Rick Falkvinge: Child Porn Laws Are Worse Than You Think | Hacker News Reader

Rick Falkvinge: Child Porn Laws Are Worse Than You Think

falkvinge.net

13 pointsPaperclipTaken5 comments

Open articleView on HN

I applaud Rick for having this discussion. Normally I (perhaps like many others) would be turned off reading about a topic like this. When the first thread [0] came up, I ignored it. However, as it slowly accumulated more votes on HN, I felt a desire to challenge myself to read it and see how it constructively discussed the issues around child pornography.

Sure enough, I found it a very well put together piece.

I think the same can be said for this follow up article.

The discussion reminds me of the discussion around the Australian artist Bill Henson [1], who got in strife for photographs of a 13 year old. I personally don't have strong opinions one way or the other as to the rightness or wrongness of this type of art, but it was interesting to have the debate blown so widely open in the mainstream media here. Having said that, the debate was more about "Art" vs "Child pornograhy" and didn't touch on the additional areas that Rick discussed.

I do think that one point Rick may want to touch on is also the slippery slope to do with your own young children. When they are one or two years old, it is fine to take photos of them playing in the yard naked for the family album. Hell, its even frowned upon if there aren't photos like this to embarrass a child at their 21st birthday. Just as this is ok, it is also not okay for a parent to take photos of their 17yo child naked for the family album.

It seems that it would be difficult to legislate the specific point at which it is no longer okay to partake in this type of photography, but it is interesting to consider these things.

[0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4495914

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Henson#Images_seized

I think the most compelling argument made in this article is that a law that by it's nature is only going to do what it's supposed to if applied selectively is a bad law. The manga image posted in the article looks more like art to me, but in the US is probably CP, though it's hard to tell at this point.

The article also touches on a more widely applicable idea that we should all push for more evidence based law making. In this case, continually making harsher punishments for simple possession, disregarding any evidence that those punishments may in fact be detrimental to preventing child molestation. More widely, I think it should also be easily applied to internet piracy law and drug decriminalization to take the low hanging fruit of evidence free lawmaking.

I'd also like to say that I appreciate a politician actively making a choice to talk about an inflammatory topic, taking an unpopular position, and risking his career to stand up for what he believes. Whether you agree with his interpretation or not, that's something I'd like to see more of.

>The article also touches on a more widely applicable idea that we should all push for more evidence based law making.

This is why I've always said laws should always be passed with a probationary period.

After a law is enacted, it would have to be voted on a again, after a few years have passed or it would automatically expire.

--Obviously there would be some exemptions, such as annual budgets.

It's illegal to commit murder in real life, but a large fraction of very popular novels, movies, and TV shows are about fictional murders -- Macbeth, Sherlock Holmes, CSI -- there are literally thousands, or maybe millions, of examples.

As long as no actual murders took place in its making, art about murder is perfectly okay.

It seems logically inconsistent to be okay with artistic depiction of one crime but not another

At one time, I may have agreed with the spurious claims in this article. Then I worked for the public defender, and some of my clients were pedophiles. Now I firmly believe that child porn laws are about where they should be, and possibly may even be too lenient (in the US).

The fundamental, overriding justification for child porn laws is that in most of this filth, an actual child is being raped. In the minority of this filth, the sexual imagery is faked or animated. The fake filth exists only because those perverts cannot get their hands on the real stuff--it's not an alternative, it's a temporary stopgap.

I know that the HN crowd is treating this as some sort of abstract, hypothetical discussion of freedom, but if you actually talk to pedophiles, you will quickly realize why child porn laws exist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com