Are you honestly trying to set up a slippery slope argument starting with child pornography?
There's a significant difference between protected speech and illegal material. Reddit (finally) cracked down on illegal material. Let's talk when they crack down on legal speech.
You completely missed my point here. Reddit didn't crack down on the material because it was illegal, they cracked down on it because SA decided to launch a campaign against it. If the Reddit admins had been concerned about hosting illegal material, they would have banned all such material months ago, when Andersoon Cooper mentioned its presence on Reddit on national TV.
This sets a dangerous precedent - that anyone who wants to get any sort of material banned from Reddit just needs to whip up SA (or an internet forum of similar influence) into a frenzy. My concerns are largely orthogonal to the fact that the particular type of content against which SA launched a campaign today was child pornography.
Reddit finally banned illegal child pornography because they were afraid of the media shitstorm that would arise from not cracking down on child pornography the first time they knew about it.
If SA "gets whipped up" about any other type of content that isn't illegal, what's the harm?
Reddit admins were afraid for a good reason - any more attention to the fact that they knew about child pornography and did nothing would be a big problem.
> Reddit finally banned illegal child pornography because they were afraid of the media shitstorm that would arise from not cracking down on child pornography the first time they knew about it.
No, they knew about it months ago, when they banned /r/jailbait in response to AC360 coverage. But that's all they did, despite being aware of the presence of numerous other subreddits offering similar fare.
> If SA "gets whipped up" about any other type of content that isn't illegal, what's the harm?
The harm is that the Reddit admins banning this sort of material had nothing to do with the fact that it was illegal (they already knew that a long time ago, as I stated above). The sole reason seems to be that SA had launched a campaign against it. So if SA launches a similar campaign against something else that isn't illegal, one can logically conclude that the Reddit admins would once again cave and ban that material as well.
> Reddit admins were afraid for a good reason - any more attention to the fact that they knew about child pornography and did nothing would be a big problem.
And here we get to the fundamental problem. As I stated in my initial post, this was a response to a potential PR shitstorm. It had nothing to do with purported illegality of the material, or it would've been banned a long time ago.
If SA gets angry at reddit about, say, atheism/libertarianism/whatthefuckeverism, and goes after reddit, how is there going to be a PR shitstorm?
Your premise is nonsensical. The PR shitstorm was brewing because reddit continued to provide a safe haven for pedophiles to exchange child pornography after CNN called them out on it. What the fuck else is reddit doing right now that could lead to such a shitstorm? Assassinations? Human trafficking?
The number of illegal pictures far outweighed the number of pictures you could construe as legal
Considering the subjectiveness of the legal rules, I find that impossible to know unless each pictures was considered by a court.
In any case, if most of r/jailbait was illegal, I don't see why Vanity Fair isn't, considering the 15-year-old Miley Cyrus photoshoot, or Wikipedia considering the album cover of Virgin Killer.
>Considering the subjectiveness of the legal rules, I find that impossible to know unless each pictures was considered by a court.
Then this entire argument is moot, is it not? If you require a court to verify each photograph, you do not belong in this discussion.
>In any case, if most of r/jailbait was illegal, I don't see why Vanity Fair isn't, considering the 15-year-old Miley Cyrus photoshoot, or Wikipedia considering the album cover of Virgin Killer.
Do you really not see the difference between a Vanity Fair photo shoot and an album's cover art to photos taken and collected of underage children for the sexual gratification of others?
>How so? What law did it break?
Its moderators distributed and promoted child pornography.
Then this entire argument is moot, is it not? If you require a court to verify each photograph, you do not belong in this discussion.
Ok, then first: did you look at all pictures in r/jailbait, r/teen_girls, etc? If not, how can you say they were all illegal?
Second: under what capacity are you empowered to decide who belongs to this discussion?
Do you really not see the difference between a Vanity Fair photo shoot and an album's cover art to photos taken and collected of underage children for the sexual gratification of others?
What, do you really think the photoshoot of a naked Miley Cyrus (covered, but still naked) was not intended to arouse men? Ha.
Now compare that with r/jailbait, where all photos were clothed and many (most?) were self-shots.
Its moderators distributed and promoted child pornography.
So they broke the law, not the subreddits. Having a forum called "jailbait" or "teen girls" is not illegal by itself.
>Now compare that with r/jailbait, where all photos were clothed and many (most?) were self-shots.
Oh, you mean all of those photos taken from their Facebook pages and Photobucket accounts without their permission? The photos meant only for themselves or their friends, spread across the Internet? Totally better than Miley Cyrus taking a single artistic photograph for Vanity Fair.
>So they broke the law, not the subreddits. Having a forum called "jailbait" or "teen girls" is not illegal by itself.
Have you looked at the majority of pictures in r/jailbait, r/teen_girls, etc? If not, how can you say they were illegal?
The fact is, to determine whether they are CP or not, you have to make subjective considerations, since the objective criteria of the test (the focal point of the visual depiction and whether the subject is naked) were not fulfilled by most images there.
So the question is, how can you claim "the majority of them were illegal" when it's impossible to objectively determine that?
You can continue your conjecturing, but according to [the photographer and Cyrus][0], it was artistic.
And I'm sure plenty of r/teen_girls posters would tell you they're posting the images for their artistic value.
Oh, you mean all of those photos taken from their Facebook pages and Photobucket accounts without their permission? The photos meant only for themselves or their friends, spread across the Internet? Totally better than Miley Cyrus taking a single artistic photograph for Vanity Fair.
That's a completely different issue, don't muddle the discussion. We were discussing what is child pornography and the legality, not the privacy implications.
