It will be interesting to see how far this goes, it's likely we'll look back on this as reddit's turning point - there is some really awful content on that site.
However it's ironic that people rush to defend linking to cam-of-new-hollywood-blockbuster.torrent as "just a link", declaring it can't be illegal because it's just pointing to a file, it's not hosting it and only a fool lawyer or judge nestled warmly in the pocket of the RIAA/MPAA could misunderstand this.
But when that link goes to 13yearoldinabikini.jpg, a collection of 1s and 0s on someone else's server, suddenly this Link is a tool of evil and not only must it be removed, but the community celebrates the censorship and nominates more items for censorship.
Child pornography is dissimilar to copyright piracy. Child pornography is in a legal category unto itself, at least according to United States case law.
Banning child porn is hardly the beginning of a slippery slope to the iron fist of reddit censorship.
Child porn is probably the one subject that is so indefensible that no one in their right mind would consider it a great loss that a major distribution channel for it was turned off.
Not that I believe for a second that the degenerates won't figure out some way to either skirt the rules or find another friendly site to aid and abet them.
It's a good first step, even if it was made under extreme duress.
There is a difference between making something illegal and moderating a private site. Eg. I'm for freedom of speech but I'm not allowing anyone with swastika tattoos in to my house.
A part of the trouble is that most reddits automatically show thumbnails of linked images and videos. Now it's more than "just a link."
Also keep in mind that there are no safe harbor provisions for CP as there are with copyright infringement. It makes no sense to flirt with illegality regarding CP, since one photo judged to be illegal kills Reddit.
They applaud the censorship because the content is predatory. Even though images like "13yearoldinabikini.jpg" are legal, they are almost certainly scraped from some unsuspecting teenager's Facebook album. Also, remember to consider this within the scope of reddit. If reddit announced they were banning all subreddits dedicated to warez, most people would say "well duh".
Most rules and mores are arbitrary in nature and only gain meaning in our capacity to uphold them. They're handicaps we place on ourselves. If that doesn't make sense, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle
This is a little off topic, but speaking of child abuse, I was recently called to jury duty for a case of "first degree rape of a child under 12". This was not one of those edge cases where you've got a 12 year old with a boyfriend a few years older, just outside the legal age difference. No, this was a 40+ year old man having sex with a 6 year old girl. (My number was high enough in the jury pool that I didn't get anywhere near the jury box, but I found out later the defendant was easily convicted).
Here's what is interesting about this: in the last year, 3 other people from my area at work (about 10 people) have also been called to jury duty--and ALL of them were child sex cases. Two were also "first degree rape of a child under 12", and one just recalled that it was child molestation.
Two things astounded me about this.
1. That there were so many child rape and molestation cases. I had never though of this area as some kind of hotbed of child sex (Western Washington, across Puget Sound from Seattle), but it seems kind of high to have all 4 people called to jury duty in my office in the last year be called for this kind of case.
2. There was nothing in the news. The defendant in the case I was on had an unusual name. I googled for it, and the only things that show up about him are things like his entry in the county jail booking records:
and his upcoming court dates on the county court calendar. Not a single newspaper story of his arrest, or his conviction, or of his earlier trial that ended in a hung jury.
If a 40+ year old man raping a 6 year old girl is not newsworthy, that leaves me wondering what other horrible crimes go on around me that do not make the news.
Generally stories of this sort that make the news involve strangers, but such events are extremely rare compared to molestation by a friend or relative of the family. Those stories are much less sensational, and so don't tend to make the news.
TLDR: The market standard of waxed in phonograph movies , confuses the evolutionary trigger that protect adults having desires for females that are not sexually mature.
Update: alienth from reddit explains why and how they went about forming the new policy:
As the post said, we follow NCMEC reporting procedures.
However, addressing this type of content was taking up
more and more of our limited time. Also, none of us
were particularly keen on analyzing this content and
trying to determine what was and was not illegal.
Whenever flair-ups like the preteen mess occur, it adds
a tonne of stress upon us. We've been pouring over
these decisions all weekend. It became clear that
unless we addressed this content with a new rule, we
were going to continue to drown in the minutia of what
is child pornography, and what is not.
One thing that disappointed me in the discussion is how most was focused on whether or not the pictures in /r/preteen_girls were legal. Even if they were clearly legal, I think a strong case can be made for banning them for violating the privacy of the children in the photos.
Most of them seemed to be girls photographed at home, probably by family members. I suspect they were shared on the net with relatives, by people who did not know they were making them publicly available. There were also quite a few that seemed to be girls photographed in public who were not aware they were being photographed.
Very interesting to watch what a coordinated attack can do to a website. Always sad to see when people rally behind better/stronger censorship. Companies should get attacked for taking freedoms away and not the other way around. If they had illegal content on their sites, than by all means report it etc. But I still believe that anything legal SHOULD be allowed.
On the other hand it might be more a personal thing against Reddit for freeriding/pretending ownership of ideas with might have originated in other places.
I am one who has pushed for removal of specific /r/ for some time. Specifically, /r/picsofdeadkids as well as most recently stating we should both delete /r/preteen_girls as well as the community to have ability to vote to close/delete /r/.
