Re: Wishful thinking

Hi Diss

This seems to come from the same place that wants to ensure that we can all access content without any payment - a free-for-all that much of the current generation has come to expect in how they get their music, videos and games. Perhaps this will be the way of the future but the logic seems as faulty as his for legalising child porn.

First of all, my newest friend, allow me to mention that the reason so many people in this generation attempt to get their "intellectual property" for free (and I work in a profession where I deal with this regularly, so I'm in the know) is because many music companies and related industries, like publishing, have attempted to rip off their customers with overpriced material, and attempted to trick them into spending large amounts of extra money by forcing them to buy an entire cruddy album to get one good song they wanted by doing away with the production of CD singles. People used to routinely copy songs off the radio using those old cassette tapes, and modern technology is simply a technical extrapolation of that; as technology gets more advanced, and forcing people to pay money to obtain material that is not actually scarce in any real manner, are going to have to adopt a policy of being reasonable in dealings with their customer base, so as to earn their respect in addition to their admiration from a purely artistic standpoint. That is the only way to convince them to keep spending money under such circumstances; by giving them a fair amount of product without breaking their bank, and by not trying to dupe them into spending far larger amounts of money than should be reasonably expected for additional product which they do not want in order to get what they do want. Blatantly unethical business practices are not always going to be honored by everyone simply because said practices happen to be legal in a system that favors the right of industries to make money over and above almost anything else.

Music and publishing companies who are on the up and up have realized that they can make decent profits and deal on a relatively equitable basis with fan consumers by charging reasonable prices, charging lesser prices for electronic formatted products, and selling one song at a time, or a single short story at a time, to customers who may want only one song or story from a particular artist, and not require them to buy an entire album or anthology just to get one song or story. Artists who sell their own product this way via the emerging electronic medium have proven much more likely to have fans support their work than those who, either on their own or via a company they produce product for, routinely overcharge and practice duplicity on many levels. I hardly think it a tragedy that advancing forms of information technology and the infinite replication of e-property mean that companies now have to treat consumers in a more equitable and ethical manner if they want these people to continue spending money on their products rather than acquiring them by free means. I would imagine you have no problem with these companies ripping people off with their duplicitous practices because as long as it's legal to do so, you see it as somehow more ethical than any practice that is not legal. There is much more to this topic than that, but it's not our main focus. Let's get to your real problem with the arguments in this author's article to legalize CP.

The simple fact is that the technology allows for sharing on a grand scale and our youth make full use of it whether it be legal or illegal. Few did any actual stealing when records were vinyl and were prepared to pay for what they wanted. With the arrival of cassettes and other recording this perhaps dented sales a little but overall people still bought music that they wanted with the occasional sharing of tapes with friends. They didn't do much wholesale copying - apart from the industrious - because it took so long to copy items. These days it is but a click to download and share whatever is available and de-copy-restricted - the morality has just it seems got lost along the way. If any of those who do such illegal file-sharing were also prepared to work for nothing then I might agree. It is simply that the technology has overtaken common sense. I still purchase all my music as I do with most other items but perhaps I am a simple fool.

Perhaps the laws need changing in many countries and some do seem absurd but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the way to advance. He chose a particularly absurd argument with his 'Google glasses' bit - although I tend to agree with one of the comments that these devices will present very many problems when they inevitably arrive. Here in the UK if such a scenario existed and the evidence was given to the police immediately then no charges would result - no jury would ever convict on strict legality here and perhaps other countries just need to get up to speed with some issues.

As the author pointed out, that example is in no way ridiculous if you live in the United States, because as he pointed out, the possession of CP in the U.S.A. is a strict liability crime. That means it's an utterly draconian type of law that results from an attempt to punish anyone for possessing a certain type of information for absolutely any reason, regardless of intent. As he also pointed out, this is what inevitably results, and historically has always resulted, when a single draconian edict is introduced into an ostensibly democratic framework: the draconian laws, and moralizing pretexts for creating more of them, spread like cancer cells throughout a biological life form. This results in the ever-broadening of what is defined as "CP" every single year for the purpose of censoring more and more types of information; the increasing creation of constitutional exceptions for certain forms of speech and expression that merely offend either large amounts of people or those who are in power, but cannot be proven to cause any form of demonstrable, empirically measurable harm; and the sheer absurdity of laws like the criminalizing of cartoon or CGI images depicting underagers engaged in sexual contact, and the proposal of Australian parliament a few years ago to ban all sales or possession of adult pornography featuring legally adult actresses with small breasts (i.e., they might be used by MAPs to simulate sex with underage girls in the imaginations of the individual MAP). That is why the "some draconian laws, but not a lot of them" argument doesn't hold water, because it never ends at "just one."

