# What's the difference between a mosque shooting video and a cp video from a "freedom of speech" point of view?



## Mysterious Capitalist (Apr 3, 2019)

Greetings 

The other day I was watching the Nick Rekieta video featuring @Null about the hosting of the mosque shooting on KF and the subsequent world community reaction to it. 

At one point, I can't remember at what point in the video, the ethics (or lack thereof) of hosting this kind of video against cp was brought up and both Nick and Null agreed on the point that cp is "too far" when it comes to freedom of speech and should never be hosted (or something along those lines), but I could hear in their tone how they were struggling to come up on an "objective" difference between a shooting video and cp, simply laughing off the notion that they're very similar and quickly moving on.

And yet, I fail to see how those are so inherently different: they are both material that feature human suffering for the viewer's "pleasure" (and I mean it in the loosest of terms), they are both illegal, they are both very painful to the victims (both in the video and their surviving families/friends). And these are just the points that come at the top of my head.

In fact, I can argue that a shooting video has _more_ suffering on the simple notion that more people become victims, on a strict numerical scale that doesn't take the value of human life into consideration. But even if you want to take it into consideration and argue that children suffering is worse that adult suffering, how many people have to die before they "outweigh" the suffering of one child? Would the video of hundreds of people being executed at the same time under some backwater third world regime be as despised and banned as cp? If yes, why? If not, why not? Would changing the number of victims change your opinion? Would it change if it was the video of 50 raped adults versus the video of 1 killed child? Can you even do such a "calculation"?

I can concede that, at least, a shooting video can be formative to LEOs to prevent or be better prepared against future shootings, but this is not really a "freedom of speech" argument. Maybe I'm not seeing something obvious here; I refuse to watch videos of human suffering so maybe I lack some kind of insight about it or it might skew my view about this kind of content.

And so I ask, in one of the last bastions of free speech on the Internet (I don't feel this is hyperbole lately), why don't we purge both as a despicable product of human evilness? If not, where do we draw the line and why there specifically on objective terms?

(I also want to specify that I'm not even considering the possibility of "elevating" cp as a category of stuff protected by free speech, only to "downgrade" other forms of snuff media to "not worth saving/consuming")

Thanks



Spoiler: P.S.



I hope the post didn't come out as too autistic, but every once in a while I like to challenge my perspective of what seems "obvious" as a mental exercise. I'll also probably be put on some list because of this post but whatever.


----------



## Null (Apr 3, 2019)

Child pornography creates a black market for child sexual exploitation in countries with weak governments that cannot protect children.
Violent videos do no such thing and do not have such a market.


----------



## Clop (Apr 3, 2019)

The difference is the marketplace. One illegal content persists because there's a market of sick fucks gaining money from it which makes them produce more of it, the other is showing the events that unfolded. If a shooter video manages to sprout an industry of insane fucksticks shooting people and recording it for profit, _then_ we'll talk.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Apr 3, 2019)

There's no reason to actually watch a CP video. Knowing that the video was made is enough, there's no reason to know the details. On the other hand, knowing what actually went down during a shooting is important. And hell, look at the conspiratards we've attracted _with a video of the entire thing happening_ free to view, imagine how bad people would sperg if there were no videographic proof (full disclosure, I haven't actually watched the video cause I don't have the stomach for it)


----------



## LinuxVoid (Apr 3, 2019)

Suffering on tape has nothing to do with wether a video is banned or not. There are many mainstream videos/pictures which express a lot more suffering (fabricated or real), which will never be banned. There is nothing wrong with capturing people during an act of suffering.


----------



## Piss Clam (Apr 3, 2019)

A child cannot consent. This should be obvious.

I understand what you are asking, because when you take a life you take everything from that person.

If you rape someone then they are still alive and have to deal with it.

We don't arrest anyone for watching films where people are murdered. You can watch gore films or WWii imagines, Vietnam, first gulf war/second gulf war and even watch cops kill a nigger on Washington post.

Children are different, it's about our innocence.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Apr 3, 2019)

It is tricky, isn't it.

I guess you could draw some differences to try to separate the two.

For example, with CP, the video IS the bad thing. The bad thing that happens in the video was done for the purpose of making the video, and the video exists only for the purpose of showing that bad thing.

With the shooting video, the bad thing is the shooting.  Nobody is (to my knowledge) making money off the creation and of such videos, and the violent acts depicted would have happened regardless of whether it was recorded.

Also, looking at CP is illegal, looking at a shooting isn't.  It's not illegal to observe a crime, but that's a legal argument, not a moral one.

I imagine there is a point where one could argue a CP video shouldn't be censored, for example if it showed a prominent politician engaging in illegal acts which their party tried to cover up, and the CP video is the evidence.  But even then, I'd prefer the victim to be completely obscured.

The fact that the CP being viewed is another victimization could be said to be part of it, but then, isn't watching someone get murdered sort of the same?

Now, murder victims don't have any risk of being triggered in the future by seeing some reference to their murder, as they're busy being dead. CP victims could potentially suffer damage from that.

Interesting thought, you have seemingly found the extreme edge of even free speech proponents.


----------



## Recoil (Apr 3, 2019)

"Prurient Interest" is the difference.


----------



## crocodilian (Apr 3, 2019)

Null said:


> Child pornography creates a black market for child sexual exploitation in countries with weak governments that cannot protect children.
> Violent videos do no such thing and do not have such a market.



Ackchyually there's a market for snuff films. But you're mostly right.

There's plenty of poor nations where parents will send their middle child to "act" in CP videos in exchange for payment. Coldly measured, at least those kids are still alive and will return home. This is a world of difference from snuff films where at least 1 of the participants isn't coming back, especially heinous if said participant is a child.


----------



## Orkeosaurus (Apr 3, 2019)

The fact that a small minority of people will get off to a mosque shooting doesn't outweigh the benefit of people actually getting to witness the atrocity. For every hardcore white nationalist who faps to muslims getting shot up there might be a more ironic shitposter turned off the idea when they actually see all those innocent people killed. As others have stated there's also the fact that less well documented mass shootings tend to become radioactively conspiratorial. 

There's also the fact that a mass shooting is historical in nature. Whether we want to admit it or not, the effects of the event are huge, whether it be that it sparks a debate on religion or gun control. If we ban this event from being documented why not destroy every video we have of war or genocide?

It might be tough for the parents, but it's not like we ask every nameless soldier's parents if its okay that they're on the history channel being blown up.

CP doesn't have the same benefit of being shown. The only people who need to see it are the police. A pedophile is never going to change their mind if they see a child being hurt.


