http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
please.
>Do you understand what "exploit" means? They're exploiting either the naivety of the children taking these photos, or the naivety of the people who posted them to the internet.
I'm not sure what kind of pictures are we talking about here. Child pornography or teenagers in underwear posing to a mirror? If the first, then it is the act of taking the photos that is exploitative. Whatever happens afterward is only immoral because it incentivises more production.
>The damage isn't finished being done after the photo has been taken. The damage happens in the way that these photos are then used. Imagine doing something foolish in school and then being teased for it.
I don't find anything wrong with a teenage girl being teased about a photo she posted to the internet. Teased, not bullied - but bullying is wrong whatever the cause, so we do not need new rules for this. No real damage done, and the embarrassment might teach her to be more careful on the internet (same with boys, of course - but there is less social pressure on them, so not as much teasing I would guess).
>The fact that there are people who think that this should be protected ("this" being: the exploitation and sexualization of children) is a embarrassing to anybody [read: most people] who believes in free speech.
If sexualization of children is so wrong, why are all the 'miss 6 year old' shows legal?
Telling how? I believe if you do something stupid then you should be ridiculed for doing it. How is this case something special?
Perhaps we have a different understanding what it means to tease someone. For me it means (and the free dictionary seems to agree) to annoy, make fun of, mock playfully without degrading the person.
How so? If a girl posts a picture of her in her underwear on the internet and she gets ridiculed for it, how is that victim blaming? She did something stupid, she got teased about it, case closed.
What if someone finds a box of photos containing some of your children in their underwear and scan them and trade them around the internet? Not all photos online were intended that way by the person who took them. To assume this is very convenient to your argument but not realistic in the broader view of what is being discussed.
More to the point, you are misunderstanding the stage at which the girl is victimized; when she is ridiculed. You are definitively blaming the victim if you think it's her fault that people other than her traded the photo around for whatever purpose leads to the teasing.
But that is a different case all together. If she didn't publish those photos, okay. Then publishing her photos is definitely reprehensible, ridiculing her is reprehensible, and trading those photos... Is probably wrong, but has no direct consequences on her, so I wouldn't be this quick to judge. The probability that someone who knows her will find the photos on the internet is not very high, is it?
If it makes them kill themselves its definitely not teasing, but heavy bullying. In that case very large portion of the guilt should be on those doing the bullying!
But of course it's easier to blame 'those paedophiles on the internet' than 'my little innocent boy'
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
please.
>Do you understand what "exploit" means? They're exploiting either the naivety of the children taking these photos, or the naivety of the people who posted them to the internet.
I'm not sure what kind of pictures are we talking about here. Child pornography or teenagers in underwear posing to a mirror? If the first, then it is the act of taking the photos that is exploitative. Whatever happens afterward is only immoral because it incentivises more production.
>The damage isn't finished being done after the photo has been taken. The damage happens in the way that these photos are then used. Imagine doing something foolish in school and then being teased for it.
I don't find anything wrong with a teenage girl being teased about a photo she posted to the internet. Teased, not bullied - but bullying is wrong whatever the cause, so we do not need new rules for this. No real damage done, and the embarrassment might teach her to be more careful on the internet (same with boys, of course - but there is less social pressure on them, so not as much teasing I would guess).
>The fact that there are people who think that this should be protected ("this" being: the exploitation and sexualization of children) is a embarrassing to anybody [read: most people] who believes in free speech.
If sexualization of children is so wrong, why are all the 'miss 6 year old' shows legal?