[vyper]

So, we all know about freenet...

Alright maybe we don't so: http://freenet.sourceforge.net/

Now, the point of my thread: I like the concept of freenet - anonymous, uncensored communication that cannot be traced to any one individual. (well, simply put anyway). Let's be honest, in an age where governments are so keen to implement controls on the internet, it's a saviour.

However, since ANYTHING can be distributed on it, it throws up a serious ethical issue.

So what do we all think of freenet?

[Rictor]

I'm trying it out now.
I think I gave it a half-assed attempt a year or so ago, but the concept sound great, so I'll give it a whirl.

[aldo_14]

I think the inevitable consequence of a control-free environment is abuse, unfortunately.

I think this
[q] Users contribute to the network by giving bandwidth and a portion of their hard drive (called the "data store") for storing files. Unlike other peer-to-peer file sharing networks, Freenet does not let the user control what is stored in the data store. Instead, files are kept or deleted depending on how popular they are, with the least popular being discarded to make way for newer or more popular content. Files in the data store are encrypted to reduce the likelihood of prosecution by persons wishing to censor Freenet content. [/q]

is the key 'problem' I'd perceive.  Taking, for example child pornography (which would one of the key ethical concerns IMO); on the one hand a user cannot choose to host this.  On the other hand - they cannot choose not to.  That removes, I think, the possibility of self moderation.  It also raises a legal issue over liability when illegal material is stored on your hard drive - do you abdicate responsibility or assume it when you give away control over what is stored?

[kode]

I don't believe in total freedom of speech. that is because I'm a freaking leftist and hate nazis and child pornographers.

[Rictor]

Honestly, child porn may be horrible, but I'm of the opinion that efforts should be made to prevent and punish the crime, not limit the distribution of the material.

Yes, yes, allowing distribution encourages the crime, but personally the act of propagating information or media is not, and should not, be a crime in and of iself. Because you have to seperate the act itself, be it child porn, murder or whatever, from the distrubution of materials relating to that subject. For example, I have a serious problem with murder, but I'm willing to bite the bullet and let someone freely distribute pictures of their latest murder victim, if thats the price of ensuring freedom from censorship for other, more important, issues.

I guess its kind of a personal opinion, and there is no "answer", but to me freedom is primary.

[karajorma]

Yet more proof of Rictors willingness to not only throw the baby out with the bathwater but also to kick it a few times in the head just to be sure.

The world is not as black and white as you believe Rictor. You can censor crap like child porn and snuff movies without having to censor anything else.

[Rictor]

I realize that. I also realize that a state of lawlessness (formal anyway) has certain advantages, and should exist in some form, though not necessarily as the basis for society at large. Sort of like international waters on the Internet.

Hypothetical scenario: I like looking at naked 10 year old boys. Thats just my fancy. So, I decide to take a look around the web for some pictures. After a while, I build up quite a collection, and decide to host a website displaying those pictures for my fellow pedophiles.

Now, have I actually commited a crime? Not legally, but morally. Or have I only been complicit in the commiting of the crime? Should I be obliged by law to be a be a nice person and not take advantage of the fact that someone else has commited a crime? If my neighbor kills a man, should I not be allowed to go out and gawk at the dead body if I so choose? As long as I have commited no crime myself, then what is in effect happening is that my personal tastes, which are no better or worse than anyone else's, are being criminlaized. I may not agree with what you have to say (or in this case show) but I will fight to the death for you right to say (show) it.

Or to use another scenario, should the websites distrubting the videos by various Islamic militant groups be shut don, because they are aiding the distribution of material which shows a criminal act.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
Hypothetical scenario: I like looking at naked 10 year old boys. Thats just my fancy. So, I decide to take a look around the web for some pictures. After a while, I build up quite a collection, and decide to host a website displaying those pictures for my fellow pedophiles.

Now, have I actually commited a crime? Not legally, but morally. Or have I only been complicit in the commiting of the crime? Should I be obliged by law to be a be a nice person and not take advantage of the fact that someone else has commited a crime?

Distribution of illegal material, for one thing.  also by hosting it, you are an accesory to the act of distributing.  That's like saying "if i sell drugs, but don't actually harvest them, then I'm innocent".  Also the moral fact that by displaying said pictures, you are condoning the child abuse that led to the taking of them.

[Grey Wolf]

I believe possession of child pornography is also an offense in the United States.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
Hypothetical scenario: I like looking at naked 10 year old boys. Thats just my fancy. So, I decide to take a look around the web for some pictures. After a while, I build up quite a collection, and decide to host a website displaying those pictures for my fellow pedophiles.

Now, have I actually commited a crime? Not legally, but morally. Or have I only been complicit in the commiting of the crime? Should I be obliged by law to be a be a nice person and not take advantage of the fact that someone else has commited a crime? If my neighbor kills a man, should I not be allowed to go out and gawk at the dead body if I so choose? As long as I have commited no crime myself, then what is in effect happening is that my personal tastes, which are no better or worse than anyone else's, are being criminlaized. I may not agree with what you have to say (or in this case show) but I will fight to the death for you right to say (show) it.