----------



## MuuMuu Bunnylips (Apr 3, 2019)

Null said:


> Child pornography creates a black market for child sexual exploitation in countries with weak governments that cannot protect children.
> Violent videos do no such thing and do not have such a market.


Also there isn't gunfire or potential explosions.

So not really any fun at all.


----------



## los pepes (Apr 3, 2019)

Video of a terrorist attack is documentation of a major news event with as we have seen far reaching political, cultural, and legal ramifications. The public has the right to see first hand for themselves exactly what happened if they so choose. Especially in the NZ case where we had  widespread disinformation from State run media about what exactly happened in the attack, what was said on the video, and even the contents of his manifesto.  You also had the uncomfortable fact that Tarrant was free to enter and leave the mosque multiple times, each time returning to execute more people inside. Watching the video demonstrates the pathetic and slow police response. So you have inexcusable incompetence on the part of the authorities that turned what could have been a 15-20 fatality event into a 50 one (watching the video it's clear how many more people were killed after his first pass inside) and then conveniently and self servingly declaring it a _crime_ to even watch the video. While at the same time denying that their response was inept or slow. So they defend their actions, and then criminalize the evidence that contradicts that defense.  

None of that is the case with CP.


----------



## Eryngium (Apr 3, 2019)

Ones funny to watch, ones sickening.


----------



## Крыса (Apr 3, 2019)

It's an arbitrary line in the sand that people and society choose to draw, mostly.

I think there's no better argument than "CP leads to more CP", although you could argue that there is something similar with murders/shootings and copycats but the link is less evident. But even that is tenuous at best, if the sole reason for censorship is "this material might eventually lead to someone getting hurt" then why not hate speech too ? Freedom of speech in the US is limited by the threat of immediate, direct, evident "lawless action", but it'd be very hard to argue that viewing or distributing CP poses such a threat, in that regard it shouldn't be more illegal than saying "gas all jews" online. But for CP there doesn't have to be neither an immediate nor a direct link between the material and a further crime because that's that, and no one's going to cry about it although strictly in terms of freedom of speech and from a legal point of view I don't think it's less arbitrary than restricting some types of hate speech.

The documentation/information angle doesn't make much sense to me, videos don't prevent conspiracy theories, and that kind of value is very hard to measure and you'd be effectively drawing a line somewhere : when do you consider that a violent document is too important to be censored ? does a torture or execution video have that kind of informational value ?


----------



## spurger king (Apr 3, 2019)

Null said:


> Violent videos do no such thing and do not have such a market.



Yet...


----------



## 1864897514651 (Apr 3, 2019)

Your question falls on a false base premise. You should instead ask if these videos should even exist. The answer is obviously no, they should not; therefore, you should not watch them. There is zero value in watching extremely graphic videos.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Apr 3, 2019)

1864897514651 said:


> Your question falls on a false base premise. You should instead ask if these videos should even exist. The answer is obviously no, they should not; therefore, you should not watch them. There is zero value in watching extremely graphic videos.


Yeah, and we should ban the publication of sweary words and violent books too!


----------



## 1864897514651 (Apr 3, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> [redacted]



I am in full support of a return of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Apr 3, 2019)

1864897514651 said:


> I am in full support of a return of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.


By any non-arbitrary standard, the Bible would fall on that list.  It has cursing, incest, murder, and gratuitous torture.  In addition, the Song of Solomon is extremely erotic.


----------



## 1864897514651 (Apr 4, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> [redacted]



The Canticle of Canticles relates the bridegroom, Jesus the Christ, to us, His Church. Anyway, let me clarify that I am not interested in a ban on publications based on the criteria of swear words and violence. I am just interested in banning publications that are inconducive to the faith. Swear words and violence do not automatically make a work profane, nor should it be considered as such. I was just subtly suggesting that graphically explicit material that is inconducive to the faith should be banned. I was not agreeing with your criteria, which is hyperbolic and sarcastic.


----------



## Tasty Tatty (Apr 4, 2019)

Corbin Dallas Multipass said:


> For example, with CP, the video IS the bad thing. The bad thing that happens in the video was done for the purpose of making the video, and the video exists only for the purpose of showing that bad thing.
> 
> With the shooting video, the bad thing is the shooting.  Nobody is (to my knowledge) making money off the creation and of such videos, and the violent acts depicted would have happened regardless of whether it was recorded.



I get what you're saying, but I think that, in this specific case, the streaming was also the bad thing as the shooter wanted to be seen.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 4, 2019)

Mysterious Capitalist said:


> the ethics (or lack thereof) of hosting this kind of video against cp was brought up and both Nick and Null agreed on the point that cp is "too far" when it comes to freedom of speech




The expansion of free speech to also cover obscenity, porn and sex is a relatively new idea, first defended by hustler magazine. 

To use the oxford definition, see below.

It was conceived and is intended to cover opinions and political ideas/speech and to protect the airing of such.

When you think about it a little, there is very little reason to put sexual content on the level with opinions.

Now I don't particularly mind what people do in their bedrooms or what pictures people draw, but I do think there is a negative link on the health of a society in general and the degenerate things it permits. Allowing little boys on billboards that also strip for money and acting like effeminate drag queens has a negative effect on society beyond the abuse against that kid, it has a demoralizing effect that is comparable to the broken window theory.

And contrary to the people that generally defend the vilest of porn as supposedly being free speech, they are generally not open to hearing the opinions about this, particularly not when you start with one of the holy cows, homosexuality and its link to both disease and pedophilia. I don't know if people are born gay, that seems to be true. I do know that abused kids are more likely to be gay and that there is an active recruitment of that type (the vagina monologues famously had the glorification of such a moment of an underage girl and an adult woman; the fact that it wasn't shouted off stage shows how far people are misled on this. The scene was removed a decade later or so.

Perhaps the line "it was a good rape" was a little too on the nose coming from a 13 year old character. But this was a prizewinning and much applauded play.

There is also the infamous article "can we just admit that we do want to convert kids?" article. And you can discover that that's how it works today. Just go to antifa meetings, to marxist feminist meetings, go to gay bars and genderqueer parties. I saw it in real life before I started studying the statistics.

To get back on track, obscenity despite what US courts decided in their case against hustler, shouldn't cover obscene content. I think everybody in their heart knows that tits being removed off facebook is not the same thing as conservative pages being removed off facebook. One is a speech issue, the other is a obscenity issue.

Now how does that tie in to CP vs a terror attack?

Well I'd have to prove that CP is obscenity, but it is by definition, it's in the P (even if definitions of porn are hard to make, just try to put the right line between boobtwitchers and female twitch streamers) of pornography. I don't have to exactly identify the line to be able to broadly state that some barrier should exist that separates camwhores and female game streamers.