What happens in the USA doesn't represent what happens elsewhere. We other nations do not always take our leads from the USA as you can see for many other countries. Tough luck but that is no argument for what he is saying - he comes from Sweden I believe? This is becoming a grey area too - the advent of such instant recording and sharing technology - and participation in group actions like gang-rape are troublesome. Where is the line drawn between those who watch and do nothing, those who participate by stopping the victim from escaping, and those who fully participate. Those who chance upon such a scene will hardly be seen as perpetrators by most I think unless they keep and share such pictorial evidence - and rightly so if they do the latter.

Do we actually want a society where people stand by and witness crimes - I know we often do at the moment but what sort of trend do we want? If they are able then they should either try to prevent them, call for aid or ensure any evidence gets to the authorities. All the stuff about classing teenagers as criminals is also true but the laws need tweaking to be sensible not abandoned all together. In my view there is no really effective way that child porn can be made legal without harming those already depicted or in preventing the future abuse and recording of others.

First of all, the sex abuse panic has already gotten to the point where many adults, particularly male adults, have actually avoided helping strange underagers who were in obvious distress out of fear of being accused of being "pedophiles" who were trying to "exploit" the situation for their own gratification. The author wasn't talking about people standing by and witnessing crimes--he was talking about a culture of fear that results in adults, mainly men, who genuinely want to help a young person in distress actually being given pause and feeling forced to weigh the options of offering aid to a young person in need against the possible loss of job, family, and reputation if they get accused of the crime of inadvertently seeing or recording something that it's illegal to even look at or possess images of for any reason in the first place. That is what these laws have wrought, because they in no way challenge, or more than barely acknowledge (if at all), the current power structures in society that are the main source of abuse of all kinds for the great majority of underagers--both children and adolescents.#

He was talking about coming across a crime in progress and because of the recording technology of hence becoming a criminal. Perhaps the USA needs to wake up on this issue but I doubt most other countries would take a similar stand - I very much doubt it in the UK and we have just as onerous CP laws as many other places.

Secondly, your dogmatic insistence that all children ever filmed is usually the result of brutal adults who viciously violated and tortured them on camera, and your insistence that the police never be required to provide proof against these claims that CP is filled to the brim with such material, displays a lot more about moralists like yourself than it does about the alleged industry. The main reason this author's article, or any suggestion of re-legalizing the simple possession of CP (or any other type of sexually offensive imagery), angered you so much is that he explicitly called for evidence-based legislation, not moralism-based legislation, and if many individuals and journalists actually had the opportunity to seek confirmation of the police's frequent claims en masse, you know what is very likely to occur.

Well Diss, few thing anger me these days and this article didn't raise my temperature that much - I have seen much like it before. Now where did I actually say this (undelined)? As I've said before I don't know why the authorities will not show the extent of CP and I don't say that it essentially is all like this only that there is a great deal of it and it should not be confused with marginal stuff.

Yet the very foundation of a political system based upon freedom of speech and expression demands a legal system based on evidence, whereas you are clearly a proponent of a system where any subject that offends you the most is adjudicated on the basis of belief and assumptions. If the possibility of proving said beliefs wrong is provided, you are against it, just like that. These laws have become so draconian, and overreaching, that they are beginning to raise the ire of freedom of speech proponents across the globe who are not MAPs, and the similarity of your arguments to those of rabid Christian fundamentalists, and a reason-based approach rather than an approach based on sheer emotion, is inimical to moralists of all types, be they religion-based or simply issue-based. The author of this article pointed that out, and this obviously bothered you. The continued statement of your unproven dogmatic beliefs about this industry as if they were fact do not make them facts, especially when you stridently oppose the mere suggestion that actual evidence be provided. It's all based on your moralizing belief that children should not be involved in sexual situations, plain and simple.

