General Chat / ISPs Censor Child Pornography

Here's the link to the video at CNN.com.

Now, I'm 100% against child pornography, but when you start censoring the sites that display child pornography, I have a problem. Three problems, actually. First, the censorship of said sites shows us that other sites can be censored as well. It just requires the right amount of blackmail. I guarantee that "normal" porn sites are going start getting censored because they "demoralize women," and are, "morally wrong." You can bet that a bunch of Christian a-holes are on the other end pulling the strings. Porn isn't the only thing that'll get shut down either. Neo-Nazi sites are going to get censored, Muslim sites are going to get censored, Atheist sites are going to get censored, etc. Anything that goes against America is going to get censored. Which brings me to point number two: Internet censorship is a violation of the First Amendment. It's one thing to censor certain sites at school, or at work, but for an entire ISP to censor certain sites? That's going against our right to freedom of speech. Third, if an internet provider is going to censor child pornography sites, I feel that I shouldn't have to pay as much for my internet. If I'm not getting all of it, why pay the price for all of it? I have satelite TV, and the adult channels can't be viewed normally. If I want to watch an adult channel, I have to pay extra. The same thing should be done for the internet. If I'm not getting all the sites, I shouldn't have to pay the full price.

What do you guy's think?

You disturb me greatly Xin. Fucking women is legal, fucking children is illegal. Im not sure if you have noticed, but most sites that have illegal activity on them are censored, or do not exist. Im also in disbelief that these sites were allowed to exist before the ban. Just because a law is created against one thing, you cant say it means laws will be created against things which are our rights. If you want child pornography to be part of our rights, move somewhere far away.

Which brings me to point number two: Internet censorship is a violation of the First Amendment.

I stopped reading here.

Read the fucking Constitution before you bring the Bill of Rights into an argument. The First Amendment applies only to governmental censorship. An ISP, being a private entity, is fully within their rights to censor the data they control.

Moreover, since child pornography is illegal, permitting their customers to view it when they could stop it makes the ISP look negligent. (And perhaps partially responsible, though the precedent doesn't exist (yet) for that.) It's not an infringement on your rights because you do not have the right to view child pornography to begin with.

As for your assumption that this censorship will spread to block legal material -- I doubt it. That would invite a lawsuit, which, while frivolous, would still be damaging to the ISP.

So. For future reference, Xin, irredeemably stupid posts like this belong in the Shitpile.

-ACE

I can understand what you are trying to say, but surely there is a better way of putting it? Surely, , admins, this is enough to get a ban?

ISPs should report child porn sites to the authorities instead of just censoring them.

ISPs should report child porn sites to the authorities instead of just censoring them.

...Except that the server farms on which these sites are hosted are not on US soil. Ergo, they do not fall under US jurisdiction and the authorities cannot do anything about them. (The Chinese authorities, who in many cases *might* be able to do something, are of course more concerned about censoring the evils of Google than child pornography.) So it boils down to prosecuting those found accessing the material rather than the producers thereof.

Kind of backwards when you think about it, but the internet does that when it comes to legal issues.

-ACE

It sucks that there is so much abuse of children in such ways, and so much of it recorded and circulated, and it is the ISPs responsibility to stem the tide, so to speak. The problem is... does it stop here?

Do not forget that Internet Service Providers are a BUSINESS, and will approach this in the most profitable way they can.

I think there should be something like an international "internet police" to deal with this.

Remember kids, there's no such thing as bad PR.

The Bill of Rights end when you deal with matters that violate other people's rights. i.e. stuff that's illegal.

So if you want to censor something that's illegal, go ahead. It's not a matter of infringing on rights; there is NO right to execute child pornography or transmit it or own it, so I have no problems with this.

If you want to use the snowball argument, that's like saying legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing interspecies marriage. It's an absurd argument because it's so extreme. If censorship crosses the lines, you can bet people will stand up against it. If it matters enough, you'll have people fighting it.

No one is feeding into apologetics here, nor using it as an excuse.

My comment was more a shot at the effects of business in a free market; money first, ethics second. I'm saying, with a subject matter like this, I wouldn't be surprised if it was used as a springboard for illicit business practice, justifying it with the shock value of said subject matter. That was all I was saying.

Not everything is always as hunky-dory as it seems, al. Sometimes, even if it's a good cause, a bad apple will find a way to exploit the good will of others to turn their own profit. Fact of life. You should know me better than that...

My comment was more a shot at the effects of business in a free market; money first, ethics second. I'm saying, with a subject matter like this, I wouldn't be surprised if it was used as a springboard for illicit business practice, justifying it with the shock value of said subject matter. That was all I was saying.

And so I stick to my first argument.

Sometimes, even if it's a good cause, a bad apple will find a way to exploit the good will of others to turn their own profit. Fact of life.

i.e., Christianity.

Though Cam did bring up an interesting point: Fucking women is legal, while child pornography isn't. So, what exacltly makes child pornography illegal? Let's discuss that instead.

Edited by Xin, 23 June 2008 - 10:09 PM.

Conventional notions of the innocence of the child (yes, tied to religion) plus the fact that pretty much most of this is done without proper consent, which is illegal no matter how old you are.

C'mon... seriously... you can't argue that a child has the knowledge, experience, and maturity to make responsible decisions about sex. Even many adults lack that capacity. Ergo... don't fuck children.

ive got so many links n shit

rapidshares

hit me up

al, I'm going to throw this out there for xin's benefit, so bare with me, since I'm going off the last thing you said...

