From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 11:10:10 +0800
To: cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: Thoughtcrime   (Re: My War) (fwd)
Message-ID: <199706100235.VAA03328@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Hi,

Forwarded message:

> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 18:35:34 -0700
> From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
> Subject: Re: Thoughtcrime   (Re: My War)

> Let us assume that it is unethical to force children to participate  in the
> production of child pornography. (For the benefit of Kent and the more
> ignorant people on this list, I will state that I firmly believe this to be
> true, despite the fact that doing so should be irrelevant for the argument.)

> 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.

Assuming, tacitly of course, that the supply of distributors is unlimited.
If the resource is limited, as it actualy is, by getting the distribution
node you in effect cut many people off. Thus forcing either total denial or
else direct intervention, thus raising the chance of getting caught because
more persons would be involved than would normaly be the case. This in
effect clearly indicates a benefit to going after the distributors. This
argument can be extended to the film-maker as well.

Now some will say that it doesn't matter, somebody else will always pop up.
The problem with this is that we have a limited population and there are
only a statistical percentage going to be interested in the activity. This
implies that there is some set of persons who will not participate. The
trick is to get the non-participants to be the larger of the two.

> 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.

By extension then full and complete public distribution would minimize it
completely. So, you are seriously stating that we should put such pictures
on the daily television, say during childrens hour? Now if we follow this
further we are left with the image of our government hiring children to pose
for said images because the supply of 'actual' images had diminished.
That is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Plus the sicko's
get free, danger free, thrills at the public expence. Wooo, just what I
want my tax dollars spent on.

We are clearly dealing with a cusp-shaped function here. The implication
being that some form of regulation is beneficial if we want to actualy
reduce child abuse.

> Thus, by going after the distributors, Se7en causes more children to be
> violated by child pornographers.

Or just possibly making the supply even more scarce because fewer and fewer
are willing to take the chance of making a few bucks.

> The only question that remains is: how can he live with this?
> 
> Logic != base emotions,

Ahmen brother!

Otherwise, feldercarb.

   _______________________________________________________________________
  |                                                                       |
  |            Moderation in all things, including moderation.            |
  |                                                                       |
  |                            -I wish I could remember-                  |
  |                                                                       |
  |     Jim Choate                                 ravage@ssz.com         |
  |     The Armadillo Group                        www.ssz.com            |
  |     Austin, Texas, USA                         512-451-7087           |
  |_______________________________________________________________________|