In the past, when I was against /r/picsofdeadkids - my comments were voted down with arguments of "I may not agree with what you say, but ill defend your right to say it"
I know it is a slippery slope, censorship, but I don't feel that standards == censorship. These people would be free to start whatever site/forum they like - but to argue that the platform that reddit provides should be wholly open to ANYTHING without standards is just plain stupid.
I am very pleased with such a direction. Again, if you're the sick POS that needs extremely fringe content - then go host it yourself.
Don't play victim that a public forum is actually telling you there is something WRONG with your interests - maybe its a freaking SIGN that people are offended by what you think normal.
Many of the comments on the post are disgusting. People being downvoted for supporting the removal of subreddits such as r/beatingwomen and r/beatingtrannies under the guise of supporting free speech (which isn't really a viable point on a website).
Before you start heaping it on Reddit for "child porn", think about the prevalent sexualization of girls in the US society. I just saw the movie "Journey to Mysterious Island" with my son and the outfit that Vanessa Hudgens, who was playing a 16 year-old girl, had to endure during the whole movie was mind-boggling: Short-shorts and tank top strategically altered to tease with cleavage. There were many shots focusing on her thighs and breasts.
This discussion of whether the content is legal or not isn't very constructive. Clearly Reddit has to ban illegal content. However, they also have to uphold community standards and enforce rules which keep more toxic parts of the community in line. Allowing pseudo-child porn creates a meeting place for pedophiles and that is likely not a liability that Reddit wants to take on.
Allowing /r/trees creates a meeting place for illegal drug users and that is likely not a liability that Reddit wants to take on. Indeed, quite similar to how people were accused of trading child porn on Reddit, people set up drug deals on Reddit.
What alarms me about this is that Reddit has to worry about hazily-defined legal gray areas. One of the big goals of common law legal systems is to make the law and its interpretation as predictable as possible, so that people can go about their business without fear of arbitrary legal penalties. The common law may not always be just, but it should at least be consistent.
Child porn is not really a hazily defined legal gray area. The law is pretty concise on what constitutes child porn.
Possessing may be a bit murkier but only in the edge cases where the pictures were put there without the persons knowledge.
Reddit finally got shamed into taking the ultimately correct stance. Anything that vaguely smells of child porn is no longer allowed. There's no slippery slope here.
One of the remarkable things about this is that the campaign orchestrated by Something Awful users caused this happen in less than 4 hours. Even the CNN exposé took days.
On the other hand: What took ’em so long? Jailbait was shut down, what now? A few months ago?
The admins must have been aware that the exact same crap was happening in copycat subreddits all over Reddit soon after Jailbait was shut down. Why was another campaign necessary in the first place?
I don’t think the Reddit admins can take the moral high ground here. They will only do the right thing when you threaten them with bad PR.
(I’m guessing they reacted so fast this time because they know that those kinds of things can escalate quickly and national press attention is not nice to have.)
It actually started a few days ago. The account creating the preteen girls subreddit and posting most of its content was 3 days old. It is very suspect and a plausible explanation is that someone from SA was running a smear campaign from the start.
Something Awful has a reputation for Internet war campaigns. (They ARE the source of 4chan IIRC.) Anything coming from SA is expected to be so bad that it's not an uncommon occurrence for sites to change (stupid) policy simply on the hype generated by a SA scheme.
What I don't understand is how a "Jailbait" thread/subreddit could really be considered "legal" since the term "Jailbait" refers to people who look like they're at the age of consent but aren't. And thus will land anyone who has...intercourse; with them in jail. So the illegality is implied in the title.
I think there have been a few high profile posts/submissions over the last couple of days related to child porn on Reddit so it has been a big issue the last 48 hours.
I may have missed some of the context here, but it looks like SA was able to force a significant policy change at Reddit in less than a single day. I know there was a lot of lead up, but still, wow. They obviously take the "goons" quite seriously!
I can relate to the decision Reddit made. Moderating the content on a forum is alot of work and it's frustrating. Eliminating the grey area is probably the safest move (on a legal stand point) although it will create many angry users that feel entitled. Expect mass bannings because users love to rebel then afterwards the inevitable "well you removed this but allow that" arguments.
[+] [-] kmfrk|14 years ago|reply
And the reddit response: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/duplicates/pmbyc/somethin....
[+] [-] Fluxx|14 years ago|reply
http://bit.ly/xUMAup
[+] [-] muyuu|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benologist|14 years ago|reply
However it's ironic that people rush to defend linking to cam-of-new-hollywood-blockbuster.torrent as "just a link", declaring it can't be illegal because it's just pointing to a file, it's not hosting it and only a fool lawyer or judge nestled warmly in the pocket of the RIAA/MPAA could misunderstand this.
But when that link goes to 13yearoldinabikini.jpg, a collection of 1s and 0s on someone else's server, suddenly this Link is a tool of evil and not only must it be removed, but the community celebrates the censorship and nominates more items for censorship.
