Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Should I notify the authorities?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The intent of the person perpetrating the abuse is a matter of case by case determination. Off hand, I'd say that in general, someone who sexually abuses a child is doing it for his own twisted pleasure, not to distribute a video of it to other people.

Why would you completely falsify reality, in order to defend your position on allowing child pornography? Of course the reason for producing child pornography is to distribute it.

Here's your position, as I see it:

There is a fixed percentage of Americans who are pedophiles, and openly willing to download or buy videos of children being forced to have sex, or even subjected to sadism (their number is in the thousands if not higher). You want the government to allow these materials to be openly traded online, in stores, magazines etc. You haven't presented any arguments to why the government would allow them to be distributed for free, but not traded for money (can't imagine on what basis and how the government would make that distinction), so you are in favor of allowing these thousands of pedophiles to finance the abuse of many thousands of children in countries outside the government's jurisdiction.

Please defend this position, or correct me if I misread it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

From what I understand, a lot of CP is distributed through P2P sharing, which is decentralized and not tied to any website.

Who all use tons of proxies or such IT Mumbo Jumbo, I get it. :dough:

Also, what does that have to do with whether his actions should be considered a crime or not?

If that person did find a site or a traceable network they should have been the ones to report it, P2P however probably makes the perpetrator a fellow accomplice in spreading it.

Unless you're saying it's a crime not to report a crime. But then you're only talking about the method of acquisition as a crime, not viewing or possessing the material.

I don't mean the former, and punishing mere viewing without possession would be ridiculous.

As to the thread title yes you should, if you don't have explicit reasoning available and it would lead to analysis paralysis to come up with it one should trust ones fastest dare I say lightning value judgements.

And finding Child Pornography on someones PC is not something I think I would benefit enough from to contemplate for longer then it would take me to reach the

telephone.

If you know of a rights violation, then yes, I would say that you are morally obligated to report it. Because protecting your own rights also involves protecting the rights of others to the degree that not reporting it would put you into a similar situation of having your rights violated. In other words, let's say you witness someone being shot in your neighborhood. If you don't report it, who knows if you will be next or not?

As to the second question, we are discussing that here. Our conclusion has basically been that it doesn't matter if someone is mentally disturbed or not, if they are violating rights, then they need to be handled by the government authorities. However, one cannot conclude that just because someone is mentally ill that he is a danger to others without specific evidence that he is dangerous to others. I would suggest reading the last page, and then you can read the rest of the thread if you like.

I think child pornography ought to be illegal since a child has not reached the age of consent of an adult, and therefore cannot give his consent to be so photographed and exploited (at least not without permission of his parents or legal guardians). If you witness a rape tape or a snuff tape or a child porn tape, in the very least you are a witness to that crime, and if you don't report it, you might be rightfully be considered a co-conspirator after the fact, which is also illegal.

Great, now I also have an explicit position against it.

Edited by FrolicsomeQuipster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the second question, we are discussing that here. Our conclusion has basically been that it doesn't matter if someone is mentally disturbed or not, if they are violating rights, then they need to be handled by the government authorities.

"Our conclusion"?

Perhaps a minor point, but I don't think it's appropriate to speak of "our" conclusion in a discussion thread, certainly not one in which the participants have not agreed on some significant issues. Just with your statement here, I'd want to know, and state that I certainly can't be in agreement with a statement I do not understand, just what you mean by "handled by the government authorities." "Handled by the government authorities" has been a point of significant dispute in that thread.

The only point that I think it's close to fair to say that the participants, at least you and I, agree upon expliticly is that the only concern of a proper government is individual rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Our conclusion"?

The only point that I think it's close to fair to say that the participants, at least you and I, agree upon explicitly is that the only concern of a proper government is individual rights.

Point taken, Trebor. Yes, we had a lot of disagreements in that thread, and some people near the end were still saying the government ought to be involved in the seriously mentally ill person's life. So, I withdrawal the "we" and "our" conclusion. In many of these discussion, you are right that individuals are involved and there often is not even a consensus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point taken, Trebor. Yes, we had a lot of disagreements in that thread, and some people near the end were still saying the government ought to be involved in the seriously mentally ill person's life. So, I withdrawal the "we" and "our" conclusion. In many of these discussion, you are right that individuals are involved and there often is not even a consensus.

