Message Hash: 9ee0bbc9d206486249ef4fae44fa6ed9ede3eec6dc2b73669c547bd471bdd332
Message ID: <97Jun10.email@example.com>
Reply To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-10 19:56:31 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 03:56:31 +0800
From: email@example.com Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 03:56:31 +0800 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Thoughtcrime (Re: My War) In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> Message-ID: <97Jun10.firstname.lastname@example.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Lucky Green wrote: > Furthermore, let us assume that there are a number of individuals who enjoy > looking at hard core child pornography. > > The question then is: does going after the distributors provide a benefit > to the children being (potentially) used for such pictures? > > The answer is clearly no. By limiting the distribution of an individual > picture, you increase the total number of pictures required to satisfy > market demand. That means more children will be required to meet demand. This assumes that supplying the craving for pictures will not increase the desire to do acts in the real world enough to increase the number of acts C.S. Lewis once described society as a convoy - and that there was little disagreement about ships not running into each other. But he also made the point that it may be proper to require ships to be seaworthy so they won't run a risk of running into other ships because they cannot avoid it. Looking at synthetic child porn may be purely a thought crime, but it involves breaking a lot of societal taboos. If someone does not have the self-restraint to not look at mere pictures, will they have the restraint to avoid comitting actual crimes? Pornography is not like reading Rosseau or Locke since rational enlightenment is not the goal. Logic != Emotion But what happens when we deal with individuals who are entirely driven by emotions, and by the basest emotions possible? Although you can argue that people may be able to look without touching, the reason they are looking in the first place involves a release of the beast within. How many such people are we willing to trust to keep that beast on the chain. The law is currently structured to answer "none" to this question, and this may be the proper answer. With guns and explosives, there is greater likelyhood that someone will injure themselves or their own property on a destructive binge. This type of expression is more benign, though I don't think it represents the better angels of our nature. But I see no threat to me personally from such people. Similarly with most drugs - if the dealers could use the courts to settle problems like stolen merchandise there would be less violence. I might demand someone go to a secure area before taking a drug which will deprive them of their reason, and not be let out until it is recovered. But I would not want to have someone leave the two components to a binary nerve gas on a shelf, with the owner's promise that they will never fall off and accidentally mix, or believe that the owner will never get angry and decide to destroy something. Something intrinsically capable of mass destruction is also something that can be regulated. Something that is in and of itself a turning away from reason and giving in to emotion, and the ultimate destination of that path if it is followed will result in injury to others, especially innocents, is something that should be regulated. This form of "information" is an addictive drug, with the side effect is that it destroys others much more than it destroys the abuser, and it doesn't wear off after a drying out period. (Or could I suggest that they could watch as much as they want in a secure area, but could not get out unless they were chemically castrated?) This does not mean that I am any less a civil-cyber-libertarian, since I have even more problems with current enforcement of most laws. That is a different issue. I am saying that it should be illegal, not how such laws should be enforced, and not that we should shred the constitution in pursuit of these people.
Return to June 1997
Return to “email@example.com”