on illegal material. Let's talk when they crack down on legal speech.
This sets a dangerous precedent - that anyone who wants to get any sort of material banned from Reddit just needs to whip up SA (or an internet forum of similar influence) into a frenzy. My concerns are largely orthogonal to the fact that the particular type of content against which SA launched a campaign today was child pornography.
Reddit finally banned illegal child pornography because they were afraid of the media shitstorm that would arise from not cracking down on child pornography the first time they knew about it.
If SA "gets whipped up" about any other type of content that isn't illegal, what's the harm?
Reddit admins were afraid for a good reason - any more attention to the fact that they knew about child pornography and did nothing would be a big problem.
No, they knew about it months ago, when they banned /r/jailbait in response to AC360 coverage. But that's all they did, despite being aware of the presence of numerous other subreddits offering similar fare.
> If SA "gets whipped up" about any other type of content that isn't illegal, what's the harm?
The harm is that the Reddit admins banning this sort of material had nothing to do with the fact that it was illegal (they already knew that a long time ago, as I stated above). The sole reason seems to be that SA had launched a campaign against it. So if SA launches a similar campaign against something else that isn't illegal, one can logically conclude that the Reddit admins would once again cave and ban that material as well.
> Reddit admins were afraid for a good reason - any more attention to the fact that they knew about child pornography and did nothing would be a big problem.
And here we get to the fundamental problem. As I stated in my initial post, this was a response to a potential PR shitstorm. It had nothing to do with purported illegality of the material, or it would've been banned a long time ago.
Your premise is nonsensical. The PR shitstorm was brewing because reddit continued to provide a safe haven for pedophiles to exchange child pornography after CNN called them out on it. What the fuck else is reddit doing right now that could lead to such a shitstorm? Assassinations? Human trafficking?
Considering the subjectiveness of the legal rules, I find that impossible to know unless each pictures was considered by a court.
In any case, if most of r/jailbait was illegal, I don't see why Vanity Fair isn't, considering the 15-year-old Miley Cyrus photoshoot, or Wikipedia considering the album cover of Virgin Killer.
the subreddit itself was illegal.
How so? What law did it break?
Then this entire argument is moot, is it not? If you require a court to verify each photograph, you do not belong in this discussion.
>In any case, if most of r/jailbait was illegal, I don't see why Vanity Fair isn't, considering the 15-year-old Miley Cyrus photoshoot, or Wikipedia considering the album cover of Virgin Killer.
Do you really not see the difference between a Vanity Fair photo shoot and an album's cover art to photos taken and collected of underage children for the sexual gratification of others?
>How so? What law did it break?
Its moderators distributed and promoted child pornography.
Ok, then first: did you look at all pictures in r/jailbait, r/teen_girls, etc? If not, how can you say they were all illegal?
Second: under what capacity are you empowered to decide who belongs to this discussion?
What, do you really think the photoshoot of a naked Miley Cyrus (covered, but still naked) was not intended to arouse men? Ha.
Now compare that with r/jailbait, where all photos were clothed and many (most?) were self-shots.
Its moderators distributed and promoted child pornography.
So they broke the law, not the subreddits. Having a forum called "jailbait" or "teen girls" is not illegal by itself.
I said the majority of them were illegal.
>What, do you really think the photoshoot of a naked Miley Cyrus (covered, but still naked) was not* intended to arouse men? Ha.*
You can continue your conjecturing, but according to [the photographer and Cyrus], it was artistic.
>Now compare that with r/jailbait, where all photos were clothed and many (most?) were self-shots.
Oh, you mean all of those photos taken from their Facebook pages and Photobucket accounts without their permission? The photos meant only for themselves or their friends, spread across the Internet? Totally better than Miley Cyrus taking a single artistic photograph for Vanity Fair.
>So they broke the law, not the subreddits. Having a forum called "jailbait" or "teen girls" is not illegal by itself.
I never said it was.
Have you looked at the majority of pictures in r/jailbait, r/teen_girls, etc? If not, how can you say they were illegal?
