What's the difference between a mosque shooting video and a cp video from a "freedom of speech" point of view? - One is perfectly acceptable to host in the name of free speech while the other must be purged with fire. Why not purge both?

[Mewtwo_Rain]

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]

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

 

[Kittykin]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.