|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Okay Fox, same question: What do you support? Restrictions on production of child porn, restrictions on distribution, or restrictions on consumption? Or no restrictions at all?
I argued distribution of child porn should be illegal and that by not attempting to stop it a government implicitly legalises it as 'free speech'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chris_J2
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia
The same debate has been raging in Australia, over the past 3 years. Proposed changes have been temporarily stymied by the Opposition Liberal Party.
| Quote: |
On 21 March 2006, the Labor party committed to requiring all ISPs to implement a mandatory Internet blocking system applicable to �all households, and to schools and other public internet points� to �prevent users from accessing any content that has been identified as prohibited by the Australian Communications and Media Authority�.[34]
On the same day, the then communications minister Helen Coonan stated that to �filter the Internet will only result in slowing down the Internet for every Australian without effectively protecting children from inappropriate and offensive content� |
| Quote: |
In May 2008, the government commenced an $82 million �cybersafety plan� which included an additional mandatory filter with no opt-out provision. This ISP-based filter aims to stop adults from downloading content that is illegal to possess in Australia, such as child pornography or materials related to terrorism.[36]
In March 2009, Stephen Conroy dismissed suggestions that the Government would use the filter to crack down on political dissent as "conspiracy theories". He stated that the filter would only be used to remove "refused classification" (RC) content, using the same rationale as existing television, radio and print publications, and that the Senate could be relied upon to provide rigorous assessment of any proposed legislation. |
What's the situation in Canada, re mandatory government filtering of illicit ISP addresses? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
Casper - argue a case. What do you support? Restrictions on production of child porn, restrictions on distribution, or restrictions on consumption? Or no restrictions at all? |
Again, free speech is absolute. No restrictions. In this case the cure is worse than the disease. Let the acts be illegal, not speech about them. Don't censor the snuff film; imprison the murderer.
As I recall, sex crimes against minors in Holland increased after child pornography was prohibited, and this has been true in the US as well.
You may be interested to know
Why I need to see child porn
It's outrageous that academics and reporters like me can be thrown in prison for doing front-line research into pornography.
By Debbie Nathan
Aug. 25, 2006 | New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald looked at a lot of kiddie-porn Web sites recently while researching the front-page article he published last weekend about "child model" erotica. The kind of looking he did can get a journalist arrested, but Eichenwald isn't very worried. He told me as much in a series of e-mails. His lack of concern irks me, because when I stumbled on similar material earlier this year during my own research, I was terrified I'd be busted simply for doing my job as a member of the media. For a couple of days after my accidental viewing experience I was sleepless with fear. After that I still didn't rest well for a while.
...The reporting I'm talking about involves testing government claims about how prevalent child porn really is, and what makes an image pornographic in the first place. To get answers, investigators must look at illegal material - lots of it. Those investigators must also be independent of the government. Otherwise the government can use our fear and loathing of kiddie porn to make false political claims. And to terrorize people like me.
Here's my story:
Last fall I started working on a book for young adults about pornography as a social issue. The publisher, a children's press in Toronto, asked for a short section on Internet child porn. I thought that was a good idea. Over the past two decades, I have done a lot of critical writing about baseless sex abuse scares in day cares and schools. Back in the Reagan era, law enforcement helped fuel the panic. One way was by claiming that hundreds of thousands of U.S. kids were involved in kiddie porn, and that the business earned billions of dollars annually. It took a while for the press to figure out that commercial child porn was virtually nonexistent by the 1980s. In fact, as researchers eventually discovered, the main manufacturer was the U.S. government, which produced and sold child-porn magazines for sting operations. The media was also slow to realize that many individuals, including mothers and fathers, were prosecuted for taking photos of their kids that were nothing more than innocent "baby on a bear rug" shots. I covered a couple of cases like that in the 1980s and 1990s. In both, prosecutors screamed "Porn!" on the nightly news, and only in trial or appellate courts did reporters finally have a right to examine the images. By then, people's lives had been ruined.