The fact is, to determine whether they are CP or not, you have to make subjective considerations, since the objective criteria of the test (the focal point of the visual depiction and whether the subject is naked) were not fulfilled by most images there.
So the question is, how can you claim "the majority of them were illegal" when it's impossible to objectively determine that?
And I'm sure plenty of r/teen_girls posters would tell you they're posting the images for their artistic value.
That's a completely different issue, don't muddle the discussion. We were discussing what is child pornography and the legality, not the privacy implications.
I saw enough to make the judgement the majority of it was illegal. They had no intention of posting legal content.
>So the question is, how can you claim "the majority of them were illegal" when it's impossible to objectively determine that?
Okay then, if I were to claim, "The ones I saw were illegal." How would that change anything? There was still blatantly illegal content actively posted to and promoted on a forum.
If your goal was to win an argument of semantics, you should rethink your strategy.
>And I'm sure plenty of r/teen_girls posters would tell you they're posting the images for their artistic value.
No, most of them admitted to wanting sexual gratification out of the images. You must not have visited the subreddit. This wasn't some grey area.
>That's a completely different issue, don't muddle the discussion.
You were the one to first compare them. You should take your own advice. ;)
Again, why were those illegal and not the examples I gave? "Artistic value" is not a criteria of the Dost test. Why they were posted isn't either.
If those subreddits were illegal, then so are: many magazines, Wikipedia, Facebook (where a lot of them come), Google (try a search for 'jailbait' images), a huge number of movies, various TV shows and more.
But (IMO) you still haven't managed to tell me why are those illegal and not the examples I gave. The only reason you gave (artistic value) is irrelevant to their legality, according to the test.
I very much doubt you could tell what most of 11600+ people said.
But in any case, if I derive sexual gratification from your posts, do they become obscene? The reason they are posted is irrelevant to determine their legality.
You were the one to first compare them. You should take your own advice. ;)
That's disingenuous. I brought them as examples which are relevant to the point being discussed - whether the images are illegal or not.
Probably because the photograph wasn't meant to elicit a sexual response, nor were her genitals the focal point of the photograph.
>If those subreddits were illegal, then so are: many magazines, Wikipedia, Facebook (where a lot of them come), Google (try a search for 'jailbait' images), a huge number of movies, various TV shows and more.
Erm, no. No they're not.
>The only reason you gave (artistic value) is irrelevant to their legality, according to the test.
From the Dost test article:
>>Not all of the criteria need to be met, nor are other criteria necessarily excluded in this test.
>I very much doubt you could tell what most of 11600+ people said.
I could tell the general attitude of the subreddit from the majority of the comments posted. This isn't hard. When you go into /r/trees, you understand they are pro-marijuana. Maybe not all 100% subscribers feel that way, but that doesn't matter. So saying "Well you can't know what all the subscribers think!" is completely meaningless.
>But in any case, if I derive sexual gratification from your posts, do they become obscene?
>I brought them as examples which are relevant to the point being discussed - whether the images are illegal or not.
And taking photos from a child's account and posting them all over the Internet are illegal.
I never said it was.
Could you reconcile these two statements?
Also, if you believe that the stolen facebook/photobucket photos are illegal, should facebook/photobucket be held liable for hosting it?
>Also, if you believe that the stolen facebook/photobucket photos are illegal, should facebook/photobucket be held liable for hosting it?
Are you reading any of my replies? Or do you already have your answer formulated in your head before I type anything?
Right, so how many of them have you looked at to make that judgement?
And perhaps more importantly, isn't it slightly problematic (or at least odd) when a large number of people are justifying the ban by calling this material illegal... and to be able to argue that they must, surely, have committed the crime of viewing child pornography online themselves? (Keeping in mind that, when it comes to child pornography laws, viewing is very much a crime - it's not like witnessing a murder.)
Enough to determine there was no intent to post legal content.