Then I'd have to prove that sharing the terror attack is speech. I have the presumption that people should be able to see it so that they can both learn from it politically and practically. You'd want the protections of freedom of speech to be broad, because the temptation to silence others lies in almost everyone's hearts. That's about the best I can make the argument, if someone else can make it better, let me know.

Finally, besides the freedom of speech, there is the issue that sexual release gives a huge dopamine rush that if it came from a drug, it would be a controlled substance. A dopamine rush means that all the thoughts and actions you did prior become more firmly rooted in your brain. There is no "one time" exception in the bedroom. If you discover something you like, you're going to want to do it again. And, I find that you can even condition partners to associate that dopamine rush with specific sexual activities and make them like that and ask for that.

Do you really want some percentage of people to habituate themselves to having sexual release in regards to the abuse of children? I think this is the strongest argument against CP.







*Definition of freedom of speech in English:*
*freedom of speech*


*NOUN*
mass noun

The power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.
_‘the move would further harm freedom of speech in the region_


----------



## Крыса (Apr 4, 2019)

Anti-vaxx bullshit has a very observable and direct "negative link on the health of society", should it be censored?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 4, 2019)

Крыса said:


> Anti-vaxx bullshit has a very observable and direct "negative link on the health of society", should it be censored?



All bullshit has an observable negative link on the health of a society. Unravelling where bullshit begins and ends is pretty hard and it's too complex to be able to ban. We can't just "ban bullshit". Part of that reason is also that it's hard to know where intentional and unintentional bullshit begins.

If for example we'd say: yes let's ban all anti-vax speech. And mr. Nick started his own little vaccination shop. Because injecting people with feces is what protects them against cancer.  Well Nick is a bit of a quack, isn't he?

Well now you can't say anything about it if he has a sufficiently good legal team to protect his rights to "vaccinate" kids.

If there is a way in which it wouldn't be hamfisted, please let me know, but otherwise no, anti-vaxx speech should not be censored, even if it is bullshit. If we did, we'd also have to start censoring bullshit from the pharmaceutical industry and as soon as you get into that business you become an arbiter of the truth, which is too complex a task for even a government.

That's also why it's different. Child pornography isn't speech. It's not conveying any ideas, not even stupid ideas.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Apr 4, 2019)

1864897514651 said:


> WOO WOO I'M A CRAZY PERSON



Why isn't Mr. Numbers here confined to his own lolcow thread yet? He's spergier than Jacob Harrison, for example, and a lot less fun to banter with.


----------



## Крыса (Apr 4, 2019)

I don't think speech has to convey ideas to be protected, in that regard violent material doesn't necessary convey ideas either and yet it's not censored.


----------



## Slap47 (Apr 4, 2019)

Null said:


> Child pornography creates a black market for child sexual exploitation in countries with weak governments that cannot protect children.
> Violent videos do no such thing and do not have such a market.



Doesn't the black market on CP encourage the creation of new CP? 

Also, there are community threads for the snuff and cannibalism communities on this forum.


----------



## 666DEATHGAY (Apr 5, 2019)

Only pedos who should be shot or at least locked up watch CP.

Almost everyone likes violence in different forms. People need more understanding that humans are naturally very violent in order to protect ourselves from evil. Naivity passivity and indifference is how a lot of evil is allowed in our society.

I guess there are other ethical concerns like documenting crimes and journalism shouldn't be banned, or as others have pointed out CP creating a market to produce that stuff.


----------



## spurger king (Apr 6, 2019)

If we define freedom of speech to mean "The power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty" I can't say either example should be legally protected. I have to say, it's a bit sad seeing people try to draw some meaningful distinction between CP and mass killing in that regard. However, I view the mosque shooter as a combatant waging war against an occupying force and so I am okay with watching a video of that guy massacring a bunch of dune coons. I am not okay with kid fuckers though so I guess you could just say that I am okay with videos of combat, but not okay with kid fuckers. That seems like a fair position to me. In either case I am not counting on some nebulous freeze peach principles. I can watch anything I want to watch, and the government can sit in its corner and deal with it.


----------



## Slap47 (Apr 6, 2019)

"It's not conveying any ideas" 

Seems like a precedent that would entirely unravel free expression and it doesn't make much sense. How do you define political speech? I really doubt that's why anybody opposes CP being distributed.

We'll probably survive with CP being an exception because 99.9989% of people hate it and view it as evil but it does give the govt justification and a basis to entirely censor and control the internet. 

CP exists as exception to the principles. Nearly all self identified free speech supporters want it banned and even free speech absolutists don't hesitate on opposing it despite the slippery slope it presents.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 6, 2019)

I think the differences whether I agree with it or not is what I call a "knee jerk" reaction within censorship and freedom of speech. Honestly I believe it's more likely to provoke already existing child offenders to repeat, and lad to a vicious circle of offenders, but at the same time I do wonder if stats on such a subject would equate to what is believed of it being available? (Violent game stats contradict the age old premise violent content being available leads to more violence:  Sexual content leads to more sex crimes [Japan] which is also untrue, but it may be it's a dangerous thought to test because if it does follow the premise more CP=More predators that could lead to a disaster, assuming it already hasn't been tested.)

Though, I'd also have to point out sometimes there are exceptions to the rule, all rules have those exceptions and CP in this case may be that very one that makes the most sense to ban. Of course when explaining an exception you have to make it clear not everything will get that leeway on being said exception but this case should be self-evident just by the level of depravity and how most (the majority) see it or view optics of it.

Where as violent videos are a little different, we know concretely and scientifically violent content often doesn't lead to violent results. As others made mention of sure copycats could take notes on what to do, to preform a better shooting or make less mistakes but I find the numbers would be overall smaller. Also as made mention of could show vulnerabilities, how the shooter maneuvers to counter future shooters and more.

I can see violent videos like this recent shooting providing information to a degree, where as CP... You'd really have to specify an observation or situation where the video was helpful in anyway outside of knowing a location where it's taking place, but in the first place why would someone be watching it if they weren't part of a legal agency. (Hence their ability to track the predator or person doing those actions?)

Basically, I see it kind of like the old "Natural law" theory. Certain laws in civilizations are always enforced. Don't murder, don't steal. Why aren't X, Y, and Z enforced instead? It's generally because a majority agree with it or because the risk vs. reward is weighed (as far as can be seen) and it's deemed as an exception that needs to be censored in this case or a law enforced such as in the analogy.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Apr 7, 2019)

By this argument, holocaust photos should be banned from public viewing because they're depictions of human suffering. This is what you get when you over-intellectualize your way to an all or nothing argument, which is a very Louis Le Vau argument to make.