Thank you, Mr. Miovas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are too many people here who have trouble reading, so instead of responding to all of your "misunderstandings" about my position, I'm going to lay it out again, for the last time:

1. Sexual abuse of a child is a crime and should be. Period.

2. A video is a recording of an event. A video that records a person sexually molesting a child is a recording of a crime. That's all it is. A recording. Whether it was made for distribution or just for "sick pleasure" all it remains is a factual rendering of the offense.

3. Paying the perpetrator of the crime for the video (unless you an undercover law officer in a sting) is a clear financing of the crime, since the perpetrator is profiting from his gross violation of rights. Payment here strictly denotes the transfer of cash or property in exchange for the recording. A person financing crime can be charged as a conspirator or accomplice or whatever lawful determination best fits.

4. The internet can propagate a digital file in limitless quantities and after a certain point it becomes impossible to determine what the origin of the file was. Therefore a person who downloads a file at any given time after the initial propagation has increasingly favorable odds that he has no knowledge of its origin and no connection to the originator.

5. A person who looks at a video or picture that depicts a crime, cannot be connected to or held responsible for that crime if he has not committed it and has no knowledge of its origins.

6. Many people on this board have made the claim that a person who watches a recording of someone having their rights violated, is himself violating that person's rights. That is a positive claim and so the burden of proof to justify that claim rests with its advocates.

7. The standard of proof to justify Point 6 is a logically connected argument that refers to reality, starting with what a right is, how a right can be violated, and ending with how a person who views a video or picture that depicts a crime, and has no knowledge of its origins, is violating the rights of the victim of the crime in the recording.

That is my position. I will not explain it again.

I eagerly await a proof of Point 6. If it is logically tenable then no further discussion is necessary. Further outbursts of emotionalism and ad hominem will be ignored. Thank you.

Edited by Myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The watcher is creating a market for the crime. These people share CP because they can then get more CP as other perverts share their rapes.

The payment is in barter. Just because cash doesn't change hands does not mean that there is no benefit being realized by either party, no matter how far removed they are from the actual abuse.

Disregarding the fact that the law itself was flawed. During prohibition alcohol was illegal. The person caught drinking it could not claim innocence based on the fact that he didn't know who made it, who bottled it or where it came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The payment is in barter. Just because cash doesn't change hands does not mean that there is no benefit being realized by either party, no matter how far removed they are from the actual abuse.

Who is bartering what?

How does a person watching a video downloaded for free pay anything to anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is bartering what?

How does a person watching a video downloaded for free pay anything to anyone?

So a person downloading a song for free off of the internet isn't paying anything either. So by your reasoning that isn't a crime either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a person downloading a song for free off of the internet isn't paying anything either. So by your reasoning that isn't a crime either.

This logic is spurious. The moral principle in IP theft is refusal to recognize (and treat appropriately) he who created a value. The question of the thread is of a different kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6. Many people on this board have made the claim that a person who watches a recording of someone having their rights violated, is himself violating that person's rights. That is a positive claim and so the burden of proof to justify that claim rests with its advocates.

.....

I eagerly await a proof of Point 6. If it is logically tenable then no further discussion is necessary. Further outbursts of emotionalism and ad hominem will be ignored. Thank you.

No one here made such a claim. Any claim anyone here has made had to do specifically with child pornography, not with recordings of violations of rights in general.

You are still making up things to rationalize your floating abstraction.

Also, criticizing your methods of arguing is not ad hominem, and passing moral judgement on pedophiles is not emotionalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a person downloading a song for free off of the internet isn't paying anything either. So by your reasoning that isn't a crime either.

Your analogy is beyond nonsensical.

I think it's becoming clear that you're incapable of providing a logical argument in favor of your position. I'm not going to waste any more time respondng to posts like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This logic is spurious. The moral principle in IP theft is refusal to recognize (and treat appropriately) he who created a value. The question of the thread is of a different kind.

Ok, let me put it another way.

A Band is performing a live concert. Without their permission and without their consent someone records the concert. You then download it for free and watch it. Are you guilty of violating the bands right to property or not?

Actually, let me rephrase that. The band is being forced at gunpoint to perform...

Edited by Zip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one here made such a claim. Any claim anyone here has made had to do specifically with child pornography, not with recordings of violations of rights in general.