>And perhaps more importantly, isn't it slightly problematic (or at least odd) when a large number of people are justifying the ban by calling this material illegal... and to be able to argue that they must, surely, have committed the crime of viewing child pornography online themselves?
A large number of people are saying this material wasn't illegal. They must surely have viewed it themselves, as well. Where does that get us?
EDIT: Unless I am mistaken?
I always assumed those Reddit groups were serving as honeypots to nab child pornographers once enough information could be gathered. I'd be really surprised if Reddit didn't have an information sharing deal worked out with the Feds like 4chan did a while back, considering the high visibility of certain groups like r/jailbait and the like.
My only thinking on the reason for this was that the bad publicity generated by the SA campaign was too much for the site. Once CNN picks up the story that your site is hosting child pornography, its probably best to reevaluate.
Today the reddit staff censored some unpopular content purely because it was unpopular and made them look bad.
It's not that simple - look at all the responses in this thread. You've got plenty people here claiming that all of the content in all of those sub-reddits was clearly illegal, some people arguing that it was half and half, some arguing that it's all legit.
I don't even know what was in the sub-reddits, but I can tell you for sure that if there's this much disagreement over whether most of it is legal or not, that's a nasty legal minefield that I certainly would not want to make decisions about, especially given that I'd be risking both my company and my own freedom if I happened to make a mistake and let something prosecutable through. Not to mention that I'm sure there was a lot of work involved in deciding these things on a case-by-case basis.
Personally, I'd be much more comfortable with the situation if Reddit had decided early on to place a blanket ban on these types of sub-reddits under this justification, rather than waiting until the PR shitstorm started up, but even if it is just a face-saving move at this point, I think the logic is pretty sound. I think other user-submitted content sites would probably be wise to adopt this sort of policy, even if Reddit screwed up and was too lenient at the start.
Rather than dally with opinions, let's stick to facts: The authorities will shut down sites with illegal activities and the authorities are aware of these subreddits. The authorities did not intervene.
Regarding your comfort with blanket bans, you may want to read this other article recently posted to HN which offers a much more insightful analysis: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3585997
Something Awful/SRS launched the campaign, because all efforts to curb these images had failed, so they took it upon themselves - as a last frustrated resort - to bring people's attention to this.
> What about the freedom of the children in the
> pornographic images? That important to you?
Interestingly enough, though, by outright banning suggestive images of minors, you are limiting "the freedom of the children," their freedom of expression. It's for the greater good, of course. ;)
The concept of censorship and impediment of free speech on a privately held site whose owners are free to do as they please without curbing the constitutional fifth-amendment right of their users is also to blow this completely out of proportions and miss the point entirely.
EDIT: alienth confirms my presumption in the first paragraph: http://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/pmk22/admins...
Is it really so hard to believe that some people honestly think that Reddit should have no Subreddits explicitly catering to pedophiles?
Yes, I’m for Reddit taking away the freedom of pedophiles to share photos on Reddit, even if those photos happen to be legal more often than not. Is that really such an outrageous position? Why should Reddit allow everything? I don’t understand the premise. I think there is nothing wrong with asking a medium to have reasonable policies.
Reddit did the right thing. Finally. It took ’em long enough. It’s quite sad that it took a coordinated attack to show the admins what’s obvious.
Yes, I'm for Reddit taking away the freedom of hackers to share code on Reddit, even if that code happen to be legal more often than not. Is that really such an outrageous position?
Yes, I'm for Reddit taking away the freedom of religious people to share their religious ideas, even if those religious ideas happen to be legal (and not constitute a hate-crime) more often than not.
Yes, I'm for Reddit taking away the freedom of <insert minority interest group here> to share <material>, even if that <material> happens to be legal.
In the past, when I was against /r/picsofdeadkids - my comments were voted down with arguments of "I may not agree with what you say, but ill defend your right to say it"
I know it is a slippery slope, censorship, but I don't feel that standards == censorship. These people would be free to start whatever site/forum they like - but to argue that the platform that reddit provides should be wholly open to ANYTHING without standards is just plain stupid.