Apoth42 said:


> Doesn't the black market on CP encourage the creation of new CP?


Does the open market for regular porn discourage the creation of new normie porn?


----------



## Zersetzung (Apr 7, 2019)

We've all seen next-gen rendering demos like deepfakes and face2face, right?






Hypothetically, what happens in a year or three when anyone can download cp.exe and have it spit out a neural net-generated video literally indistinguishable from actual live action pornography? It seems like that kind of technology would be a drastically cheaper and safer way to produce that content, devaluing black market material and undermining the economic argument for prohibition. What then?


----------



## Zersetzung (Apr 23, 2019)




----------



## Zersetzung (Apr 24, 2019)

That was a super subtle way of saying answer me, you fucking cowards.

There's a huge tendency here for people to pay lip service to freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and freedom of speech while having this one particular reservation that you think is going to protect you when someone knocks on your door, like "protect the children" is a totem you're allowed to fucking claim, not just the door knockers. Deny it.

Get off Null's cock and have some guts.


----------



## Slap47 (Apr 24, 2019)

Mewtwo_Rain said:


> I can see violent videos like this recent shooting providing information to a degree, where as CP... You'd really have to specify an observation or situation where the video was helpful in anyway outside of knowing a location where it's taking place



Allowing only "useful" speech seems like a worse precedent.


----------



## Kittykin (Apr 24, 2019)

Mysterious Capitalist said:


> Greetings
> 
> The other day I was watching the Nick Rekieta video featuring @Null about the hosting of the mosque shooting on KF and the subsequent world community reaction to it.
> 
> At one point, I can't remember at what point in the video, the ethics (or lack thereof) of hosting this kind of video against cp was brought up and both Nick and Null *agreed on the point that cp is "too far" when it comes to freedom of speech* and should never be hosted (or something along those lines), but I could hear in their tone how they were struggling to come up on an "objective" difference between a shooting video and cp, simply laughing off the notion that they're very similar and quickly moving on.


Stating the obvious here, videos are not 'speech'. They are recordings of child rape or sexual abuse.



> And yet, I fail to see how those are so inherently different: they are both material that feature human suffering for the viewer's "pleasure" (and I mean it in the loosest of terms), they are both illegal, they are both very painful to the victims (both in the video and their surviving families/friends). And these are just the points that come at the top of my head.


They shooting was not intended for pleasure.
CP is created/intended for pleasure and profit at the expense of children.



> In fact, I can argue that a shooting video has _more_ suffering on the simple notion that more people become victims, on a strict numerical scale that doesn't take the value of human life into consideration. But even if you want to take it into consideration and argue that children suffering is worse that adult suffering, how many people have to die before they "outweigh" the suffering of one child? Would the video of hundreds of people being executed at the same time under some backwater third world regime be as despised and banned as cp? If yes, why? If not, why not? Would changing the number of victims change your opinion? Would it change if it was the video of 50 raped adults versus the video of 1 killed child? Can you even do such a "calculation"?


Ridiculous question.
You are attempting to equate entirely different concepts and intents. They are exclusive to each other.


> I can concede that, at least, a shooting video can be formative to LEOs to prevent or be better prepared against future shootings, but this is not really a "freedom of speech" argument. Maybe I'm not seeing something obvious here; I refuse to watch videos of human suffering so maybe I lack some kind of insight about it or it might skew my view about this kind of content.


You're right, it's not a freedom of speech argument the way it has been conflated with CP.



> And so I ask, in one of the last bastions of free speech on the Internet (I don't feel this is hyperbole lately), why don't we purge both as a despicable product of human evilness? If not, where do we draw the line and why there specifically on objective terms?


Raping children is destruction of your own species.



> (I also want to specify that I'm not even considering the possibility of "elevating" cp as a category of stuff protected by free speech, only to "downgrade" other forms of snuff media to "not worth saving/consuming")
> 
> Thanks
> 
> ...


Violence is inherent to humanity, as is sexuality, however most parents ( unless they are pedophiles themselves) have a very strong instinct about protecting their offspring.  Many pedophiles have died at the hands of angry parents.


----------



## Mysterious Capitalist (Apr 24, 2019)

Kittykin said:


> Stating the obvious here, videos are not 'speech'. They are recordings of child rape or sexual abuse.



Speech is intended as "expression", so if you make a video without uttering a word, your freedom to put whatever you want in said video is still protected under freedom of speech, I believe. I might be wrong on the definition, but this was the message I was trying to convey.



Kittykin said:


> They shooting was not intended for pleasure.
> CP is created/intended for pleasure and profit at the expense of children.



Again, with "pleasure" here I meant "to enjoy" (hence the bit where I specified "in the loosest of terms"). You'd be foolish to think that people that specifically want to see this kind of violent and raw content online aren't there to get some sort of enjoyment out of it, even if it's just to scratch and itch of curiosity.



Kittykin said:


> Ridiculous question.
> You are attempting to equate entirely different concepts and intents. They are exclusive to each other.



You're avoiding my attempt at a intellectual exercise. _Why_ are the concepts so different and exclusive to each other? I just want an answer that's different from "it's a tingling in the back of my brain that makes me say so"



Kittykin said:


> You're right, it's not a freedom of speech argument the way it has been conflated with CP.



See my first point in this post



Kittykin said:


> Raping children is destruction of your own species.



I can assure you that raping children is a thing that's happened since before we could be called "human beings" (and at some points in history it was even regarded as a good thing) and yet here we are.



Kittykin said:


> Violence is inherent to humanity, as is sexuality, however most parents ( unless they are pedophiles themselves) have a very strong instinct about protecting their offspring. Many pedophiles have died at the hands of angry parents.



This is either grossly naive or terribly ignorant of reality. In either case:


----------



## Kittykin (Apr 24, 2019)

Mysterious Capitalist said:


> Speech is intended as "expression", so if you make a video without uttering a word, your freedom to put whatever you want in said video is still protected under freedom of speech, I believe. I might be wrong on the definition, but this was the message I was trying to convey.



Then you need to check the definition, and the legal definition where it is applicable. I'll leave that to you.  Minimum we will be discussing the same meaning. Splitting hairs with lefties that change the definitions of words on the fly is an irritation to be avoided.



> Again, with "pleasure" here I meant "to enjoy" (hence the bit where I specified "in the loosest of terms"). You'd be foolish to think that people that specifically want to see this kind of violent and raw content online aren't there to get some sort of enjoyment out of it, even if it's just to scratch and itch of curiosity.


Curiosity is not about pleasure. For some , you will be correct, for others, it is merely information. Movies galore attest to the high tolerance for violence. When it is in the realm of fantasy, anything goes, but when the blood is real, it's another story, but both appear the same for all intents and purposes.  The mosque shooting video was a political message which the main stream media was anxious to shut down. The hypocrisy of that alone, should be questioned.



