Hacker News Reader

Comment by Insanity | Hacker News Reader

Literature should be able to explore tough topics and spark discussion. There are numerous interpretations of reading a book.. for example, if in the book it is written that a 10 year old had sex with a 30 year old, that could be the fantasy of the 30 year old and you can use it to explore the mind of a pedophile.

Also, reading this of course Lolita comes to mind. To this day, one of the best books I have read (although Pale Fire is the more literarily impressive one of Nabokov). Lolita is an example of a book that explores a complex controversial topic, with an unreliable narrator which forces the reader to think about what is actually happening and what is not.

Banning books and not allowing content such as this, where clearly no child is actually harmed, is insane.

Edit: the novel in the article takes the point of view of the (potential) minor rather than the adult. Doesn’t really change my point, in my opinion.

View on HN

Well, books like Nabokov's are always grandfathered in on the "artistic merit" criterion, but I'm not so sure it wouldn't have been banned had it been released today. I can think of a bunch of historical books which definitively would have (and arguably should have, if you think text fiction can be CSAM).

When you say should hav, do you mean in the legal sense, or that you agree with such laws? I can't fathom being ok with any book being banned, but usually when I cannot understand a perspective I'm missing something pretty big. So I'm actually asking, not trying to start a pointless Internet debate.

The arguments for and against end up similar to those for and against banning drawn or AI generated depiction of csam. No actual children are harmed, it's artistic expression, moving the topic out of sight won't solve it, and any ban will also catch works that speak out against sexual abuse. On the other hand any such content risks playing into pedophilia fetishes (and some content simply does so very openly), and so far research is (very lightly) in favor of withholding any such content from "afflicted people" rather than providing a "safe outlet". Though this is debated and part of ongoing research

I think one additional objection to AI generated depictions is that photo-realistic AI generated content gives plausible deniability to those who create/possess real life CSAM.

And it would make authorities waste time finding the real csam to investigate or mistakenly investigating AI csam (under the hypothetical that AI csam is decriminalized).

I deliberately didn't want to get into that. It's not as if my opinion makes much of a difference anyway. But I do want us to be consistent, and I want as little as possible to be decided by "I know it when I see it" judges.

Yes, that is where I get stuck. Of there was a deterministically harmful book, like the play ,"the king in yellow", which drove every reader violently mad, then I would want it banned. There are unquestionably books and ideas that are statistically harmful to the society most of us want to live in. I just don't trust anyone to be the arbiter of what gets included in that category. But I live in a low trust society, so maybe it is a solvable problem?

My immediately thought when I read the description of the book was that I have some internet friends who are into ABDL (adult baby diaper lover) stuff, and it sounds like the book's somewhat like that. I haven't GRILLED them about their motivations or why they're into it, but they like pretending to be a baby sometimes (not always in a sexual way) - maybe it's freeing to let go of responsibilities and pressure, etc. Anyway, it doesn't hurt anyone, and they get something out of it that makes them happy.

This ruling is sad IMO, because I have the feeling that Australia is increasingly hostile to The Weird Stuff, and I'm worried about what it might mean for people over there who are into abdl and the like.

Lolita was published in the US, which has protected freedom of expression; Australia does not.

Books banned in US schools: https://pen.org/banned-books-list-2025/

Books banned generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_banning_in_the_United_Sta...

That’s local school boards—other schools and libraries have entire “banned books” sections because of that. Nobody is getting arrested for it.

It still restricts access to literature. It is still a ban, and it is a limit of freedom to explore literature.

But I agree with you, different scale of a similar problem.

In high school, I read Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five entirely because it was on a banned list. So it can go both ways.

Its not a similar problem. In one case a school board bans books from being in school libraries, in another someone is charged with a sex crime for their literary production. There are magnitudes of difference here.

> Lolita was published in the US

According to Wikipedia it was first published in France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita#Publication_and_recepti...

That’s a fascinating publication history but does in the end demonstrate my original point: once the french government got word of it they banned the book, whereas in the US, once it got a publisher, it basically proliferated unchecked, probably on account of the strong norms around freedom of speech.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com