I am very pleased with such a direction. Again, if you're the sick POS that needs extremely fringe content - then go host it yourself.
Don't play victim that a public forum is actually telling you there is something WRONG with your interests - maybe its a freaking SIGN that people are offended by what you think normal.
It's a viable point on a website like reddit, which built its community on a no-censorship basis. They're free to do with their business as they like, but I'm free to feel betrayed when they do.
No, I feel betrayed when reddit, a community that grew because it did not limit expression that was within the law, bans "suggestive or sexual content featuring minors", which is way, way broader than child porn - an umbrella so broad that it even covers news stories about sexual abuse.
>but I'd be willing to bet everything that you have a facebook account which sells you, your likeness and your personal data and you couldn't give a shit when they alter their privacy policies.
I do have a facebook account, and the fact that I do give a shit about its privacy policies is why I basically use it when there's no other way to get in touch with someone. This is, of course, utterly irrelevant. Why are you even bringing it up?
While we have RES - we really need a meta-reddit at this point that will only show quality content.
I think of HN's post rules as == to /r/AskScience where they have strict standards.
I am a mod on a rather popular /r/ and while I am liberal in what I allow in that /r/ -- I apply standards though I am very lucky thus far that it is not abused.
Hands-on moderation is a must, but I also think there's plenty of interesting possibilities for self-moderation that go beyond simple, equally weighted up/down votes that only serve to encourage low effort content and the regurgitation of memes.
It's good to see that smut like Romeo and Juliet is no longer welcome on reddit.
>It's occurred to me that r/jailbait is significantly tamer than the video for Britney Spears's "Baby One More Time".
Except that the actors in that video agreed to be recorded and broadcast, and were (presumably, I haven't got any citations) over the age of majority.
The pictures in /r/jailbait are, overwhelmingly, of people under the age of consent, and are being viewed and distributed without the consent or knowledge of the people in them.
While the content may be "tamer", those pictures are still being viewed for sexual gratification.
"The pictures in /r/jailbait are, overwhelmingly, of people under the age of consent"
=> How can you tell? Which law applies? The reddit link (heh.. the one submitted on top) discusses vastly different laws in different countries. If it's legal to take nude (I understand the pictures weren't, but let me make this point) picture of yourself with 15 or 16 according to local laws and you post it to the internet, is it 'child pornography'?
"and are being viewed and distributed without the consent or knowledge of the people in them."
=> How is that determined? You might very well be correct, but is that really a fact or a possibility?
"While the content may be "tamer", those pictures are still being viewed for sexual gratification."
=> What does that even change? Pictures in the wild are used in all kinds of ways. Maybe you end up being a poster in a 16 year old girls room. Or as a backing of a dart board. Or someone gets 'sexual gratification' from your G+ or Facebook pictures. That doesn't change the pictures in the slightest. It's a reception on the other side. You cannot possible predict that, have no say in it.
The interesting part is that it's not always clear to me why this exploitation is done, i.e. why dress the girl in the Mystery Island movie so provocatively (target age is probably around 10) or why Vanity Fair, whose target is not teenage boys, had those photos taken, etc.
The really worrying thought is that the sexual gratification explains only part of it, the rest is the worship of the youthful energy/sexuality of teenage girls by not only men and by everyone.
My cynical guess is that there is significant money to be made in pushing girls towards early sexualization. The idea is to get them worrying about sexuality, and all of the things they think they need to do in order to be considered sexually attractive. This would include things like hair products, lipstick, and clothing. By creating this association between the mere ideas of "sexy" and "what everyone's already doing," they can instill a deep sense of status anxiety at an early age. This anxiety is not only easy to create (as the age group is highly hormonal), it feeds off of existing social hierarchies that are emerging. And, I believe, the advertiser hopes it is the beginning of a lifelong addiction to buying things in order to feel worthwhile.
I hope you don't take this to be hyperbole; I'm actually surprised it came out as dark as it did. But, now that I think of it, it is violence against the soul, and thus, evil.
etc etc etc. It's a slippery slope.