> You're avoiding my attempt at a intellectual exercise. _Why_ are the concepts so different and exclusive to each other? I just want an answer that's different from "it's a tingling in the back of my brain that makes me say so"


I already stated the difference. Reread it, and explain to me what aspect you are not understanding.
They shooting was not *intended *for pleasure.
CP is created/*intended* for pleasure and profit at the expense of children. 

Killing for the sake of a political statement, is not sexual release as in the case of raping kids ( or anyone for that matter)




> See my first point in this post


The crime of raping a child and recording it for distribution remains a crime. At no point in the modern civilized era am I aware, has it been considered "acceptable". "laudable" or what have you. Nor should it be. Children are physically incapable of engaging in sexual activity unless it is forced. It is not consensual.



> I can assure you that raping children is a thing that's happened since before we could be called "human beings" (and at some points in history it was even regarded as a good thing) and yet here we are.


You would be stating facts of the actions of those with some malfunctioning between their ears.




> This is either grossly naive or terribly ignorant of reality. In either case:


Seriously? Try again. Look at the crime rates as they are increasing, and violent crimes as well.  Which point are you specifically referring to? Parents have killed, and many more would, were it not illegal.  Perhaps I should be clearer, pedophile = someone who has molested their child as opposed to a 'friend' who is a pedophile but has not acted on his/her 'urges.'


----------



## Mysterious Capitalist (Apr 24, 2019)

Kittykin said:


> Then you need to check the definition, and the legal definition where it is applicable. I'll leave that to you. Minimum we will be discussing the same meaning. Splitting hairs with lefties that change the definitions of words on the fly is an irritation to be avoided.





			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> *Freedom of speech* is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The term "*freedom of expression*" is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.



There you go. I didn't think this would be necessary since other people in the thread didn't need the reminder, but I guess this way it's impossible to, as you put it, "Split hairs with lefties"



Kittykin said:


> Curiosity is not about pleasure.



You're still taking the word pleasure at its face value, like someone literally gets off when they go and check stuff out online out of curiosity. Then let's change the word "pleasure" in "personal satisfaction". Would that be clearer for you?



Kittykin said:


> The mosque shooting video was a political message which the main stream media was anxious to shut down. The hypocrisy of that alone, should be questioned.



Based on this and the previous "lefties" remark, should I assume that you think there's some kind of conspiracy behind the video and those that would like it to disappear from the Internet? Because I really don't care about that and it's beside the point of the thread. Just a heads up in case you wanted to bring that up.



Kittykin said:


> They shooting was not *intended *for pleasure.
> CP is created/*intended* for pleasure and profit at the expense of children.



Since you refuse to engage in the intellectual exercise this thread was meant to be even when I ask explicitly, I guess I'll take it to you directly: are you saying that, if the shooter started to masturbate on the dead bodies and wanted the video to be a snuff film for sociopaths to get off to, as in it would be *intended *for pleasure like any cp video, you'd be _against_ it's distribution? What about videos of children abused, but not sexually, as in the are not *intended* for pleasure? What about if someone made cp for academic purposes and was 100% truthful about it, so it would still be not *intended* for pleasure? Would they be fair game to host and redistribute then? Tell me what you think about it, where you'd draw the line of acceptability and why.



Kittykin said:


> Killing for the sake of a political statement, is not sexual release as in the case of raping kids ( or anyone for that matter)



What if killing for the sake of a political statement was intended for sexual release, though? Like some fucked up rp scenario. Would that change your opinion about it?



Kittykin said:


> You would be stating facts of the actions of those with some malfunctioning between their ears.



I guess this says a lot about the human race, then.



Kittykin said:


> Look at the crime rates as they are increasing, and violent crimes as well.



This is an old people fallacy where you believe that since before today it was harder to gain the knowledge that, indeed, the world is full of fucked up people, that it wasn't full of fucked up people before today. It's not that the crime rates are increasing, it's just your perception of them that's increasing and mainstream media doesn't help (with their sensationalist titles created to sell more). But objective data showed that this is the best time to be alive and crime hasn't been lower globally. But this is besides the point of the thread.



Kittykin said:


> Parents have killed, and many more would, were it not illegal.



You do know that a lot of children are _sold_ by their parents because they live in a shithole country and by selling their children they get both a lot of money and one less mouth to feed, right? Obviously we don't have official data (that I know of), but I suspect that the percentage of parents guilty of this in third world countries is not... unsubstantial.


----------



## Kittykin (Apr 24, 2019)

Mysterious Capitalist said:


> *Freedom of speech* is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The term "*freedom of expression*" is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
> 
> There you go. I didn't think this would be necessary since other people in the thread didn't need the reminder, but I guess this way it's impossible to, as you put it, "Split hairs with lefties"


Thank you. 
You are conflating premeditated murder and CP?  Both of which are crimes, but are confused as to why CP is not to be made available for random viewing nor the murder video. Is that correct? 




> You're still taking the word pleasure at its face value, like someone literally gets off when they go and check stuff out online out of curiosity. Then let's change the word "pleasure" in "personal satisfaction". Would that be clearer for you?


Wrong. That is your assumption. I am in no way shape or form assuming a literal load blown unless you are referring to CP as you stated. The mosque shooting was political. If some freaks got off to that, that is their deal.  The video was notproduced based on the intent that a bunch of naked chimps fap to it. 




> Based on this and the previous "lefties" remark, should I assume that you think there's some kind of conspiracy behind the video and those that would like it to disappear from the Internet? Because I really don't care about that and it's beside the point of the thread. Just a heads up in case you wanted to bring that up.



You don't care about it, but many are on point when they are suggesting that the actions by the NZ governement were extreme, and it did not end there. It was an active campaign to smear his name in the process. And, that the media is doing so needs to be questioned.  Media is not representing the news anywhere near close to the truth of the issue. 



> Since you refuse to engage in the intellectual exercise this thread was meant to be even when I ask explicitly, I guess I'll take it to you directly: are you saying that, if the shooter started to masturbate on the dead bodies and wanted the video to be a snuff film for sociopaths to get off to, as in it would be *intended *for pleasure like any cp video, you'd be _against_ it's distribution? What about videos of children abused, but not sexually, as in the are not *intended* for pleasure? What about if someone made cp for academic purposes and was 100% truthful about it, so it would still be not *intended* for pleasure? Would they be fair game to host and redistribute then? Tell me what you think about it, where you'd draw the line of acceptability and why.



