(Child_sexual_abuse_images)

>stallman.org/archives/2016-sep-dec.html#9_November_2016_(Child_sexual_abuse_images)
>9 November 2016 (Child sexual abuse images)
>A survey in Germany found that 2.4% of men admitted to viewing "child sexual abuse images". I share the article's concern, but my conclusions are very different from those in the article.
>
>To imprison such a large fraction of society would be outrageous. In the US, that would amount to millions of people. (The US already imprisons far too many of its residents.) This shows that the current repressive approach is untenable.
>
>The boundaries of "child sexual abuse images" are subject to a lot of stretching, and I don't know what those men had in mind when they answered, or whether they were shown a specific definition. We must not label everyone under 18 as "children", nor assume that sex for someone under 16 or 18 (take your pick) is invariably "abuse", nor treat images of fictitious children as real "abuse". But real children are sexually abused for real, and I support laws against that. Efforts against the business of making and distributing images of that are justified -- but these must not be done by dangerous methods.
>
>A law against looking at or possesing a copy of some publication, no matter how odious it is or why, is a threat to everyone. It is an excuse for fishing expeditions, when the state seeks an excuse to imprison someone. It also provides an easy way to manufacture a case against someone. How hard is it to slip copies of things into your computer?

Wow. Just Wow. So I guess Stallman is confirmed pedo now?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=umQL37AC_YM
stallman.org/archives/2012-jul-oct.html#15_September_2012_(Censorship_of_child_pornography)>>57454799
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Pedophilia falls under Stallman's 5 freedoms:
>The freedom to Jew everyone with cancer licenses
>The freedom to fuck kids
>The freedom to fuck animals
>Stallman!!!

all linux screenshots feature some loli
all linux users are obsessed about privacy for some reason
therefore it's normal that their god is a pedo too

>child sexual abuse images are subject to a lot of stretching
u kno it bb

I actually agree with this. Possession and viewing shouldn't be illegal, but production and distribution should be.

It's the same with watching clips of people murdering each other. Fairly sure possession and viewing ISIS videos isn't illegal in most countries.

inb4 but child victims have to live with it

Parents, friends and significant others don't when they lose someone and it's recorded on tape?

LEAVE RMS ALONE

(((Stallman))) is odd.
He is almost an Anarchist, but he is also a leftist, most left politicians are for Big Government...

If you're an authoritarian leftist, then yes you're for big gov.

But if you're a libertarian leftist like RMS, then you don't want gov interference/influence.

Get it right nigger.

He's right but he's still a fucking idiot.

He has been this is old

It's not old, he posted it on November 9 which is today.

His views are.

This. I would not be surprised if a significant portion of linux users were pedos

His porn isn't.

linux users are about 30% pedo, weebs are about 70% pedo, so linux+weeb...

What's actually wrong with this position? Throwing 2.4% (and lets be honest, it's probably at least twice that) of men in jail for a crime with difficult to identify victims just isn't a reasonable suggestion.

I think it's a pretty reasonable claim to make that if a law's full enforcement would cause widespread havoc and an unreasonable burden on society, maybe it's a bad law.

>What's actually wrong with this position?

I'll spell it out for you.
>In the US, that would amount to millions of people

No there are not millions of pedophiles who watch cp in the US. It's not even true. Just another lie pedos tell to make their behavior seem normal. I'd estimate there's only a few thousand pedos in the US.

>We must not label everyone under 18 as "children"
Literally the definition of a child.

>or assume that sex for someone under 16 or 18 (take your pick) is invariably "abuse"
Yes having sex with a 14, 15, 16 year old is abuse. Especially when you are a 50+year old man like Stallman. No, I shouldn't have to spell this out to you.

>nor treat images of fictitious children as real "abuse"
If fictitious images were legal it would create a massive loophole. Just take your real images, and trace over them, or take your real abused children and hire an artist to draw them.

>It is an excuse for fishing expeditions, when the state seeks an excuse to imprison someone.
Classic Paranoia.

> It also provides an easy way to manufacture a case against someone. How hard is it to slip copies of things into your computer?
Why make anything illegal then? Someone could just put the illegal thing in your house. Heroin, stolen bank notes, dead bodies, kidnapped children, these could all be planted in your house.

>No there are not millions of pedophiles who watch cp in the US.
This study would suggest otherwise, I think I'll take that over your baseless claim.

>Literally the definition of a child.
18 was picked out of hat for all intents and purposes. There's no particular biological significance to it and for most of human history people were adults much much earlier. Not saying I approve of a younger age of maturity, but let's not pretend that 18 is some kind of divinely inspired distinction between child and adult.

>or assume that sex for someone under 16 or 18 (take your pick) is invariably "abuse"
The concept of this not being abuse makes me *very* uncomfortable. The idea of a 50 year old man being legally permitted to screw 16 year old girls is repulsive... But I think we're a significant way from proving that it is invariably abuse, especially for less extreme cases like say, 15 and 20.