I would argue that it goes both ways: there are people who are 18+, legally allowed to have sex, but are ignorant/immature (in terms of sex, handling relationships, etc) and emotionally unprepared. Likewise, there are also people under 18 who are not ignorant/immature, and are emotionally prepared. I would not condone such actions, as the moral climate of most modern societies would - and have - warped even the best intentioned relationships that crossed this line. That, and due to the fact that status as an adult means you are legally responsible for yourself. Before then, it falls to the parents to handle the legal repercussions of their offspring's actions. Thus, issues dealing with legal consent vs. personal consent are dicey at best, since these 2 things technically belong to 2 different people. Furthermore, The laws themselves that govern these types of actions are put into place as "blanket laws" meant to protect minors by the broadness of scope in how the law is enforced, even when a small number of cases might actually be harmless or even healthy relationships.

Take away that law though, and you would see a massive rise in the amount of harmful and traumatic cases. Therefore, the law needs to be in place in order to dissuade those dangerous individuals from abusing this freedom to act. There are already a HUGE amount of silent cases of child abuse and molestation you will never hear about, simply because it is kept quiet through coercion, intimidation, force, lies, or pandering.

Imagine... for adults, cases of rape and harassment aren't always clear, and are sometimes a case of slander/fraud. Sometimes, someone gets away with it because of lack of evidence or because they had a good lawyer. That is something the underaged shouldn't have to deal with, as they'd most likely be easier targets for abuse of the system than adults, especially not being legal citizens.

In a sense, MOST people are stupid, naive, and foolish. This also applies to the underage (maybe especially when you add lack of experience to the equation). Our society is just not at a point of maturity yet where such freedoms can exist without tragic consequences, period.

Let's throw outside/legal factors out for a moment though...

Of the ethical nature, I'd first have to say fuck religion. You can logically explain the ethics involved in such relationships and why they are ethical/unethical based on human tendencies, flaws, and empathy (and lack thereof).

Lets first say though, that physical behaviors such as conquest, rape, harassment, stalking, exploitation, as well as emotional behaviors such as jealousy, possessiveness, egotism, etc, are all hurtful/stressful/dangerous to a relationship regardless of age or orientation. Anything that would create inequality in a relationship of a sexual nature is BAD.

Then there's the safety issue: A girl of 13 getting pregnant is just about the most depressing thing I can think of. The risk is scary, the consequences dire and tragic.

That being said, It's obvious that straight relationships are the most decisively dangerous when you look at it in terms of disease + pregnancy risks. On the other hand, same sex relationships don't have that pregnancy issue, and are markedly safer; female same-sex relationships being the safest of all (limited contact). This is already entering a grey area most people don't want to think about, because the implications will get very complicated/complex.

Then you have the intellectual/emotional issues: issues of perspective, how someone is raised to think, missing information (lack of perspective), value/respect issues, authority/conformity issues, dominance vs. submission, labels and perceptions of labels, exposure levels, ulterior/non-communicated motives, unequal levels of interest(and the hiding thereof), obsession/insecurity issues, etc. Just a huge number of things that affect a relationship in very subversive ways, varying in severity and seriousness.

Then you have the questions of fluidity: In most relationships, clashing in terms of the above issues occurs very frequently. It's not always a bad thing, as long as patience and understanding are present. But... just how much is required? These two things are certainly found less the younger the people involved. And what about age difference? How much is too much of a difference that experience can't be related? Or, how young/inexperienced is really too young/too little experience? What's the threshold on either of those grounds? Which brings us to the last question: it is true people mature or gain experience/are exposed to these things at different rates/times during their lives, but is either party involved capable of making that judgment call on whether the other is ready for such a relationship? Is consent really enough? I could imagine a situation where both think they are capable of making a relationship work, but end up failing in one capacity or another and not understanding why.

Out there in the real world, some kids DO have sex with each other, whether it's a good idea or not, and regardless of the trouble it creates or gets them in (same with adults). Society seems to answer this in a number of ways, whether it be shielding it from them completely or telling them it's wrong and they shouldn't do it, and so on. My personal opinion is that if you are underage, you should either avoid sex entirely, or be very very cautious, especially with someone older than you. As a general rule, stick to your own age group/level of maturity (the two will not always coincide, but most times will). There are people out there that will exploit you if you aren't careful.

Which finally brings me to xin's post... (that took awhile)

Xin: Pornography tends to involve people getting paid to have or appear to have sex, and have it filmed/photographed.

...do you really think they pay the kids? In most cases, child pornography is a case of children being exploited in a number of ways that just happen to include pornographic images... they are also possibly whored out as well, which is actually one very good reason the ISPs SHOULD censor it: if you were used like that, would you really want those pictures circulating to every heavy-breathing pedophile on the planet? They are being used, xin. In the small number of cases where they are paying some kid and not coercing them or tricking them into it, that kid probably has some issues. In general, highly illegal businesses tend to run parallel to each other. The kids are very likely junkies or straight up locked away, perhaps homeless or runaways. Even without the societal wrappings of it (as in, the nature of the clientèle based on it's illegality), it is still a case of them not knowing any better or not having a choice in the first place.

...Though i really don't know what to make of some 14 year old boy posting naked webcam sessions to pornotube. That's just bewildering and confusing.

regulatin: I think someone needs to change your title to "A master is out"