|
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: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
So you're at someone's house, they say " hey dude, check this out" and you've committed a crime, or someone runs down the street waving a child porn photo making criminals of hundreds of people.
I was talking about looking at something, not where or what it is. It shouldn't be possible for an act - that can't possible effect anyone else - to be illegal. The act of looking is the same as the act of thinking or listening, it doesn't change actual objects. The criminal act is something else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| So you're at someone's house, they say " hey dude, check this out" and you've committed a crime, or someone runs down the street waving a child porn photo making criminals of hundreds of people. |
Come now Rufus, I spoke about digital picture files on your computer, not random people running down the street. If you look at something on the internet, you've downloaded that image to view it; you are just as "in possession" of it as you are in possession of any other file on your computer.
The difference between viewing a digital picture on your computer and someone running down the street with pictures in hand is the difference between downloading an mp3 file of a song and hearing a song on a radio as a car drives by. From a legal perspective, they just aren't the same.
| RufusW wrote: |
| The act of looking is the same as the act of thinking or listening, it doesn't change actual objects. |
I agree, but looking at things on the computer does change actual objects; you're downloading those files. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well this was a major detour. But we both agree that looking at something cannot be illegal, downloading/owning something is a different matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Come now Rufus, I spoke about digital picture files on your computer, not random people running down the street. If you look at something on the internet, you've downloaded that image to view it; you are just as "in possession" of it as you are in possession of any other file on your computer.
...
I agree, but looking at things on the computer does change actual objects; you're downloading those files. |
The problem with that is that one does not necessarily know the contents of an image before downloading it.
Further complicating matters is the fact that even after downloading it one does not necessarily know that it is kiddy porn until after the jury returns the verdict. With photos of fully clothed kids and innocent shots taken by parents having been adjudged kiddy porn, is the only safe course to never have any photos of anyone under 18? And since one may not be sure of the age, shall we make it 25?  or 30? Yes, the law is perverse.
| RufusW wrote: |
| Well this was a major detour. But we both agree that looking at something cannot be illegal, downloading/owning something is a different matter. |
All three of us agree on that one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
The problem with that is that one does not necessarily know the contents of an image before downloading it.
|
I agree, but as long as our society insists on treating computer configurations as ownable property, academic problems like that will occur.
| bacasper wrote: |
| Further complicating matters is the fact that even after downloading it one does not necessarily know that it is kiddy porn until after the jury returns the verdict. With photos of fully clothed kids and innocent shots taken by parents having been adjudged kiddy porn, is the only safe course to never have any photos of anyone under 18? |
My parents have some pictures of me as a baby in a bathtub, I don't think those constitute child pornography despite having no clothes on at all. They're just cute pictures of me having fun in the bath. An educated, professional jury can be trained to deal with cases like that. A bunch of untrained citizens drawn randomly from your population, less so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| 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. |
Sorry, the slippery slope fallacy is just that, a fallacy.
Looks more to me like the bill was completely neutered in a face-saving compromise for the Christian Democrats, and the only thing that remained was a minor implementation that is rather unoffensive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Sorry, the slippery slope fallacy is just that, a fallacy. |
When there are politically active forces out there who desire to push our society further and further down said slippery slope, I disagree. There's no reason to sacrifice even an inch in that conflict, particularly if it has realistically zero net benefit for the actual victims of child pornography. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
|
| 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