Additionally, /r/trees isn't generating hundreds of flagged threads for review by the admins (who are then forced to spend man hours browsing pictures of under-aged girls).
Is it Adolph's Mein Komp?
Is it Mohammad's Koran?
Is it some words form a Journalist praying to some god other than Allah?
Please enlighten everyone on what illegal content is..
US Law is based on possession..
Possessing may be a bit murkier but only in the edge cases where the pictures were put there without the persons knowledge.
Reddit finally got shamed into taking the ultimately correct stance. Anything that vaguely smells of child porn is no longer allowed. There's no slippery slope here.
> Beyond these clear cut cases, there is a huge area of legally grey content, and our previous policy to deal with it on a case by case basis has become unsustainable. We have changed our policy because interpreting the vague and debated legal guidelines on a case by case basis has become a massive distraction and risks reddit being pulled in to legal quagmire.
While we're at it, Neil Gaiman points out examples of several of those gray areas:
As far as I can tell, Neil Gaiman is a really talented writer. There's nothing in his background that indicates expertise in law. Beyond that, upon reading his post, he is clearly talking about government censorship in the context of literature and graphic novels depicting sex involving minors, not the distribution of actual pornography. At one point he even concedes that he has not even looked at the site in question and cannot make a judgement on it's contents.
Really, if you're going to post a link as support for your argument, read it first and make sure it supports your argument.
"Anything that vaguely smells of child porn is no longer allowed."
Do you see that "anything that vaguely smells of X" is the very definition of a grey area? For example, is this a problem? http://www.reddit.com/r/toddlersandtiaras
The reddit announcement was very clear: They have always banned child pornography. They even linked to the guidelines they use to do so: http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?P...
What happened today was not reddit banning child pornograpy -- it was reddit banning non-child-porn content which was overwhelmingly unpopular.
The first is a statement of fact about the state of what constitutes child porn. Look up the statutes yourself. The link to the relevant wiki has been peppered throughout this thread.
The second is a statement on the policy reddit has introduced.
Reddit has not always banned legally defined child pornography. They've banned obvious child pornography. The kind with naked kids and actual sex. Their refusal to remove other images that, at best passed the test in the same way a D- is not a failing grade, has far more to do with their ignorance of what the law actually says and no one holding them accountable for a long time.
As far as the non-child-porn content, I'm in no way upset by these particular degenerates no longer having that avenue of access to their fap material.
The banning of today's subreddits didn't bother me very much.
The proliferation of comments like these, on the other hand, have. "Degenerates" is a favourite word of, well, just about every bigot out there. It also bothers me that we've made lepers out of pedophiles, and makes me wonder if we've done more harm than good in the long run.
I'm against child porn and child exploitation, I am however adamantly against the marginalization and dehumanization of pedophiles.
> " Look up the statutes yourself."
The defining line is the Dost test, which is far from concrete. If I educated 100 randomly selected people in the US on the Dost test, and then gave them each 100 images to classify, sourced from the abovementioned subreddits, what sort of agreement do you think we'd get? Would it even come close to a consensus?
Something that is codified doesn't mean it's not in a legal grey area.
As a photography enthusiast this issue has come up more than once. You may or may not know this - but there are groups on Flickr that cater to just about every fetish and kink out there, and group moderations can "invite" an image to be added to the group's galleries. Yes, some of these involve children.
I've gotten requests in the past for perfectly innocent (in my mind) images to be added to these groups. A woman sitting casually wearing hosiery is suddenly fap material to a whole boatload of people. A child playing in the park is suddenly wildly arousing for someone else. I don't think it's at all a stretch to say that child porn, like any other fetish, is more in the eye of the beholder than anything else.
There are also substantial slippery slope concerns. It bothers me that so many have chosen to sweep these under the rug because the word "slipper slope fallacy" exists, and saying it will somehow make these concerns null and void.