There is no line of acceptablity when it comes to abusing children. That is a demented mind that seeks out that sort of 'entertainment.' Clearly, there exist many fucked in the head wastes of meat dragging their arses across the face of the earth and harming kids for their own selfish gratification, and many that choose to look the other way; Making them culpable for the crimes. 

You are mashing your arguement trying to equate the killings to CP. You can't. They are not even vaguely comparable. 



> What if killing for the sake of a political statement was intended for sexual release, though? Like some fucked up rp scenario. Would that change your opinion about it?


That is stretching well past the bounds of reason.



> I guess this says a lot about the human race, then.


No, that says alot about specific individuals. 




> This is an old people fallacy where you believe that since before today it was harder to gain the knowledge that, indeed, the world is full of fucked up people, that it wasn't full of fucked up people before today. It's not that the crime rates are increasing, it's just your perception of them that's increasing and mainstream media doesn't help (with their sensationalist titles created to sell more). But objective data showed that this is the best time to be alive and crime hasn't been lower globally. But this is besides the point of the thread.


The world has always been filled with fucked up people, and the punshiment was harsher for their crimes. So, you would need to pick a time period for which you wish to make your argument relevant. 




> You do know that a lot of children are _sold_ by their parents because they live in a shithole country and by selling their children they get both a lot of money and one less mouth to feed, right? Obviously we don't have official data (that I know of), but I suspect that the percentage of parents guilty of this in third world countries is not... unsubstantial.


Yes, and again, in this part of your argument you will need to make your argument specific to the geography.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Apr 25, 2019)

I must be a terrible person because all this argument against the New Zealand Shooting video did was convince me that child porn should be legal to host (but not produce), just in case.


----------



## Kittykin (Apr 25, 2019)

Then you run into the problem of the reward for the middleman of hosting criminal activities that are designed with the intent to promote child rape/ abuse , while profiting from it and normalizing it.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Apr 25, 2019)

I know but I'm not sure that's a worse problem than suppression of information. Plus if this was out in the open wouldn't that make it easier to catch the actual abusers?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 25, 2019)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> I know but I'm not sure that's a worse problem than suppression of information. Plus if this was out in the open wouldn't that make it easier to catch the actual abusers?


I think normalization of pedophilia is a worse problem and so is creating more incentive to create child pornography.

Why would it make it easier to catch abusers in any case?


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Apr 25, 2019)

It'd at least be easier to assemble a watch list based on who's repeatedly viewing videos.


----------



## goku_black (Apr 25, 2019)

one is pornography which is for pedos to jerk off to and the other is showing the events of how the massacre happened which is why one is allowed and the other is not


----------



## The Fool (Apr 25, 2019)

I think it's a matter of industry, and that CP has a lot more in common with illegal drugs than it does genocide.

How do you industrialize a shooting spree? You can't, that counts as terrorism, and the US already has multiple agencies combating terrorism. You're "allowed" to share a shooting video as far as to share the raw information. Going any further than that, attaching the message "we do this tonight" or something, registers as a threat and therein becomes illegal.

CP is different, CP _can_ be industrialized. It doesn't take much to lure a kid. Hell, you could even be related to the kid. Kids are as abundant, as, say, the supplies needed to synthesize Krokodil (Desomorphine). Children aren't illegal, bleach isn't illegal, but CP and Krokodil are. It's not the raw resource, but what actions you take in order to produce the resource, and how you intend to utilize the resource in order to market and proliferate it.

CP and shooting videos are as different as a licensed doctor versus a back-alley doctor. You can have a kid, you can own a gun, but you can't make CP, and you can't genocide people. Yes, there is an explicit exception between these two laws, and the exception is there to enforce sanity and safety. CP and shooting videos are always argued against because they can enable people. But the difference is, you're most likely to get caught if you plan a shooting spree, whereas CP has already proven itself as a lively and dangerous industry.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 25, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> Allowing only "useful" speech seems like a worse precedent.


As mentioned though, there are always exceptions to the rules of allowable speech. Hence why speech that causes mass hysteria, and or intention wise violent (or threatening) isn't allowed. It may just be CP is also one of those exceptions, and it's really hard to argue that it shouldn't be an exception to general free speech  as saying it should be allowed is very very contentious.


----------



## Kittykin (Apr 25, 2019)

Mewtwo_Rain said:


> As mentioned though, there are always exceptions to the rules of allowable speech. Hence why speech that causes mass hysteria, and or intention wise violent (or threatening) isn't allowed. It may just be CP is also one of those exceptions, and it's really hard to argue that it shouldn't be an exception to general free speech  as saying it should be allowed is very very contentious.


Trying yelling "bomb!" in an airport and see how far you get with it.  
No bomb, nothing. But where does the funny fellow end up for his efforts?
And why? 

CP is a violation of the rights of a child to live without being abused. Sexual abuse / Rape are crimes against a person. 
Your rights end, where the rights of the other begin. Children cannot protect themselves from fucked up adults. That duty falls to society. If society fails at that, consult the research for the outcome. 

The intent of Free speech is being bastardized to promote that which the 2nd ammendment would put an end to in a variety of cases.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 25, 2019)

Kittykin said:


> Trying yelling "bomb!" in an airport and see how far you get with it.
> No bomb, nothing. But where does the funny fellow end up for his efforts?
> And why?
> 
> ...


I don't disagree. I think the intent of my post and point was misunderstood.

I'm saying, those arguing it's "freedom of speech" by allowing CP are missing it is a case where it's hard to argue for its existence. Even within the argument "Muh free speech." There are exceptions the bomb case is exactly that, a violation via mass hysteria. (Or yelling "Fire!" in a theater.)

More or less someone could argue that CP that already exists isn't further harming the child. (I've seen this argument before) and although it is true, it doesn't counter the fact many see it as an exception to the free speech concept and I have to agree. The argument you present could also qualify for people recording a shooting (or recording and preforming shooting.) It's not that it's wrong, it's just not the same concept I'm pointing out.



Your Weird Fetish said:


> It'd at least be easier to assemble a watch list based on who's repeatedly viewing videos.


The only problem I have with that is you'd probably be better off leaving that to law enforcement identifying suspects and more.


----------



## Kittykin (Apr 25, 2019)

Mewtwo_Rain said:


> I don't disagree. I think the intent of my post and point was misunderstood.
> 
> I'm saying, those arguing it's "freedom of speech" by allowing CP are missing it is a case where it's hard to argue for its existence. Even within the argument "Muh free speech." There are exceptions the bomb case is exactly that, a violation via mass hysteria. (Or yelling "Fire!" in a theater.)
> 
> More or less someone could argue that CP that already exists isn't further harming the child. (I've seen this argument before) and although it is true, it doesn't counter the fact many see it as an exception to the free speech concept and I have to agree. The argument you present could also qualify for people recording a shooting (or recording and preforming shooting.) It's not that it's wrong, it's just not the same concept I'm pointing out.


