[tor-talk] Child pornography, anonymity and free speech

[Alec Harrington]

Laws are made for the criminals of society because those who wouldn't do criminal activity anyway do not need the laws, and indeed do not usually suffer them until the time comes that someone/s demonstrate a need for them. 

So when people are doing things like spreading even animated child porn, and trying to say they're protected under the First Amendment, the First Amendment is in grave danger of being seen as outdated. Once enough people draw that kind of conclusion, it's only a matter of time before it's done away with or changed in order to control the criminals in society who would take advantage of our freedoms in order to hurt others. 

And it's not that animated child porn has victims, it's that it encourages victimization of children just like porn encourages it's viewers to have sex. The only difference here is that when adults have sex because they're encouraged by porn, it remains victimless, but when an adult is encouraged by child porn to try and inspire the sexual curiosity of a child so that they might also have sex with them or at least commit to sexual actions, then victimization has occurred. I guess if you wanted to word this in legal terms, it would have to do with opposing the sexual corruption of children inspired by the sexual encouragement of adults looking at child porn, animated or otherwise.


>________________________________
> From: "torop20 at hushmail.com" <torop20 at hushmail.com>
>To: tor-talk at lists.torproject.org 
>Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 3:32 PM
>Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Child pornography, anonymity and free speech
> 
>Child pornography is illegal because the production itself involves
>actual victims.
>The laws date back to a time when it wasn't possible to produce CP
>without actual children.
>
>It therefore made sense that sale, distribution and possession of
>actual child pornography was made illegal, but the slippery slope
>started when the governments
>around the world began to outlaw child pornography without actual
>victims.
>
>The first prohibition does not violate free speech, because the
>material featuring actual children is integral to criminal conduct,
>but the second prohibition
>on computer generated images and cartoons is a regulation of thought.
>
>And Julian and others are really missing the point if they assume that
>the realistic nature of the depictions is the borderline between
>permissible and
>impermissible speech.
>
>The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in one of its more speech
>friendly cases that regulation of virtual child pornography on the
>assumption that
>such will incite viewers thoughts is impermissible regulation of
>thought.
>
>You can't be an anarchist and defend thought crime legislation. Child
>pornography without actual participants is victimless speech and is no
>more abuse
>than crime comics, or ordinary adult pornography some want to ban.
>
>And yes, true untraceable anonymous communication can't coexist in a
>society with thought crime legislation.
>
>Rick Falkvinge has succinctly argued why child pornography laws in
>their current sweeping form pose a risk to privacy and free speech.
>
>The question is very simple: If the price for enforcing anti-child
>pornography laws is banning truly untraceable communication, enforcing
>EU style data
>retention on all data packets flowing over the network, is the price
>too high?
>
>It isn't a price I am willing to pay, not even for the children.
>
>According to US free speech jurisprudence the South Korean law, to the
>extend it bans child pornography without actual children, may well
>violate free speech.
>
>American First Amendment exceptionalism I think is the reason why Tor
>exists. Most speech which would be outright censored in the rest of
>the world is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.
>_______________________________________________
>tor-talk mailing list
>tor-talk at lists.torproject.org
>https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
>
>