You should go to jail if you do actual crimes, you know, with real victims. Not imaginary victims that don't know when you see a video in the first place.
Those same “ones and zeroes” could cost someone their life as much as a mal-designed truss on a bridge could. That is not a new phenomenon.
The same applies to childrens’ safety.
Childrens' safety is not a digital thing in a computer, and AFAIK nothing suggests childrens' safety is more at risk right now than from other forms of violence that seem to be perfectly tolerated and celebrated in books, movies, music.
If I'm trying to make a business out of child porn, sure try to prosecute me. I believe selling other peoples' pictures without consent should be illegal in any case, specially if in demeaning circumstances. If I'm just sharing it, though disgusting it may be, the law should not stick it's nose in it. Just like it's legal to share books on how to make bombs and poison people.
So you're saying that having illegal material on your computer is not a problem because, well, it's "your property"? Like, it's fine for you to have child porn (or pirated software, or illegally downloaded copyrighted music or movies) because hey, it's all zeroes and ones, and you're not "making a business out of it"?
I empathize with the argument of some free speech advocates that it's complicated to find the right balance on where to draw the line in terms of censorship, but frankly the argument that you can do anything you want just because "it's zeroes and ones" and that is not "the real world" is plainly ridiculous. Thankfully what you propose is clearly against the law in most countries.
What separates a simple file host from a complicit active member? I think at that point you're one in the same.
This matter isn't about an isolated machine; it's about a networked machine.
And to the rest of what you've said... I can't do anything but disagree with you.
And if the idea is that the public is too dumb and easy to influence and therefore cannot be shown child porn or killings in New Zeland etc then it doesn't make sense at the same time for me to be advertised violent movies in the cinema.
People, generally, watch video of a terrorist attack to be informed about threats to them or their country, a direct first amendment concern.
There is a direct connection between the consumers of child porn and its production that is absent in the other.
How is it that people who become interested in and start to collect CP would ever become involved in its production, in your model? Having gained access to a product they desire, those people seem to follow the same pattern as enthusiasts of any other taste, and develop an interest in creating their own material, as opposed to being satisfied with that already available.
CP is shared with the intent of reciprocity for more CP; hence sharing existing CP promotes future CP.
Violent/hateful content is shared with the intent to encourage/persuade others to perform similar acts, or to dehumanize the victims.
CP, violent and hateful content are shared for a myriad of reasons, some for profit, like the documentary on the Bataclan attack on Netflix, some for sharing with fellow pedophiles. I don't see why I can't see 9/11 footage because someone else might feel different about it.
No, it should be based on actual research and statistics. For example, many supposedly reasonable people assumed that violent computer games promote criminal/antisocial behaviour, but they actually don’t.
That said, the sharing of the video in that thread is something I think we can all agree is 0’s and 1’s that should be attempted to be prevented.
The media will come and share these videos for clicks and that’s a separate issue. Initially, this guy is knowingly becoming an Internet celebrity for murdering people. This part of the culture has to be addressed. I am worried this kind of meme-heavy killing is opening up a sickening can of worms.