Understand your point, however, the fact that the CP is a crime in and of itself with the intent to sexually abuse a child for the gratification of a group of fucked in the head useless pieces of meat is more than enough reason to not allow the 'Free speech' argument. Legal executions are not televised, how can the CP is 'Freedom of Speech" hold up by comparison.

You are well aware it is nothing more than an attempt by the mentally deranged fetish crowd trying to normalize this fucked up crap. Sexual dysfunction tends to breed and spread through suggestion. Lowering the age of consent, teaching of sex and fetish practices to young kids as part of "sex ed" is part and parcel of "normalizing" this crap under the guise of 'tolerance' and 'acceptance.'


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 25, 2019)

Kittykin said:


> Understand your point, however, the fact that the CP is a crime in and of itself with the intent to sexually abuse a child for the gratification of a group of fucked in the head useless pieces of meat is more than enough reason to not allow the 'Free speech' argument. Legal executions are not televised, how can the CP is 'Freedom of Speech" hold up by comparison.
> 
> You are well aware it is nothing more than an attempt by the mentally deranged fetish crowd trying to normalize this fucked up crap. Sexual dysfunction tends to breed and spread through suggestion.


More or less I don't disagree with your view on that, I'm just saying I don't buy the "freedom of speech" when it comes to CP because it like the "Bomb" example and the "Fire!" example are all exceptions to fee speech acceptance. The shooting case I can see being allowed to some degree for information purposes , and the like but with CP I fully agree with your stance.


----------



## Slap47 (Apr 25, 2019)

Kittykin said:


> CP is a violation of the rights of a child to live without being abused. Sexual abuse / Rape are crimes against a person.
> Your rights end, where the rights of the other begin. Children cannot protect themselves from fucked up adults. That duty falls to society. If society fails at that, consult the research for the outcome.



Are you making an exception because its a child? "Traumatic speech" as a limit also seems like a dangerous precedent.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Apr 25, 2019)

Every single one of these arguments also applies to the mosque shooting video. I just see no other way to be internally consistent.


----------



## ICametoLurk (Apr 25, 2019)

It's just sex and shooting people. Dunno what the big deal is.


----------



## Mysterious Capitalist (Apr 26, 2019)

Kittykin said:


> CP is a violation of the rights of a child to live without being abused. Sexual abuse / Rape are crimes against a person.
> Your rights end, where the rights of the other begin. Children cannot protect themselves from fucked up adults. That duty falls to society. If society fails at that, consult the research for the outcome.



Mass murder is a violation of the rights of people to live without being killed. Murder / Hate crimes are crimes against a person.
Your rights end, where the rights of the other begin. People cannot protect themselves from fucked up murderers. That duty falls to society. If society fails at that, consult the research for the outcome.



Kittykin said:


> Understand your point, however, the fact that the CP is a crime in and of itself with the intent to sexually abuse a child for the gratification of a group of fucked in the head useless pieces of meat is more than enough reason to not allow the 'Free speech' argument. Legal executions are not televised, how can the CP is 'Freedom of Speech" hold up by comparison.



Understand your point, however, the fact that mass murder is a crime in and of itself with the intent to kill people to send a political message and for the gratification of whoever is curious enough to watch it (which is usually a lot of people) is more than enough reason to not allow the 'Free speech' argument. Video of violent crimes are not televised, how can mass murder videos is 'Freedom of Speech" hold up by comparison.

So your argument is that we should also ban all videos of crimes? Because that's what New Zealand want, apparently. At least that one video in particular.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Apr 27, 2019)

You posted agree on my post and then came to the exact opposite conclusion. I mean, I get it. I don't want child porn to exist either. I just think freedom of information is more important.


----------



## Kittykin (Apr 28, 2019)

2 pages have been lost from this thread due to some glitch. Seems you read those posts prior to your reply. Nice word game.


Mysterious Capitalist said:


> Mass murder is a violation of the rights of people to live without being killed. Murder / Hate crimes are crimes against a person.
> Your rights end, where the rights of the other begin. People cannot protect themselves from fucked up murderers. That duty falls to society. If society fails at that, consult the research for the outcome.



Murder is a violation of the right of another where the rights of one end and another begins, such that they can be enforced.

"Hate crimes"  do not exist. 'Hate' is an emotion. Crime exists.
Hate crimes and CP are the new seque you are running.




> Understand your point, however, the fact that mass murder is a crime in and of itself with the intent to kill people to send a political message and for the gratification of whoever is curious enough to watch it (which is usually a lot of people) is more than enough reason to not allow the 'Free speech' argument. Video of violent crimes are not televised, how can mass murder videos is 'Freedom of Speech" hold up by comparison.
> 
> So your argument is that we should also ban all videos of crimes? Because that's what New Zealand want, apparently. At least that one video in particular.


What a crude mulch of an attempt at an arguement.  That is pathetic. At NO point in time did I state anything of the sort.

The original OP is with regards to CP and conflating it against a video of killing innocents of a specific group.

CP is violation of the rights of child for the purpose of sexual gratification and profit.
The killing video was in violation of the rights of the murdered, for the purpose of Political exposure.

INTENT is entirely different.   The question of intent at present, is the silencing of a political opinion.


----------



## Slap47 (Apr 28, 2019)

Kittykin said:


> CP is violation of the rights of child for the purpose of sexual gratification and profit.



Children literally died in that ChristChurch shooting video so you'll have to find a better argument than that.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Apr 28, 2019)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> Every single one of these arguments also applies to the mosque shooting video. I just see no other way to be internally consistent.


I apologize my comment didn't survive the crash.

The problem is some things are never going to be logically consistent.

It's why in society we find rape and child rape completely different in magnitude of awfulness. Why abuse (domestic/etc.) and child abuse are handled differently. 

In this comparison though I'd argue violence is different as normally CP has been shown in studies to be an accelerator to pedophiles/child molesters.  (A different case comes from lolicon where real child predators won't touch it because they will find a way to get CP) Where as the shooting is slightly different. violent actions on screen/depictions do not cause violence in normal people. Unlike the reverse. There is no correlation to shooting videos (real or fake) leading to violent acts. Where as again Child porn is seen as an accelerator and even a drive for some pedophiles.

In regards to freedom of information. This is a double edged sword on child rape, because if someone is handling them,  and reveals the data, they could target the child, or buy the child from the handler thus doing what I mentioned above. Where as mos often if people need to find the child/location it's often best left to the authorities, whether they're reliable or not. It's why in the old days Anti-child predator groups often got in trouble for mistaken identity and attacking innocent victims who happened to look like known pedophiles on that very premise.

