Hacker News Reader

Comment by igetspam | Hacker News Reader

I don't have to research sentencing to feel that 4.5 years is out of line with the amount of victimization being discussed. What would you think was justified for someone who abused children for profit? Someone who forced kids to do lewd things, so they could sell photos of it? Is possessing the material different? Or do think causing lifelong harm to children, in general, is only worth a handful of years to the abuser? Is 1/25 of a life really the just outcome for an entire life in therapy? A lifetime of trust issues? What if one of those kids committed suicide because they couldn't cope? So 4.5 years, huh?

The US has plenty of examples of light sentencing. Rapists who get "time served" is common. Victim blaming is part of what we do. Serious crimes deserve serious punishment or the ROI on crime becomes worth it.

View on HN

I don't know, do you feel like a party to child exploitation when you buy an iPhone and clothes? What about people living and working in horrific conditions to support your lifestyle? Do you feel culpable for that? Without people like you, that human suffering wouldn't exist, or at least there would be less of it, right? What would be an appropriate prison sentence for your participation in those things, a couple of months?

Clearly benefiting from horrific crimes is not the same as perpetrating them.

I don’t think the suffering in the creation of an iPhone is in any way comparable to the suffering of sexually abusing children and filming it. And doing that thousands of times.

True enough.

Now, in this specific case is there evidence that this person abused children first hand and|or filmed themselves doing so?

Apparently the court saw no such evidence if they merely charged and found on filesharing.

They're comparable in the same way that 1 year and 50 years are comparable.

Bit of a copout, tbh. I'm gonna assume you don't have a good response for how you somehow aren't culpable for your part in these crimes.

My position is that the crime of economic exploitation and whatnot involved with creating iPhones is nothing like that of child porn.

So it’s like comparing a minute to a year. They’re both units of time.

Also, I’ve bought maybe 10 iPhones in my life. This person has tens of thousands of photos.

It’s not about you and me being culpable for our part in using technology made in China, we obviously are. It’s about that not being relevant to someone with mounds of child porn.

You're making some pretty fun suppositions about my lifestyle choices. I do feel somewhat culpable for any acts of consumerism that I participate in, that harm others. I actively try and do the least harm. It's inescapable without living in a cave but I do what I can. I'm doing so, I spend my money in ways that encourage ethical sourcing and treatment of workers. I pay more for this because I think people deserve to be treated like people. So yes, there is some blame that we can all share in but without people like me, people who are willing to spend more to support ethical practices, there'd be more of it. I can only assume that you're basing your arguments on your own lifestyle and maybe you should feel some blame but that's up to you.

Now let's be honest, these things are not the same. By buying your apple devices and whatever clothing brands you opt into, are you doing it for the explicit purpose of harm? If so, you're a monster and you should probably be incarcerated. That's what child pornography is: explicitly supporting abuse of children. There's no ethical way to source child pornography. It's all criminal and consuming criminal material supports criminal activity. This is similar to how you and the dealer would be charged for things like dealing drugs (I'm not passing judgement, just statement of fact) or illegal weapons or trafficking in people. There's innocence to be had by any party and they're maybe equally guilty.

"Is possessing the material different?"

I mean...yes? of course it is?

It's like pretending to watch a football match on tv to be materially the same as being in the field.

There is of course the question of whether he shared it or not, or if it was just for personal use, but still, as horrible that subject might be, I'm more than a bit mystified at the idea of the act vs. watching the video of the act considered as being even remotely in the same ballpark.

That is a false equivalence, unless you're saying that professional athletes are there under duress and that they are not choosing any long term side effects.

We're talking about paying for violence and abuse. By consuming the material, you are supporting the activity in a material way, thus creating an incentive for it to continue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com