What I believe is that we are still in an extended period of social change because of the Internet and other devices so I hardly would expect the laws to cater for such changes and they always seem to lag by significant periods. Leave out the religious stuff Diss, if I find I'm on their side at all it is an embarrassment but that would not alter my views if I thought they were correct. I take nothing from religion and anyone who wants to put us all in some imaginary basket just deserves contempt. Thinking can be independent of ideology but coincide at times with one's enemies.

The Internet has been a game-changer and although the old cliché 'Pandoras box' might be invoked it doesn't mean we cannot have some controls.

True, but not just the Internet; information acquiring, sending, and duplication technology has been growing at a substantial rate over the past two decades, and is coming into the possession and easy use of increasingly younger people. The Google Glasses prototype the author was talking about is yet the newest upcoming example of this game-changing technology, and why it becomes increasingly dangerous from a safety and freedom of speech perspective to demand that the mere possession of any type of image or information be criminalized, as well as making it less and less simple to stand on cliches that only unscrupulous adults are creating and distributing the ever-broadening amount of material that is legally considered "CP."

As I've said before, and I think change is happening, teenagers deserve rather better treatment than they are currently getting with regard to sexual matters and especially charges of CP but true CP is really what this all about and is what damages so many kids.

I also agree with the second part: that we can keep some type of control. And though the author wouldn't go near suggesting this (not at this time), that control can be a regulation of the industry that may, in the future, legally produce such material. But beyond that, the simple possession of any type of information (which is all this author was talking about, other than not considering "teenagers" to be children, something you too have agreed with) should not be illegal for all the reasons he described. Otherwise, one can argue that any type of distasteful material or information should be banned from public access, on the pretext of what the people who view it "might" be thinking when they see the imagery or read the text. The fact that we only do so when it comes to certain material involving sexual activity involving people under a specific arbitrary age is making it increasingly clear to people outside of the MAP community and any child fetishist mini-group who have a serious concern for civil rights and freedom of speech and expression that we are headed down the path of the police state.

The problem as I see it is that it might be extremely difficult to police and hence will do nothing to stem the production of the worst material and probably make it more likely to be produced when a larger audience, who will not have to worry about possession, might be the result.

The 'freedoms' he speaks of are relative - we do not have anything like the freedoms we suppose and for good reason - the world is too crowded now and living in our societies we have to give up many freedoms for our own security, the security of others, and for the welfare of society as a whole.

Including freedom of speech and access to information, which is what this author was talking about? What you just said up above, my newest friend, is the wet dream that any would-be tyrant longs to hear from his/her subjects. And it makes it very clear to anyone who is not a die hard proponent of the "perceived security trumps freedom" ideology just how dangerous, at its core, the justification for censoring any type of information, no matter how distasteful a majority may find it, from public access; as well as basing any type of policies on moralism and belief rather than evidence or demand for objective data. That one statement of yours is a textbook example of what happens when emotion trumps reason. When civil rights activists who have no connection to the MAP community begin agreeing with some of the main arguments of the pro-choice segment of the MAP community without even intending to, then you can see that our concerns are hardly based on nothing more than a selfish desire to achieve sexual gratification from underagers, but rather that they hit on important concerns that involve the basic foundation of our most important civil liberties of a politically free society. The author hasn't fully arrived where we are at this point, but the road is being gradually paved for it, and this is what those of your stance no doubt fear most in becoming evident to more and more people: draconian laws justified by emotionalistic thinking and belief over evidence are mutually exclusive to a political system that purports to be based first and foremost on civil rights, particularly freedom of speech and expression.

Thank you so much for saying this, Lee. It meant a lot to me to hear that.

It is all down to absolutes really. There are no such things in our real lives and we just have to compromise continually. The child porn freedom is just one of the many 'freedoms' we do not allow such as incitement to murder, libel, racial abuse, religious hatred and many others so I hardly see that freedom hinges on child porn, it is just another control measure within society as many are that attempt to lessen the conflicts that inevitably arise between disparate groupings or are based on a moral consensus, and for CP there appears to be a consensus. The 'freedom hinges on CP' is hardly new and the same argument comes from the censorship crowd.