In the same instance of freedom of speech by analogy. You normally can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or some other statement that would lead to mass hysteria or incite violence.  The real truth is certain lines (exceptions) are drawn based on the concept that certain factors are detrimental are dangerous being allowed even with the promotion of freedom of speech/information.

Who decides these exceptions is generally held by society itself. Whether you agree or not.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Apr 28, 2019)

I have trouble accepting a "just because" argument, internally.


----------



## Kittykin (Apr 29, 2019)

It isn't.   If you are suggesting that child rape is a political act, that by a massive stretch of the imagination meets the criteria for what you understand as "just because." Even then, it is invalid. 

Freedom of Speech, using the OPs definition does not include the right to promote child rape under the guise of / legal protection of 'Freedom of Speech.'  Conflating political opinion with child rape is a ridiculous premise for suggesting " Hate Speech" be equated to differing political opinions.


----------



## Slap47 (Apr 29, 2019)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> I have trouble accepting a "just because" argument, internally.



That seems to be the rule. I don't think you can be logically consistent on this unless you're an advocate for the nanny state.


----------



## Zersetzung (Apr 30, 2019)

child pornography essentially the Western equivalent of the chinese "Posession Of State Documents"
reminder that in 2015 a bunch of articles came out exposing the fact that the FBI were the ones running something like 21 out of 27 known darknet cp sites

the FBI are those guys who keep having to bust themselves for this exact thing if you forgot



goku_black said:


> one is pornography which is for pedos to jerk off to and the other is showing the events of how the massacre happened which is why one is allowed and the other is not


so you're saying what I should do is put on my bowling shoes and turn on my gopro and fuck a dozen muslim kids before shooting them in the head so that you can get the fucking point


----------



## Fools Idol (Apr 30, 2019)

The shooting in New Zealand was politically motivated. The shooters motivations are dangerous to the status quo and are thus censored/banned or spun one way or another. Child porn is non of those things, it's just the sexual abuse of a child.


----------



## goku_black (May 1, 2019)

Zersetzung said:


> so you're saying what I should do is put on my bowling shoes and turn on my gopro and fuck a dozen muslim kids before shooting them in the head so that you can get the fucking point


1. your misconstruing my point by blending the two together
2.any part involving molestation of children should be censored


----------



## Slap47 (May 1, 2019)

Fools Idol said:


> The shooting in New Zealand was politically motivated. The shooters motivations are dangerous to the status quo and are thus censored/banned or spun one way or another. Child porn is non of those things, it's just the sexual abuse of a child.



What if a politician rapes their political rivals child to get one over on their enemy? What about  child rape in the context of genocidal war (Yugoslavia, etc).

Also, why does the political matter? The US has literally had supreme court battles over the casual use of the word "Fuck".


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (May 1, 2019)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> I have trouble accepting a "just because" argument, internally.


It's not a "Just because" argument. It's an argument of magnitudes.  If you look at the two concepts they can seem the same, but the freakonomics/meta physics (Whatever you want to call it) of the situation have differences in the details.  Which is where they greatly differ.

Would you say raping an adult is the same as raping a child? If yes, why? If no, then you've already stumbled onto why the exception is made.

In a sense, both are looked at as awful acts, but one is considered far worse due to details of how it affects both groups.  It's like if someone shot someone. Shooting someone in the head is far worse than shooting them in the arm. You're still shooting them, but the damage done by said shooting will obviously differ.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (May 1, 2019)

One could easily argue that inspiring mass shootings is more damaging than child porn.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (May 1, 2019)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> One could easily argue that inspiring mass shootings is more damaging than child porn.




The problem is studies show no correlation to watching violent images /violent depictions and someone carrying them out, even copy cats aren't replicating the event from the footage 1-1 comparison wise. Where as CP there are studies implying pedophiles often use it for acceleration-ist behavior.

If there was evidence to suggest that watching violent images led to further violence or caused people to act violently I'd agree that there is no difference. The problem is the details/studies into this don't bare that conclusion. Where the blank comparison starts to fall apart or distance itself.

When I said argument of magnitudes what I meant is the details are not the same.  The fact violent depictions don't lead to violence is less a problem then accelerationist material such as CP.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (May 1, 2019)

But even if viewing violent images increased the propensity of violence I still wouldn't be in favor of banning them. So you can see my issue, internally.

I _want_ to ban child porn but it feels like I'm not being consistent.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (May 1, 2019)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> But even if viewing violent images increased the propensity of violence I still wouldn't be in favor of banning them. So you can see my issue, internally.
> 
> I _want_ to ban child porn but it feels like I'm not being consistent.




Well then that's fair, I don't disagree with having a blanket standard, as that's logical consistency. I'm arguing outside our own specfiic preferences (IE: Societies standards vs. Individual standards) exceptions are made based on those concepts. I'm not for cnesorship myself, but I understand why society treats them differently as I understand why rape vs. child rape is treated differently.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (May 1, 2019)

Oh I _understand_ it. Child porn is viscerally disgusting in a way even murder is not. Which is odd since, logically, at least the victimized children have a chance at life. The murdered don't. But it seems to be how we're programmed.


----------



## Zersetzung (May 8, 2019)

goku_black said:


> 2.any part involving molestation of children should be censored


for every child you don't rape and execute i will rape and execute two


----------



## The best and greatest (May 8, 2019)

Null said:


> Child pornography creates a black market for child sexual exploitation in countries with weak governments that cannot protect children.
> Violent videos do no such thing and do not have such a market.


I mean there's no reason you can't commoditize mass murder footage. Arguably the media already does this.


----------



## Mysterious Capitalist (May 8, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> I mean there's no reason you can't commoditize mass murder footage. Arguably the media already does this.



I've also been thinking that, despite a full fledged black market not being as likely as a cp one, mass murder videos _do_ inspire copycats and/or dregs of society like incels into antisocial action ("going ER", which are the initials of Elliot Rodger, is a very popular incel term)


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (May 9, 2019)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> Oh I _understand_ it. Child porn is viscerally disgusting in a way even murder is not. Which is odd since, logically, at least the victimized children have a chance at life. The murdered don't. But it seems to be how we're programmed.


Yeah, I totally see where you're coming from, and any distinction does seem... arbitrary. And just like you say, that doesn't change the fact that I in no way want CP protected by free speech, nor do I want any aspect of free speech (Or the assumed accompanying free expression...) to be limited further.  But, taking a step back, objectively, I can't logically find anywhere to make a meaningful distinction that doesn't itself introduce further limits.


----------