Because of these facts, there's been some doubt about the feds' more recent claims that child smut is epidemic on the Web. With my book assignment, I set out to do some research. I was especially interested in the fact that it's not illegal in the U.S. to make and post "morphed" images of children having sex. Morphing is something like cartooning: There's no real child being abused, so according to the law there's no crime. But how much child porn these days really is morphed? I was curious.
...
I almost fainted, but not from disgust at the depravity of making and displaying these pictures. After all, reporters see depravity all the time. Rather, I was consumed with fear of the U.S. government. Technically, according to federal statutes, just visiting a kiddie-porn site makes you a lawbreaker, because regardless of why you went there, the images end up in your hard drive. You "possess" child porn, which is a serious crime. You can notify the authorities. You can clean up your cookies and your cache. Still, you broke the law. The feds might excuse you, or they could arrest you. It's entirely up to them.
full article at link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chris_J2 wrote: |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia
The same debate has been raging in Australia, over the past 3 years. Proposed changes have been temporarily stymied by the Opposition Liberal Party. |
Yes, and there this article appeared, bolstering my slippery-slope position:
Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20070921-The-slippery-slope-towards-internet-censorship-continues.html
The slippery slope towards internet censorship continues
Friday, 21 September 2007
The Australian Government continued down the slippery slope towards internet censorship yesterday by introducing bill to give the Australian Federal Police the power to nominate terrorism or crime related websites for filtering.
...
Yesterday�s bill would merely allow the AFP to add terrorism or crime related sites to that black list. But why would aspiring terrorists and criminals willingly install a family friendly filter onto their PC?
...
Again, terrorists are unlikely to choose a filtered internet connection. The government�s new legislation only really makes sense if the unfiltered product is not going to be truly �unfiltered�. That the internet content bill was introduced quietly yesterday morning does not inspire confidence that the government plans to leave our internet connections alone. And it�s worth remembering that the Labor Party has for a long time promised mandatory server side filters if they win government.
Quite aside from the internet censorship issue, this bill highlights a disturbing regulatory trend � governments delegating the policing of the internet to the communications industry. Many of the measures canvassed by the inquiry into social networking sites would do just that. Even outside the high-technology sector, counterterrorism and anti money laundering regulation in the financial sector compels firms to police their own customers.
Particularly in the communications sector, these sorts of regulatory burdens can only add to costs for consumers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Again, free speech is absolute. No restrictions. Let the acts be illegal, not speech about them. Don't censor the snuff film; imprison the murderer. |
So let's clarify, you don't think distribution of child porn is illegal? It's free speech. If you happen to obtain child porn you shouldn't be stopped from selling/distributing it at your leisure? Only production is illegal, once it exists you can do what you want with it?
Regardless, arguing a certain law may lead to abuse, doesn't undermine the law itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Again, free speech is absolute. No restrictions. Let the acts be illegal, not speech about them. Don't censor the snuff film; imprison the murderer. |
So let's clarify, you don't think distribution of child porn is illegal? It's free speech. If you happen to obtain child porn you shouldn't be stopped from selling/distributing it at your leisure? Only production is illegal, once it exists you can do what you want with it?
Regardless, arguing a certain law may lead to abuse, doesn't undermine the law itself. |
You sure need a lot of clarification. How did you ever conclude I "don't think distribution of child porn is illegal," especially after I posted an entire article on child porn law?
Yes, let's be clear. Under U.S. law, production, possession, reproduction, sale, receipt, distribution, transport, advertisement, solicitation, promotion, and mailing of child pornography or material believed to be child pornography are all most definitely illegal. (That wouldn't be a bit of overkill there now, would it?  )
Critics point to the cathartic nature of the material in that its use may prevent some from acting out abuse on real children. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
So Casper, apparently you believe U.S. law is correct, distribution of child porn is illegal.... but you're worried about the German government placing a warning on such websites saying 'this content's illegal'... where's the beef?
