Why the fuck anyone would log in to argue that possession of child porn is some kind of grey area that’s up for debate is beyond me but you’re certainly not alone in this thread that’s for sure.
> Why the fuck anyone would log in to argue that possession of child porn is some kind of grey area that’s up for debate is beyond me but you’re certainly not alone in this thread that’s for sure.
1. Some people think free speech is a pretty good idea. And it doesn't really mean much if you only defend speech that you agree with.
2. There's pretty widespread agreement that drug crimes are inhumane and should be replaced with treatment. So-called "victimless crimes". IMO, AI CP has the exact same characteristics, but it's even less damaging to society - there's no chance that someone will get into a car crash because they're "using".
3. Convictions here absolutely destroy lives. The consequence of being convicted for possession of CP is not just jail (where people absolutely do get attacked by other inmates, often times fatally), but also registry on the sexual offender list.
Do people who indirectly hurt children deserve this fate - I guess, it's complicated. It does seem out of proportion to the punishments handed out to people who kill others with cars, for example. But I can certainly get on board with some sort of criminal consequences.
But if the "offender" doesn't hurt anyone, even indirectly, that does seem like an absolute nuclear warhead of a punishment for something that most people would struggle to explain why it's a crime at all other than "it's gross".
> Some people think free speech is a pretty good idea. And it doesn't really mean much if you only defend speech that you agree with.
I hate this argument when applied like this. There is no universe whatsoever where images of this nature constitute speech. Even when taken as the abstract principle and not the law. The images don't convey any message or idea. There's nothing to agree or disagree with. Free speech doesn't protect mouth sounds or information transfer in abstract, it protects expressions of opinion and ideas. Now, if you went to a protest for legalization and made a sign with the images or made a display at an art gallery then you have a case that it's part of your free expression.
There is an argument for making free speech protections overbroad purposefully because we don't think government can be trusted to evaluate the nuance in good faith but this isn't one of those "well it's arguable as to whether it constitutes speech."
Not being speech doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed, just that the reason it's allowed isn't free speech.
As odious as the content is, curtailing it gets into a mess of legal grounds which the parent comment tried to explain why they believe so.
I understand getting riled up because of the content's nature but you haven't improved the conversation by debating on what specific legal grounds this type of speech in the US should be curtailed by. There's no direct harm to a victim, if a film maker includes a scene of a CGI baby being raped (for whatever reason they do it, be it for shock value, storytelling, whatever) should that also lead to a prosecution? That's the point where finding a valid legal ground enters, just defining it by "I don't like it" is not a valid legal reason.
I'm not American nor a free speech absolutist, much much less trying to defend people looking at CP, but you do need strong arguments on what basis to make laws against this.
It used to be about protecting the children. Now it's about thought crime. Once the link to protecting children is severed, the category of thought crime is free to expand without limit. Where does it end?