[+] [-] carbocation|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Czarnian|14 years ago|reply
Child porn is probably the one subject that is so indefensible that no one in their right mind would consider it a great loss that a major distribution channel for it was turned off.
Not that I believe for a second that the degenerates won't figure out some way to either skirt the rules or find another friendly site to aid and abet them.
It's a good first step, even if it was made under extreme duress.
[+] [-] moonchrome|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yaks_hairbrush|14 years ago|reply
Also keep in mind that there are no safe harbor provisions for CP as there are with copyright infringement. It makes no sense to flirt with illegality regarding CP, since one photo judged to be illegal kills Reddit.
[+] [-] ugh|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vectorpush|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maratd|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] moreorless|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|14 years ago|reply
Here's what is interesting about this: in the last year, 3 other people from my area at work (about 10 people) have also been called to jury duty--and ALL of them were child sex cases. Two were also "first degree rape of a child under 12", and one just recalled that it was child molestation.
Two things astounded me about this.
1. That there were so many child rape and molestation cases. I had never though of this area as some kind of hotbed of child sex (Western Washington, across Puget Sound from Seattle), but it seems kind of high to have all 4 people called to jury duty in my office in the last year be called for this kind of case.
2. There was nothing in the news. The defendant in the case I was on had an unusual name. I googled for it, and the only things that show up about him are things like his entry in the county jail booking records:
http://www.kitsapgov.com/sheriff/incustody/jailwebsecond.asp...
and his upcoming court dates on the county court calendar. Not a single newspaper story of his arrest, or his conviction, or of his earlier trial that ended in a hung jury.
If a 40+ year old man raping a 6 year old girl is not newsworthy, that leaves me wondering what other horrible crimes go on around me that do not make the news.
[+] [-] nostromo|14 years ago|reply
I bet if you took a survey, people would think the opposite is true.
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bratao|14 years ago|reply
TLDR: The market standard of waxed in phonograph movies , confuses the evolutionary trigger that protect adults having desires for females that are not sexually mature.
[+] [-] kmfrk|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|14 years ago|reply
Most of them seemed to be girls photographed at home, probably by family members. I suspect they were shared on the net with relatives, by people who did not know they were making them publicly available. There were also quite a few that seemed to be girls photographed in public who were not aware they were being photographed.
[+] [-] stfu|14 years ago|reply
On the other hand it might be more a personal thing against Reddit for freeriding/pretending ownership of ideas with might have originated in other places.
[+] [-] samstave|14 years ago|reply
In the past, when I was against /r/picsofdeadkids - my comments were voted down with arguments of "I may not agree with what you say, but ill defend your right to say it"
I know it is a slippery slope, censorship, but I don't feel that standards == censorship. These people would be free to start whatever site/forum they like - but to argue that the platform that reddit provides should be wholly open to ANYTHING without standards is just plain stupid.
I am very pleased with such a direction. Again, if you're the sick POS that needs extremely fringe content - then go host it yourself.
Don't play victim that a public forum is actually telling you there is something WRONG with your interests - maybe its a freaking SIGN that people are offended by what you think normal.
[+] [-] kevinh|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mistercow|14 years ago|reply
It's good to see that smut like Romeo and Juliet is no longer welcome on reddit.
[+] [-] Jun8|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] danielrhodes|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] streptomycin|14 years ago|reply
etc etc etc. It's a slippery slope.
[+] [-] shareme|14 years ago|reply
Is it Adolph's Mein Komp? Is it Mohammad's Koran? Is it some words form a Journalist praying to some god other than Allah?
Please enlighten everyone on what illegal content is..
US Law is based on possession..
[+] [-] pjscott|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Czarnian|14 years ago|reply
Possessing may be a bit murkier but only in the edge cases where the pictures were put there without the persons knowledge.
Reddit finally got shamed into taking the ultimately correct stance. Anything that vaguely smells of child porn is no longer allowed. There's no slippery slope here.
[+] [-] joejohnson|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomjen3|14 years ago|reply
Apparently they just changed the policy. I pray they do not alter it any further.
[+] [-] fletchowns|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] citricsquid|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EiZei|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ugh|14 years ago|reply
The admins must have been aware that the exact same crap was happening in copycat subreddits all over Reddit soon after Jailbait was shut down. Why was another campaign necessary in the first place?
I don’t think the Reddit admins can take the moral high ground here. They will only do the right thing when you threaten them with bad PR.
(I’m guessing they reacted so fast this time because they know that those kinds of things can escalate quickly and national press attention is not nice to have.)
[+] [-] timdorr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unimpressive|14 years ago|reply
What I don't understand is how a "Jailbait" thread/subreddit could really be considered "legal" since the term "Jailbait" refers to people who look like they're at the age of consent but aren't. And thus will land anyone who has...intercourse; with them in jail. So the illegality is implied in the title.
[+] [-] ortusdux|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] res0nat0r|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] commandar|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sequoia|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scragg|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tommoor|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wavephorm|14 years ago|reply
Freaks out about anti-childporn laws
Bans pics of 18+ teenagers in bathing suits
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dinglemyberry|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] owenmarshall|14 years ago|reply