You are still making up things to rationalize your floating abstraction.

What makes child molestation different from "violations of rights in general"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Child molestation is a species of the genus "rights violation".

And?

What is the difference between watching a video of any other rights violation and watching a video of child molestation?

Edited by Myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And?

What is the difference between watching a video of any other rights violation and watching a video of child molestation?

The content of the video, of course. One of them might contain any rights violation in general, the other one necessarily contains the video of a child being abused. I don't understand why you would ask such an obvious question.

The act of watching the video of a child being molested itself, without further context being provided, is not necessarily a crime. (The viewer could be a Police officer trying to find the child, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This logic is spurious. The moral principle in IP theft is refusal to recognize (and treat appropriately) he who created a value. The question of the thread is of a different kind.

I do not see any difference, morally, whatsoever between pirating movies and downloading (for free) videos of CP. If you are paying for it, then you are supporting the criminals, however if you got it for free, you do not provide the criminal with any benefit in return for the video. You are, in both cases, simply in possession of the product of a rights violation. In the case of pirated movies, possessing the product of a theft from a movie maker, in the case of CP, possessing the product of a violation of a child's rights.

Further, anyone asserting that someone who downloads CP is automatically then deterministically guaranteed to become a child predator, please provide some sort of scientific psychological proof of this claim, I do not see how it is logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The content of the video, of course. One of them might contain any rights violation in general, the other one necessarily contains the video of a child being abused. I don't understand why you would ask such an obvious question.

The act of watching the video of a child being molested itself, without further context being provided, is not necessarily a crime. (The viewer could be a Police officer trying to find the child, etc.)

Under what context should watching a video of child molestation be considered a crime? Why should it be a crime? Whose rights are being violated, by whom, and how?

What is your position?

You are, in both cases, simply in possession of the product of a rights violation.

The two situation are not analogous. In the case of pirated IP, possession is the rights violation. Possessing CP is simply having a recording of the rights violation.

Edited by Myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under what context should watching a video of child molestation be considered a crime? Why should it be a crime? Whose rights are being violated, by whom, and how?

What is your position?

Under what context should downloading a pirated video be considered a crime? Why should it be a crime? Whose rights are being violated, by whom and how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under what context should downloading a pirated video be considered a crime? Why should it be a crime? Whose rights are being violated, by whom and how?

Piracy is a completely separate issue and has nothing to do with the topic we're discussing.

Edited by Myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under what context should watching a video of child molestation be considered a crime? Why should it be a crime? Whose rights are being violated, by whom, and how?

What is your position?

When someone is in possession of child pornography, for sexual gratification, they are guilty of violating the rights of the child.

Children have the right to their own bodies and sexuality, just like adults. The difference is that children aren't qualified to exercise those rights, in the context of pornographic images or sex. Obviously, forcing an adult to give up images of themselves would be a crime in itself, and so would stealing those images, if said adult made them for personal use or intends to sell them for money. Trading (or exchanging, or accepting) videos of me, engaged in a sexual act, without my consent, is in itself a violation of my right to property.

Violating the same rights, when it comes to a child, is of course a far greater crime, since it affects the child more than it would affect an adult if his property rights were violated. A sexually abused child is psychologically scarred for life, so the penalties should be somewhere between the penalty for rape and the penalty for murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two situation are not analogous. In the case of pirated IP, possession is the rights violation. Possessing CP is simply having a recording of the rights violation.

What if the video is a guy with a video camera taping the movie at the movie theater?

I don't see how the two issues are different, a digital copy of a movie could be considered a 'recording of a rights violation.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two situation are not analogous. In the case of pirated IP, possession is the rights violation. Possessing CP is simply having a recording of the rights violation.

You are suggesting that Spielberg has more of a right to his movies than a child has to pornographic materials that were created with him as the main attraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the video is a guy with a video camera taping the movie at the movie theater?

I don't see how the two issues are different, a digital copy of a movie could be considered a 'recording of a rights violation.'

There is a difference, it's important, and I could explain it, but I'm not going to. There are plenty of in-depth threads on this site about Piracy and IP. Please read them at your own conveniance.

The topic of this thread should be confined to "child pornography." Introducing an unrelated issue will only further muddy the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...