After all, we are seeing calls to shut down (IMO equally reprehensible) subreddits like /r/deadbabies and /r/beatingwomen - of course, sheer legality won't help us here, as these are legally even more poorly defined than child porn. There are also complaints that /r/gayteens (not sure if I have the name correct) got shut down despite holding themselves to a strict 18+ moderation... the responses to which simply derided people for being attracted to teenaged gays.
In any case, this is anything but a clear-cut issue.
Your statements here seem to come from a place of rage and hate moreso than rational analysis, so let's not continue this.
Apparently they just changed the policy. I pray they do not alter it any further.
I also don't think, if it were true, that that would call for a new, sweeping policy. The rule merely needs to be "nothing illegal", and then that rule needs to be enforced. "Suggestive content featuring minors" is just insanely broad.
As I touched on in another comment, I doubt a father posting an album of his vacation to /r/pics that happens to have his 12 and 16 year old daughters in swimsuits in it would be against this rule. However, someone posting an album filled with candid photographs of minors in swimwear at the beach would probably be removed, even if the person who posted it would not be prosecuted under US law.
If you feel that course of action is against this person's right, for whatever reason, that's fine. But please, do not think this is some slippery slope to a prude reddit. Just because the admins are removing what is— at very best— child erotica doesn't mean they're bending to the will of some overbearing "Please, think of the children!" mentality. The stuff removed was truly perverse and unsettling and brought nothing of value to the community.
If you wish to discuss this further, there exists [a subreddit] created by some of the very people who first initiated the removal of these subreddits that is open to discussion. You can find a handful of informative threads in there (and the sister subreddits) as to why [this wasn't some raid by Something Awful] and how some of the content posted [truly was child pornography]. You might have to wade through some heavy circlejerking, but if you're interested in why those subreddits were actually removed, that's a good place to start.
That was probably more than was necessary, but I'd like to use this as sort of a final comment on the subject. I'm so tired of arguing with people who feel the need to defend a person's right to post at best stolen pictures of underage children and at worst legitimate child pornography on the grounds that "maybe some of the content wasn't totally illegal!". Not saying that is you.
This is a new rule. There is no "how it's been enforced".
And quite a lot that was, at the very best, ambiguous.
The admins must have been aware that the exact same crap was happening in copycat subreddits all over Reddit soon after Jailbait was shut down. Why was another campaign necessary in the first place?
I don’t think the Reddit admins can take the moral high ground here. They will only do the right thing when you threaten them with bad PR.
(I’m guessing they reacted so fast this time because they know that those kinds of things can escalate quickly and national press attention is not nice to have.)
Speaking as an interested outside observer, my opinion is that the personal connections between a few of these subreddit owners and reddit's admins were a stumbling block. Business and PR is now overwhelming those friendships.
It seems like the potential PR/legal fallout has now outweighed any philosophical musings.
Yeah, right. Some goon posted CP on Reddit, causing outrage among some Reddit users but also flaming (and highly upvoted) defenses of said CP – presumably all by goons.
There were numerous jailbait subreddits for years. This is no conspiracy. That doesn’t even pass the sniff test.
Of course, for that hypothesis to work, it would have to be the only relevant subreddit in existence. In reality, almost every conceivable permutation of the turn "jailbait" had a subreddit that trafficked in the same kind of material.
What I don't understand is how a "Jailbait" thread/subreddit could really be considered "legal" since the term "Jailbait" refers to people who look like they're at the age of consent but aren't. And thus will land anyone who has...intercourse; with them in jail. So the illegality is implied in the title.
edit: see comments below, I was wrong. No idea how reddit has not been shut down then...
The EFF has a really good primer on this that I saw linked on more than one occasion today:
"Nudity is not enough for a finding that an image is lascivious, but clothing does not mean a photo is in the clear: 'a photograph of a naked girl might not be lascivious (depending on the balance of the remaining Dost factors), but a photograph of a girl in a highly sexual pose dressed in hose, garters, and a bra would certainly be found to be lascivious.'"