>Have you looked at the majority of pictures in r/jailbait, r/teen_girls, etc? If not, how can you say they were illegal?
I saw enough to make the judgement the majority of it was illegal. They had no intention of posting legal content.
>So the question is, how can you claim "the majority of them were illegal" when it's impossible to objectively determine that?
Okay then, if I were to claim, "The ones I saw were illegal." How would that change anything? There was still blatantly illegal content actively posted to and promoted on a forum.
If your goal was to win an argument of semantics, you should rethink your strategy.
>And I'm sure plenty of r/teen_girls posters would tell you they're posting the images for their artistic value.
No, most of them admitted to wanting sexual gratification out of the images. You must not have visited the subreddit. This wasn't some grey area.
>That's a completely different issue, don't muddle the discussion.
You were the one to first compare them. You should take your own advice. ;)
I saw enough to make the judgement the majority of it was illegal. They had no intention of posting legal content.
Again, why were those illegal and not the examples I gave? "Artistic value" is not a criteria of the Dost test. Why they were posted isn't either.
If those subreddits were illegal, then so are: many magazines, Wikipedia, Facebook (where a lot of them come), Google (try a search for 'jailbait' images), a huge number of movies, various TV shows and more.
Okay then, if I were to claim, "The ones I saw were illegal." How would that change anything? There was still blatantly illegal content actively posted to and promoted on a forum.
If your goal was to win an argument of semantics, you should rethink your strategy.
But (IMO) you still haven't managed to tell me why are those illegal and not the examples I gave. The only reason you gave (artistic value) is irrelevant to their legality, according to the test.
No, most of them admitted to wanting sexual gratification out of the images. You must not have visited the subreddit. This wasn't some grey area.
I very much doubt you could tell what most of 11600+ people said.
But in any case, if I derive sexual gratification from your posts, do they become obscene? The reason they are posted is irrelevant to determine their legality.
You were the one to first compare them. You should take your own advice. ;)
That's disingenuous. I brought them as examples which are relevant to the point being discussed - whether the images are illegal or not.
>Again, why were those illegal and not the examples I gave? "Artistic value" is not a criteria of the Dost test. Why they were posted isn't either.
Probably because the photograph wasn't meant to elicit a sexual response, nor were her genitals the focal point of the photograph.
>If those subreddits were illegal, then so are: many magazines, Wikipedia, Facebook (where a lot of them come), Google (try a search for 'jailbait' images), a huge number of movies, various TV shows and more.
Erm, no. No they're not.
>The only reason you gave (artistic value) is irrelevant to their legality, according to the test.
From the Dost test article:
>>Not all of the criteria need to be met, nor are other criteria necessarily excluded in this test.
>I very much doubt you could tell what most of 11600+ people said.
I could tell the general attitude of the subreddit from the majority of the comments posted. This isn't hard. When you go into /r/trees, you understand they are pro-marijuana. Maybe not all 100% subscribers feel that way, but that doesn't matter. So saying "Well you can't know what all the subscribers think!" is completely meaningless.
>But in any case, if I derive sexual gratification from your posts, do they become obscene?
No.
>I brought them as examples which are relevant to the point being discussed - whether the images are illegal or not.
And taking photos from a child's account and posting them all over the Internet are illegal.
I never said the subreddit is illegal because it's titled "jailbait" or "teen girls". I said it's illegal because of the content it hosts and promotes.
>Also, if you believe that the stolen facebook/photobucket photos are illegal, should facebook/photobucket be held liable for hosting it?
Right, so how many of them have you looked at to make that judgement?
And perhaps more importantly, isn't it slightly problematic (or at least odd) when a large number of people are justifying the ban by calling this material illegal... and to be able to argue that they must, surely, have committed the crime of viewing child pornography online themselves? (Keeping in mind that, when it comes to child pornography laws, viewing is very much a crime - it's not like witnessing a murder.)
>Right, so how many of them have you looked at to make that judgement?
Enough to determine there was no intent to post legal content.
>And perhaps more importantly, isn't it slightly problematic (or at least odd) when a large number of people are justifying the ban by calling this material illegal... and to be able to argue that they must, surely, have committed the crime of viewing child pornography online themselves?
A large number of people are saying this material wasn't illegal. They must surely have viewed it themselves, as well. Where does that get us?
To be honest, I don't feel comfortable researching cases where someone was prosecuted for owning a collection of images that, on their own, would not constitute child pornography.
They are cracking down on illegal speech (in the form of blatant CP) in addition to legal speech (in the form of suggestive, but non-pornographic pictures anyone under 18).
You might want to review the Dost test & some of the links I & others have posted in this thread. It's very possible that what you think of as child pornography may only be a subset of what the law holds to be illegal.
Pornographic images are more broadly defined than i had previously realized. Free speech is more restricted under case law than i had imagined, too; if it is "obscene" it can be banned. Not sure if i agree with that, but it is what it is.
It's not my understanding that there was actual verified child pornography on the site that wasn't being removed when it was discovered. There were photo groups on the site with questionably legal photos of clothed underage children.
I always assumed those Reddit groups were serving as honeypots to nab child pornographers once enough information could be gathered. I'd be really surprised if Reddit didn't have an information sharing deal worked out with the Feds like 4chan did a while back, considering the high visibility of certain groups like r/jailbait and the like.
My only thinking on the reason for this was that the bad publicity generated by the SA campaign was too much for the site. Once CNN picks up the story that your site is hosting child pornography, its probably best to reevaluate.
There's a significant difference between protected speech and illegal material. Reddit (finally) cracked down on illegal material. Let's talk when they crack down on legal speech.