Actual CSAM, depicting an actual crime against an actual child… or “someone drew dirty cartoons and I’m a moron who thinks dirty drawings are the same as one of the most heinous crimes imaginable - harming a vulnerable child”?
This is a very simple calculation for me. I follow the “golden rule of liberty”, which can also be called the “harm principle.”
That is, “your rights end where mine begin. my rights end where yours begin”. Or, it is unethical to restrict anyone’s freedoms/liberties (especially expression) if they are not inflicting harm on others (i.e. infringing on their rights).
Furthermore, I object to any level of subjective analysis of the “legality” of art. Ergo, the mindset of “I think this looks childish, therefore it is a child, therefore it is CP” is exceptionally unethical and should not be tolerated.
And moreso, all of this only muddies and minimizes the ACTUAL crime of abusing children and diverts resources away from protection of real, actual children all because of some inane moralizing over someone’s artwork.
You are too hung up on “punishing the immoral” to realize that the ACTUAL need is “protecting the vulnerable” - and those two things are NOT the same.
This has nothing to do with legality or restricting freedoms. It’s about the admins building a forum to the form they’d like to see.
Plus the harm principle is really fuzzy. What level of interaction is the cutoff for harm vs inadvertent impact?
I also think drawn kiddie porn hurts the people who view it inadvertently. I don’t know if there have been studies on a causation link between viewed cp content and sexual preferences towards minors, or causal relationship between that and abuse/grooming. But that’s another possible harm connection.
Honestly this argument reminds me of the age old claim that “video games causes violence” because people thought glorifying violence in video games would get you to shoot people. In reality, there is still no link between gaming and violence. Sick people hurt other people and blaming art for lack of responsibility is sad.
That’s why I said there’d need to studies on a causation link for this specifically. I know video games have had those studies done and found that there isn’t a link. So you’d want a similar study for this. But there’s still the accidently stumbling across it issue too.
Actual CSAM, depicting an actual crime against an actual child… or “someone drew dirty cartoons and I’m a moron who thinks dirty drawings are the same as one of the most heinous crimes imaginable - harming a vulnerable child”?
I think drawn porn of kids also shouldn’t exist, but it’s definitely different.
This is a very simple calculation for me. I follow the “golden rule of liberty”, which can also be called the “harm principle.”
That is, “your rights end where mine begin. my rights end where yours begin”. Or, it is unethical to restrict anyone’s freedoms/liberties (especially expression) if they are not inflicting harm on others (i.e. infringing on their rights).
Furthermore, I object to any level of subjective analysis of the “legality” of art. Ergo, the mindset of “I think this looks childish, therefore it is a child, therefore it is CP” is exceptionally unethical and should not be tolerated.
And moreso, all of this only muddies and minimizes the ACTUAL crime of abusing children and diverts resources away from protection of real, actual children all because of some inane moralizing over someone’s artwork.
You are too hung up on “punishing the immoral” to realize that the ACTUAL need is “protecting the vulnerable” - and those two things are NOT the same.
This has nothing to do with legality or restricting freedoms. It’s about the admins building a forum to the form they’d like to see.
Plus the harm principle is really fuzzy. What level of interaction is the cutoff for harm vs inadvertent impact?
I also think drawn kiddie porn hurts the people who view it inadvertently. I don’t know if there have been studies on a causation link between viewed cp content and sexual preferences towards minors, or causal relationship between that and abuse/grooming. But that’s another possible harm connection.
Honestly this argument reminds me of the age old claim that “video games causes violence” because people thought glorifying violence in video games would get you to shoot people. In reality, there is still no link between gaming and violence. Sick people hurt other people and blaming art for lack of responsibility is sad.
That’s why I said there’d need to studies on a causation link for this specifically. I know video games have had those studies done and found that there isn’t a link. So you’d want a similar study for this. But there’s still the accidently stumbling across it issue too.
deleted by creator
in this case, the latter.
people get more offended by cartoons than actual child abuse I swear