If you think distribution is illegal surely you support the government banning such websites, let along warning those who come across it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If a site is illegal (as offensive as I find that concept to begin with), to allow it to remain up and then bust people for accessing it, instead of going after the owner/uploader of he site, smacks to me of entrapment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Okay Fox, same question: What do you support? Restrictions on production of child porn, restrictions on distribution, or restrictions on consumption? Or no restrictions at all? |
I support a three tier method of dealing with child pornography:
1) Producers of child pornography: these are criminals, and should be delt with accordingly; they are sexually violating children.
2) Distributors of child pornography: these individuals aren't directly harming children, but they're certainly complicit in it. They should also be prosecuted, and in the case of their means of distribution being an internet site, the internet provider in question should be notified; said internet provider will take whatever actions it deems fit, with the de facto result probably being removal of the site with no government censorship required.
3) Child pornography consumers: these individuals are sick, and should be helped rather than criminalized if possible. So long as they are willing to undergo psychological help and provide all availible information about their sources of child pornography, they should not be treated as criminals. If they refuse to do either, then they should be assumed to be the producer as well as the consumer and delt with accordingly.
I fail to see how the addition of internet censorship enforced by the government in any way improves upon this model. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| We're back to the same question - should the government force the ISP to remove content? If it doesn't it's saying distribution will be tolerated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| Okay Fox, same question: What do you support? Restrictions on production of child porn, restrictions on distribution, or restrictions on consumption? Or no restrictions at all? |
I support a three tier method of dealing with child pornography:
1) Producers of child pornography: these are criminals, and should be delt with accordingly; they are sexually violating children.
2) Distributors of child pornography: these individuals aren't directly harming children, but they're certainly complicit in it. They should also be prosecuted, and in the case of their means of distribution being an internet site, the internet provider in question should be notified; said internet provider will take whatever actions it deems fit, with the de facto result probably being removal of the site with no government censorship required.
3) Child pornography consumers: these individuals are sick, and should be helped rather than criminalized if possible. So long as they are willing to undergo psychological help and provide all availible information about their sources of child pornography, they should not be treated as criminals. If they refuse to do either, then they should be assumed to be the producer as well as the consumer and delt with accordingly.
I fail to see how the addition of internet censorship enforced by the government in any way improves upon this model. |
That's fine. But I don't think child pornography should be Constitutionally protected speech. Nobody has an affirmative right to view child porn, even if we take a more liberal stance towards how we treat child porn consumers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| That's fine. But I don't think child pornography should be Constitutionally protected speech. Nobody has an affirmative right to view child porn, even if we take a more liberal stance towards how we treat child porn consumers. |
I agree that no one has the affirmative right to view child porn. I simply think bacasper is correct that allowing the government to censor the internet would end up being a slippery slope, so unless such censorship were to, say, actively reduce the number of children being exploited by a considerable margin, it shouldn't be enacted. We do, after all, have elements within our government who would be more than happy to try to 'clean up the internet' if they were given license to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I would argue you do have the right to view anything, a free speech type of justification can be used to defend this. It's ownership or distribution which should be illegal, not the act of looking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| We're back to the same question - should the government force the ISP to remove content? If it doesn't it's saying distribution will be tolerated. |
I'm wary of holding ISPs too accountable for how their clients use their services. Forcing ISPs to remove content implies penalization if they don't, which in turn implies a measure of culpability for the actions taken by their clients: don't let your customers do X, or you'll be responsible for it too.
I think in this case I'm comfortable with prosecution of the person actually directly responsible for the distribution itself while leaving the ISP to make its own judgements about who they will provide services to. I don't feel that is tantamount to saying distribution will be tolerated: the actual distributors will be imprisoned if caught. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| I would argue you do have the right to view anything, a free speech type of justification can be used to defend this. It's ownership or distribution which should be illegal, not the act of looking. |
In the case of digital photography, viewing is tantamount to owning. If you can see the file, you've got it on your computer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
