I get the "slippery slope" arguments etc, but I can't help feeling that the right to free speech shouldn't include the right to look at pictures of children being raped.
I'm not trying to be a smartass, and I actually upvoted your comment, but you do seem to have completely missed the point of Hitchens' speech.
As to "who gets to decide which of these acts sends you to prison?" that would be our elected representatives, right? They make all sorts of decisions at our request on our behalf.
> "that would be our elected representatives, right?"
Awesome. Yes, I know how our laws are made. Please read the Hitchens quote above for context. The question is, can a society that values freedom of expression safely entrust any human with the power to decide which sorts of expression are allowed and which are not?
History, generally, does not make "yes" the obvious answer.
While I think this distinction exists, I do not think that any kind of data should be prohibited, even if the data should not have been created had the law been respected. If a crime was committed to produce the data, of course the crime should be investigated and its perpetrators should hopefully be punished, but I see no reason to believe that it will make any difference to further regulate what is done with the resulting data.
I think there is a gut reaction that you do not want to know that people are looking at authentic pictures of children being raped, people being killed... but you have to acknowledge that you have no say on what people are doing on their own, as long as they are not harming others, and that people watching this data are not harming anyone directly by doing so.
(Of course, there is the line of argument that people buying child porn are doing harm to people indirectly because they finance a criminal system... but then it's the financing that may be criminal, not the actual data.)
(Then, there is the line of argument that people may be tempted to act out the crime because they look at images/videos of crimes... but (1) to my knowledge, this is not adequately substantiated by evidence; (2) it is a very slippery slope to argue "you should ban data X because it makes people who see it more likely to commit crime Y".)
And yes, photos can be photoshopped but in that case I think they should be treated separately. Similarly, sketches and stories can all be works of the imagination without an event happening. A (genuine) photo or a movie is a capture of an actual event, not an invention.
> "photos can be photoshopped but in that case I think they should be treated separately."
It's great that you think they should be treated separately. But the people in charge say otherwise, and therefore in the U.S. and much of western europe you can be prosecuted for looking at simulated child abuse. Actors? CG? Doesn't matter, still illegal. You have all kinds of clean lines and distinctions in your mind to help you justify this stuff. The people in charge will naturally make their own distinctions, which currently means you'll go to prison for merely possessing data which may or may not depict an actual abuse which occurred in the past.
And then we can add all the other forms of expression that many of our leaders would like to outlaw, many of which are FAR more dangerous than child porn. Things like political dissent, which can destabilize entire nations. Gotta put a stop to that shit.
False advertising is an orange among apples. It's fraud, and typically dealt with as such.
I should admit that I am sympathetic to the view that the circulation of child porn creates a market for further abuse. IMO, if the banning of any kind of speech/expression is to be justified, it had better be along those lines.
Yes, and I would argue that this is also a bad thing.
> Or what about false advertising claims?
Advertising is quite a particular kind of speech. Banning a piece of data (as is done with child porn, _Mein Kampf_ in some countries, etc.) is not the same thing as forbidding people from making certain deceptive claims. (Although ultimately I would argue that prohibiting false advertising is not necessarily a good thing either.)
> Or holocaust deniers or people who claim vaccines don't work?
Prohibiting holocaust denial is in my opinion a bad thing. As for vaccines, I certainly hope it is not illegal to argue that vaccines don't work, as it should not be illegal to argue, say, that the earth is flat. (However, if people, e.g., start to prevent their kids from getting vaccines, this should be illegal, to protect the interests of the child.)
But would it not be worse to censor that material to thwart the few perverts that may get off on it, all the while preventing the public from knowing and feeling the truth so viscerally that they may actually deign to do something about it?