Yes you should be punished. You've still committed a crime. Suppose the victim of the child abuse happens to come across your web site? What you've done is to now subject the victim of that crime to it's effects all over again. Rape victims have repeatedly discribed having to give testimony in court as being as harrowing as the original rape. What you support is making it legal to video tape the event and then distribute it to all your friends (who based on your beliefs should be able to watch it freely). According to you if they happen to know the victim and choose to watch it somewhere that she might encounter them maybe even that wouldn't be a crime based on what you've said (after all why should their freedom to watch a video tape be constrained by the desires of the woman who was raped in it?).

I'm not saying you're complicit in the original crime. I'm saying that you're involved in a new one. You're not simply asking to go gawk at the dead body. You're asking if you can chop bits off of it and take it home once the pathologists have finished with it.

Originally posted by Rictor
Or to use another scenario, should the websites distrubting the videos by various Islamic militant groups be shut don, because they are aiding the distribution of material which shows a criminal act.

To be honest I considered said websites to be in extremely poor taste if not actually illegal myself. The only excuse for them is if they were displaying the videos in an attempt to prove that they were fake (as the first ones did).

[kode]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
I believe possession of child pornography is also an offense in the United States.

it is in most countries, I'm led to believe.

[Rictor]

have I mentioned aldo that I believe drugs should be legalized, as long as they are sold to consenting adults?

In any case, its not the same thing. One is media, information, and the other is a physical object. Media never hurt anybody. Whereas selling drugs or guns or whatever (both of which should be sold freely to consenting adults) is actually selling a device that may harm others.

I have no problems with making child porn itself a crime, and going after those mofos, but simply possesing media that depicts a crime isn't enough to make you a criminal IMHO.



kara: first of all, there are hundreds of millions of people on the Internet, and the chances of a child porn victim intentionally going out and looking for child pron videos tiny.  Less than tiny.

as for the dead body analogy: how am I "chipping bits off", when the act is the same, whether in person or on the Net. The act of watching. This is working under the assumption that the person hosting/visiting the website has not actually enaged in child porn him or her self, and only downloads the videos that other people have made.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
have I mentioned aldo that I believe drugs should be legalized, as long as they are sold to consenting adults?

In any case, its not the same thing. One is media, information, and the other is a physical object. Media never hurt anybody. Whereas selling drugs or guns or whatever (both of which should be sold freely to consenting adults) is actually selling a device that may harm others.

Sidestepping the issue of drug legalization completely, there is a clear connection.  This media is hurting people; not only is it depicting people being hurt, it is potentially giving others the wherewithal to do so.  It's acting as a tacit encouragement; people are more inclined to do something if they get away with it.  It's also legitimising it through publication.

Originally posted by Rictor
I have no problems with making child porn itself a crime, and going after those mofos, but simply possesing media that depicts a crime isn't enough to make you a criminal IMHO.

That depends on the crime and the material, doesn't it?  And who has access to it as well, and who has had access.  Should we allow free distribution of snuff or rape videos, for example?

Originally posted by Rictor
kara: first of all, there are hundreds of millions of people on the Internet, and the chances of a child porn victim intentionally going out and looking for child pron videos tiny.  Less than tiny.

they might not have to look for it, if they can be identified from it.  If there's no reason not to distribute it, what's wrong with distributing the name as well?  I mean, there's nothing illegal about saying who's in a pciture, is there?

Originally posted by Rictor
as for the dead body analogy: how am I "chipping bits off", when the act is the same, whether in person or on the Net. The act of watching. This is working under the assumption that the person hosting/visiting the website has not actually enaged in child porn him or her self, and only downloads the videos that other people have made.

I haven't checked this yet (I'm somewhat scared of what using particular google search keywords would reveal), that many child abusers gravitate from free access to pictures and videos, towards acting out what they see in those pictures.

EDIT; I believe the term is the 'sexualisation' of children; that these pictures reinforce the belief of paedophiles that children are sexual objects.  The more they see, the more acceptable that image becomes to them - and the more tolerant they become of the act of abuse, to the point of commiting it, or simply encouraging and tolerating it.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
kara: first of all, there are hundreds of millions of people on the Internet, and the chances of a child porn victim intentionally going out and looking for child pron videos tiny.  Less than tiny.

Which is why I expanded on the original question. Let me further simplify as you don't seem to have grasped the gist of my question. Do you think it's morally and legally right for the aquaintances of a rapist to watch videos of his crime knowing full well that the victim of said crime could walk in on them at any time?

But it's not as tiny as you say. Suppose a famous child is abused and the pictures/video was released on the net. Do you not think that a sex tape of the Olsen twins aged 14 would end up being very highly distributed?

Originally posted by Rictor
as for the dead body analogy: how am I "chipping bits off", when the act is the same, whether in person or on the Net. The act of watching. This is working under the assumption that the person hosting/visiting the website has not actually enaged in child porn him or her self, and only downloads the videos that other people have made.

Because you have no right to either the dead body parts or the video tape of the crime. What possible moral or legal right can you claim to have to the video tape of someone being forced to perform sexual acts they didn't wish to commit? At the very least the fact that they didn't give permission for the tape to made puts you on very dodgy ground.