Ive seen the sub-reddits in question. Most were fairly "meh", by which I mean nothing that would ever get you in court. But beneath the surface there was active trading of real CP and this, I think, was what caught SA's attention.
Please don't normalize child pornography by saying "you've got the bad stuff and then there's this..." TBH, that's part of the problem.
Perhaps it might not be prosecuted, but it's illegal nevertheless.
You're thinking in black/white terms; unfortunately it is not so simple.
Images are either child pornography or not. Lots of images are up for interpretation by the Dost test & other case law surrounding the issue, but at the end of the day, we're talking about a binary here. If someone is willing to risk hosting or viewing images that are up for interpretation, it's their own ass on the line -- but many people consistently underestimate exactly what child pornography is.
But my main issue here is that your speech normalizes child pornography. By trying to frame the issue as "gut-wrenching abuse images of young children" versus "grey area stuff", possession of the "grey area stuff" seems less bad. But that's wrong. Both categories of images represent the victimization of children, and both can land you in prison.
In that case I absolutely do prefer to frame the situations differently. On the one hand we have a someone who's tastes directly drive gangs to abuse more children. On the other hand we have someone who is contributing to the violation of childrens privacy (through sites that distribute these images).
At no point am I suggesting these crimes should be treated differently, just that we should consider the differences.
Both are forms of victimisation; however in the latter case the victimisation takes place after the photo is taken (when it finds its way on line) rather than at the time (when the child is being abused).
The problem here is not how I describe these. It is with a society that sees the word "Child Porn" and goes off half cock, but sees "Invasion of privacy" and "Emotional Trauma" and shrugs.
Just to be clear; I work within the field of forensics, which means that, yes, I do investigate such cases - and I am exposed to the legal structure and opinion related to these crimes. If you read over my comments carefully at no point do I try to dismiss the severity of the issue - I just gave some very brief feedback from my experience.
What I was noting, legally speaking, is that many images are in a grey area where they are not explicitly abusing a child (although they are abusive in being traded around online). If all you have in your possession are such images you will not likely see the inside of the court room.
Speaking personally I don't entirely agree with this state of affairs (perhaps I should have made that clear in the first posts :)).
EDIT: I should explain that this state of affairs has come to evolve because of how juries tend to react to CP prosecutions. If the case involves images of children being abused sexually then the defendant is seen as reprehensible/evil. On the other hand, if all you have is a collection of - individually innocuous - pictures of kids the defendant tends to be seen as having more of a mental issue, and elicits sympathy - "he didn't actually hurt anyone". The jury, obviously, fails to see the secondary abuse in distributing the image.
I don't think you can prosecute someone for being attracted to children, that would be thought crime and is a slippery slope. But clearly, participating in sites that distribute those images are is reprehensible abuse of another sort - and that is what they need to be punished for.
I'm going to grab my soapbox and expand where I'm coming from regarding the normalization of child pornography. By allowing a de facto distinction to exist between hardcore abusive pornography and other forms, we are essentially saying that some types of child pornography are okay. This primes individuals to regard possession as acceptable; this is why reddit's inaction until now was so reprehensible.
I understand that the legal system is unlikely to investigate cases of child pornography that don't consist of egregious child abuse. That's fair. The legal system has a limited amount of time & money. But the moment we allow people to mistake this inaction for tolerance is the moment everything starts to go wrong.
But again - it looks like we're on the same page, and I definitely appreciate the inside view you bring.
Everything thats illegal isn't necessarily immoral; and everything thats legal isn't exactly moral either. The sexualization of children is immoral, legal or not.
That's the assumption, but not every expert agrees: http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hun...
Note this hasn't been true for many years.
They do have an extremely parochial attitude towards other general interest forums, and their dislike of Reddit is in the same vein as making fun of Fark/Ebaumworld/etc. The jailbait thing is just the one point they have broader PR traction on.
Freaks out about anti-childporn laws
Bans pics of 18+ teenagers in bathing suits