It is good to always question when we might appear to lose some essential freedom but it perhaps is also important to know what is essential and what is not.

And freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of access to information, as well as general freedom of thought, are not essential in your ideal system, huh? Because this is what the author was talking about here.

I don't appear to have any particular philosophy, just what seems to work the best for society and those individuals that make up that society. Some need more protections than others and thus their protections might infringe on others. Tough but I suppose it depends upon what kind of society we want. I might point to this (graph) -

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/09/07/my-two-questions-for-romney-and-obama/

The UK doesn't appear that better off but do you not think the USA has some dramatic changes to make elsewhere as well?

The problems with the non-photographic and created images is that it is such a grey area that allowing many will simply undermine efforts to control the extent of the real abusive images so as many countries have done (with the exception of the US it seems) most have been banned.

And next week, it will be seen as absolutely essential to limit other types of images in order to prevent the distribution of the moderately distasteful images that we want no one to see, let alone the truly distasteful imagery that we don't want people to see and have possibly 'unclean' thoughts about. Are you next going to argue that if we allow the continued legal possession and distribution of imagery of serial murders, this means we are supporting the activities of actual serial killers? Or that those who are interested in seeing such images for any reason actually demand more serial murders to occur so they will have more information with pics available to look at? Or that depicting even fake created images of serial murders in movies like Hannibal and Saw are going to create justification for letting the images of real material get out, and that the legal distribution of such movies will inevitably create demand for the revival of the snuff film industry because people who enjoy watching the faked images conducted by actors will ultimately demand filmed depictions of the real thing? (Oh wait, that industry was proven not to exist, let alone be highly profitable, against the claims once made by LEOs, but I'm sure their hearts were in the right place when they made such panic-inducing allegations, and we shouldn't take that as a reason to disbelieve other claims of theirs which they refuse to provide evidence for. Nope.)

See, Lee my friend, this is what happens, bit by bit, when you suggest that any type of image or information be legally banned from public viewing and possession, and these are the types of justifications moralists like yourself have to make to keep up the pretext that the safety and suffering of anyone are your actual concerns. Instead, as more and more people outside of the MAP community are beginning to realize (as did the author of this article), these types of excuses are commonly made--against good evidence--to justify censorship of information that you personally find distasteful. And what subject do moralists find more distasteful than certain types of sexual imagery?

Ha, did I ever say it was an easy task. Censorship is always painful to some but I'm afraid that is one of the prices we pay for a relatively safe society. We have inbuilt inhibitions that govern our behaviour, social rules, laws and also censorship. Many seem to have problems with the first and second, why add to their burden by loosening the other two?

I doubt he will actually get his way and the legalisation of CP in the 1970's is seen by most countries as a mistake and so one or a few Scandinavian countries are unlikely to make that same mistake again.

Translation: I really, really hope that he doesn't get his way, because I don't want the citizenry of the countries who de-legalized CP during the 1970s to realize what a mistake it was for those who favor civil rights and freedom of speech and expression, and what a boon it was for those who favor moralism-based legislation that prohibits images that offend too many people, because the best thing that could possibly happen for people with my stance was the conservative takeover of America and Britain during the 1980s, and it wouldn't have gotten this far if not for the sex abuse hysteria of the present era, and the panic over CP is one of the central components keeping moralism-based conservatism strong. If we lose the security-over-freedom war, then I lose the security of knowing I can walk into a store and not see magazines or videos depicting material that I find very offensive, and which I think the participants shouldn't be participating in, because it despoils the sacrosanct image I have of them in my heart and mind. Y'know, sort of how the L. Frank Baum fans who want to ban the minority of the Oz fan base who want to be honest about the fact that Baum was a product of his time and was extremely racist against blacks and Native Americans, 'cause it may spoil the sacred image his fans in the modern West have of him now that racism is no longer acceptable to the mainstream; if the truth may hurt too much, censor at all costs!

He won't get his way I am confident on that score. We'll have to disagree on the merits or otherwise of such material but we often go through periods of minor madness and the 1970's can be seen that way perhaps. I can't really see what good came from that time unless one sees a drugged-up nation as at all beneficial - I don't, I just wish more could cope with reality as it is without trying to escape from it.