>If fictitious images were legal it would create a massive loophole.
This is only a problem if we're trying to make this illegal to begin with. Which is exactly what's being argued against here.

>Classic paranoia.
No I'd call that a pretty reasonable concern. It is something that can be done and I believe has been (Not sure, I think I saw it somewhere).

>Why make anything illegal then? Someone could just put the illegal thing in your house...
Fair point.

>I'd estimate there's only a few thousand pedos in the US.
You're a bit too optimistic for your own good. Even if we go by the number of convictions, that number is already larger than a "few thousand". If we include anyone who ever jacked off to a picture of someone who was 17 years old as a pedophile, we're easily talking about millions.

>Literally the definition of a child.
You're talking about a MINOR. Biologically, a child is a human between the stages of birth and puberty (10-12).

>Yes having sex with a 14, 15, 16 year old is abuse.
And having sex with an 18 year old isn't? What if we're talking about an unbelievably sheltered 18 year old who's mentally and socially deficient? What if it's a 16 year old who grew up in a rough neighbourhood and on the streets? Clearly the former should be allowed to star in facefucking porn, while the latter should be treated as a toddler. Also, what if we're talking about minors having sex with OTHER minors? Should both of them go to jail? What if they willingly take a picture of themselves? Are they guilty of possessing CP?

Also, are you seriously delusional enough to believe that people under the age of 18 have no idea about sex, and immediately become responsible adult beings the moment they hit 18?

>If fictitious images were legal it would create a massive loophole.
They are.

>Why make anything illegal then?
That's actually a fairly good argument for things like marijuana or alcohol or tobacco. Trying to prohibit something there is a clear demand for creates more problems than it attempts to solve.

Heroin and counterfeit banknotes are significantly harder to acquire and plant than virtual images by somebody who only needs an internet connection and a flash drive.

Not pedo, just logically consistent.

same as the drug war you've got an ugly, self-sustaining system full of people more worried about their jobs and looking tough on crime than any real problem

Not a pedo

A GNU/pedo :^)

>>Sharing music online and pirating it is killing the music industry!

Then why it isnt killing the pedo media industry?

Shekelmate antlerists

>now
how new are you
besides he was arguing theres a difference between infants and adolescents although everything is pedophilia altogether
I tend to agree, I've seen 16, 17 year old grills I'd want to fuck

Exactly. I'm not saying we should immediately legalize all CP, but the blanket no tolerance approach without rationally examining the facts first is fairly dumb. Especially these days, when photorealistic 3D porn is almost possible, everything has telemetry built in, and most laws or policies aren't even equipped to deal with the existence of the internet.

Most drugs work that way in my country. You're allowed to consume and possess them, but selling and producing is illegal.

I do not agree that child abuse images should follow the same guidelines because we're talking about young people here. Imagine finding out that you were abused as a kid and that there's footage of it online, how would you feel?

Pretty bad. But that's why producing and distributing it is wrong. I'm not sure that's an argument against possession though.

>Imagine finding out that you were abused as a kid
The fact that I somehow don't remember that would probably be the more worrying thing. Also, once there's footage of it online, it's going to stay there. It probably won't affect your life since people won't recognize you in the picture/video, and you'd try your best to forget and move on instead of looking at it.

The weird thing is that prohibiting it actually wouldn't benefit that person specifically, since there would be a smaller amount of porn in circulation, therefore whenever someone DOES get their hands on something, it's far more likely to be your picture, and the taboo nature of it is going to make it stand out even more. Compared to something like realistic 3D porn or drawings becoming widespread, it's ultimately worse for you as a person, as backwards as it sounds.

Is there even a pedo media industry?
Personally I don't watch CP, but in my Sup Forums times I saw a few pics that were probably made 30 years ago and nothing more.

That actually happened to me in a bizarre way. I knew I'd been molested, my cousin molested me on a near weekly basis until I was 10 and we moved away. What I didn't know is it was filmed. Fast forward 13 years and I invited some of my college pals over for a graduation party. Since I was at my parents' house due to being poor and only at university via scholarships, there were pictures of me and my brother in the house. One of my friends was looking around, froze after seeing two pictures of me at 6 and 7 years old, actually started crying and threw up. He turned himself in for possession of CP the next morning, apparently he had found some of the videos my cousin had made.

It's been 2 years since then. I still feel deeply uncomfortable with the idea. I've tried to still be his friend since virtually everyone else abandoned him because >pedo, but it's really really fucking hard to given my own history and connection to it.

