Renditions of extreme violence are legal, and common in cinema. I find them repulsive, but I support people's right to free speech; they should be allowed to produce renditions of extreme violence and distribute them. The movie Texas Chainsaw Massacre is legal, and I support that.
Doing a real life Texas Chainsaw Massacre is not legal. Recording a real life Texas Chainsaw Massacre and distributing the recordings should not be legal. I do not support that.
I do not believe the speech part of Texas Chainsaw Massacre should be illegal, no matter how repulsive I find that genre of entertainment to be. I do believe the non-speech parts of those acts should absolutely be illegal - for obvious reasons.
I personally do not believe I have to yield my absolutionist stance on free speech to say that content downstream of those actions can't be distributed and possessed. There is no way for that content to have been legally produced, therefor there is no way for that content to be legally possessed and distributed.
You aren't OP but that's my poin. OP made the absolutist statement that:
"Censorship has always been on the wrong side of history and it still is."
which is obviously absurd because there are very obvious situations where censorship is clearly a good idea, like in banning not just the creation of child pornography but the possession.
When the feds strengthen laws against child porn in the 70s and 80s, that same free speech argument played out. Free speech advocates argued that having recorded evidence of a crime shouldn't be a crime in of itself. You can have pictures of murder victims after all, and there are plenty of recordings of illegal activity on the internet that are totally legal.
Obviously the right side won and the feds passed laws censoring child pornography because the ends, punishing child porn consumers and creators, outweighed the cost, which was a small reduction in freedom of speech.
Every society needs some limits on speech and free speech absolutism is just ideological weakness in thinking about how a society should actually work because in the real world, unlimited speech leads to a lot of people getting hurt.
I actually hope that AI can allow people to have "child" pornography without children being exploited. If anything, that should be encouraged and made legal.
As the kiddie porn crusaders like to say, "think of the children."
r3trohack3r|2 years ago
Doing a real life Texas Chainsaw Massacre is not legal. Recording a real life Texas Chainsaw Massacre and distributing the recordings should not be legal. I do not support that.
I do not believe the speech part of Texas Chainsaw Massacre should be illegal, no matter how repulsive I find that genre of entertainment to be. I do believe the non-speech parts of those acts should absolutely be illegal - for obvious reasons.
I personally do not believe I have to yield my absolutionist stance on free speech to say that content downstream of those actions can't be distributed and possessed. There is no way for that content to have been legally produced, therefor there is no way for that content to be legally possessed and distributed.
dotnet00|2 years ago
Any CSAM which is fully divorced from real children (or any sort of crime in general) in all ways should be legal, as gross as it is.
cmh89|2 years ago
"Censorship has always been on the wrong side of history and it still is."
which is obviously absurd because there are very obvious situations where censorship is clearly a good idea, like in banning not just the creation of child pornography but the possession.
When the feds strengthen laws against child porn in the 70s and 80s, that same free speech argument played out. Free speech advocates argued that having recorded evidence of a crime shouldn't be a crime in of itself. You can have pictures of murder victims after all, and there are plenty of recordings of illegal activity on the internet that are totally legal.
Obviously the right side won and the feds passed laws censoring child pornography because the ends, punishing child porn consumers and creators, outweighed the cost, which was a small reduction in freedom of speech.
Every society needs some limits on speech and free speech absolutism is just ideological weakness in thinking about how a society should actually work because in the real world, unlimited speech leads to a lot of people getting hurt.
drewcoo|2 years ago
As the kiddie porn crusaders like to say, "think of the children."
cmh89|2 years ago
pessimizer|2 years ago