The idea of a good friend jerking off to video of me getting molested as a child is deeply upsetting, not gonna lie. But I still don't think it should be as severely punished, he never touched me or any other kid, he never distributed or manufactured it. I'm not totally convinced it should be perfectly legal and fine, but there should be programs and help for pedophiles to actually support them as human beings and help treat them. I also don't like the idea of mandatory minimums for possession, nor being forced onto the sex offender registry for it. Distributors, abusers, etc definitely deserve punishment in my opinion.

Possession automatically implies production, that's why it's a weird law. How can you make something legal to possess if it's illegal to produce in the first place?

You can possess things that were already produced by someone else, but no one is allowed to make anything new.

you'd have to be identifiable, like with metadata, found on the camera, present in the image, etc

I'm sorry to hear that story, that must have been terrible for both you and your friend to go through. It does perfectly illustrate what I was talking about in my previous post though, and further strengthens my views on the matter. Fuck whoever filmed those tapes of you user, they should be imprisoned for life. Did your friend have to do any time?

Maki!!

I want pajeets and reddit to leave

That doesn't make a lot of sense though. Let's look at that kind of rule applied to drugs, like it applies in my country. It's a consumable, so if you're allowed to consume it there's invariably some degree of production and distribution going on. From the moment you're allowed to consume a drug, it automatically implies the production of more drugs.

He got the minimum sentence, 5 years (minus time served and good behavior, so he's getting out August 2018) and placement on the sex offender list. He was wanting to be a college professor but now he'll never be able to, so that sucks.

its mostly sharing,
the majority who are selling it are the FBI anyway.

there are more involved people that do buy/sell/make it but thats like 0.01% of those that watch and download cp

>there's only a few thousand pedos in the US

You are fucking delusional.

Did you even read the article?
He supports laws against actual child abuse. He's only against the strict laws, when someone is 17 for example, or drawn images which don't harm anyone.

No , Hes more a philosopher, dispensing some wisdom on a bad topic which is why hes Sup Forumss god

Well, numbnuts, here's the smart person to moron translation for you

>Yo dawg, i was 18 and mah gf was 17, but the law say that rape. BULLSHIT, nigga. I still got her nudes, the law say i a rapist, a pedo, but i aint a pedo. BULLSHIT, nigga. These crackas lost them minds. We gotta pop some GNU/caps in their asses homedawg.

Does he sound like a pedo now?

No you're a fucking idiot
>But real children are sexually abused for real, and I support laws against that.

He just doesn't support your bullshit arbitrary definition of rape and child abuse. An 18 year old fucking a 14 year old isn't child abuse.

Torvalds was god until he sold out and got a crapbook, now stallman, what's next?

>So I guess Stallman is confirmed pedo now?

He's just pandering to his Sup Forums icon status that he is.

I love how logically he thinks about the whole thing instead of caving in at the thought of, but muh under 18 children. Seriously, we need to have some law that allows people between 13-21 to legally fuck with less than 6 years difference in age.

Men are attracted to women of fertile breeding age, which is around 16, it's just human nature.
Pedo is someone who likes children 12 and under, hebophiles like ages 13-17, get your definitions right.

youtube.com/watch?v=umQL37AC_YM

>>nor treat images of fictitious children as real "abuse"
>If fictitious images were legal it would create a massive loophole. Just take your real images, and trace over them, or take your real abused children and hire an artist to draw them.


>Should death threats be protected under free speech?
If death threats were legal it would create a massive loophole. Just murder someone, then send a death threat and it'll be legal.

I see nothing wrong in his statement there, OP

>People on fucking Sup Forums getting triggered over a little jb sex

How far this site has fallen. The normie infestation is real.

Protip:
It's the SJWs.

Did this count Loli?
Because if it didn't that's fucking crazy.
"Viewed child and images of actual children", fuck, if 2.4% admitted that think of the percent that didn't admit, and the amount that look at loli

stallman.org/archives/2012-jul-oct.html#15_September_2012_(Censorship_of_child_pornography)>>57454799

kek

Fuck, that got to me.
So sorry to hear, I can't even, I just can't even.
I'm not gonna say I never thought that possible, I always have, but hearing it like that just makes it real.

The problem with possession of images (or anything, really) being illegal and grounds for jailtime means that it's ripe for abuse.

Suppose the FBI or some other agency wants you in jail, but can't make a case against you, so they confiscate your computer because they got a tip that you have CP, and then they "find" CP on your hard drive. Nothing you can do about it. That's why when a high profile person is revealed to be a pedo, you can never really be sure. Like that guy who was allegedly spying for the Chinese and then they "found" CP on his hard drives.

We've seen it with drugs already, a corrupt cop planting drugs in your car is a real fear some people have, and it has happened before.

That's why I firmly believe that mere possession of anything should never result in jailtime.

This. Same with practically anything you can do on a computer like "hate speech" or hacking. It's way too abstract to prosecute, and it tries to solve a problem by clearing up the symptoms instead of preventing them.

Are you fucking retarded? Did you Just ignored everything he wrote?