What's the difference between a mosque shooting video and a cp video from a "freedom of speech" point of view? - One is perfectly acceptable to host in the name of free speech while the other must be purged with fire. Why not purge both?

Tasty Tatty

kiwifarms.net
For example, with CP, the video IS the bad thing. The bad thing that happens in the video was done for the purpose of making the video, and the video exists only for the purpose of showing that bad thing.

With the shooting video, the bad thing is the shooting. Nobody is (to my knowledge) making money off the creation and of such videos, and the violent acts depicted would have happened regardless of whether it was recorded.
I get what you're saying, but I think that, in this specific case, the streaming was also the bad thing as the shooter wanted to be seen.
 

Lemmingwise

Rothschild funded art
kiwifarms.net
the ethics (or lack thereof) of hosting this kind of video against cp was brought up and both Nick and Null agreed on the point that cp is "too far" when it comes to freedom of speech

The expansion of free speech to also cover obscenity, porn and sex is a relatively new idea, first defended by hustler magazine.

To use the oxford definition, see below.

It was conceived and is intended to cover opinions and political ideas/speech and to protect the airing of such.

When you think about it a little, there is very little reason to put sexual content on the level with opinions.

Now I don't particularly mind what people do in their bedrooms or what pictures people draw, but I do think there is a negative link on the health of a society in general and the degenerate things it permits. Allowing little boys on billboards that also strip for money and acting like effeminate drag queens has a negative effect on society beyond the abuse against that kid, it has a demoralizing effect that is comparable to the broken window theory.

And contrary to the people that generally defend the vilest of porn as supposedly being free speech, they are generally not open to hearing the opinions about this, particularly not when you start with one of the holy cows, homosexuality and its link to both disease and pedophilia. I don't know if people are born gay, that seems to be true. I do know that abused kids are more likely to be gay and that there is an active recruitment of that type (the vagina monologues famously had the glorification of such a moment of an underage girl and an adult woman; the fact that it wasn't shouted off stage shows how far people are misled on this. The scene was removed a decade later or so.

Perhaps the line "it was a good rape" was a little too on the nose coming from a 13 year old character. But this was a prizewinning and much applauded play.

There is also the infamous article "can we just admit that we do want to convert kids?" article. And you can discover that that's how it works today. Just go to antifa meetings, to marxist feminist meetings, go to gay bars and genderqueer parties. I saw it in real life before I started studying the statistics.

To get back on track, obscenity despite what US courts decided in their case against hustler, shouldn't cover obscene content. I think everybody in their heart knows that tits being removed off facebook is not the same thing as conservative pages being removed off facebook. One is a speech issue, the other is a obscenity issue.

Now how does that tie in to CP vs a terror attack?

Well I'd have to prove that CP is obscenity, but it is by definition, it's in the P (even if definitions of porn are hard to make, just try to put the right line between boobtwitchers and female twitch streamers) of pornography. I don't have to exactly identify the line to be able to broadly state that some barrier should exist that separates camwhores and female game streamers.

Then I'd have to prove that sharing the terror attack is speech. I have the presumption that people should be able to see it so that they can both learn from it politically and practically. You'd want the protections of freedom of speech to be broad, because the temptation to silence others lies in almost everyone's hearts. That's about the best I can make the argument, if someone else can make it better, let me know.

Finally, besides the freedom of speech, there is the issue that sexual release gives a huge dopamine rush that if it came from a drug, it would be a controlled substance. A dopamine rush means that all the thoughts and actions you did prior become more firmly rooted in your brain. There is no "one time" exception in the bedroom. If you discover something you like, you're going to want to do it again. And, I find that you can even condition partners to associate that dopamine rush with specific sexual activities and make them like that and ask for that.

Do you really want some percentage of people to habituate themselves to having sexual release in regards to the abuse of children? I think this is the strongest argument against CP.







Definition of freedom of speech in English:
freedom of speech


NOUN
mass noun
  • The power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.
    ‘the move would further harm freedom of speech in the region
 

Крыса

там хорошо, где меня нет
kiwifarms.net
Anti-vaxx bullshit has a very observable and direct "negative link on the health of society", should it be censored?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Apoth42

Lemmingwise

Rothschild funded art
kiwifarms.net
Anti-vaxx bullshit has a very observable and direct "negative link on the health of society", should it be censored?
All bullshit has an observable negative link on the health of a society. Unravelling where bullshit begins and ends is pretty hard and it's too complex to be able to ban. We can't just "ban bullshit". Part of that reason is also that it's hard to know where intentional and unintentional bullshit begins.

If for example we'd say: yes let's ban all anti-vax speech. And mr. Nick started his own little vaccination shop. Because injecting people with feces is what protects them against cancer. Well Nick is a bit of a quack, isn't he?

Well now you can't say anything about it if he has a sufficiently good legal team to protect his rights to "vaccinate" kids.

If there is a way in which it wouldn't be hamfisted, please let me know, but otherwise no, anti-vaxx speech should not be censored, even if it is bullshit. If we did, we'd also have to start censoring bullshit from the pharmaceutical industry and as soon as you get into that business you become an arbiter of the truth, which is too complex a task for even a government.

That's also why it's different. Child pornography isn't speech. It's not conveying any ideas, not even stupid ideas.
 

Крыса

там хорошо, где меня нет
kiwifarms.net
I don't think speech has to convey ideas to be protected, in that regard violent material doesn't necessary convey ideas either and yet it's not censored.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Apoth42

Apoth42

Hehe xd
kiwifarms.net
Child pornography creates a black market for child sexual exploitation in countries with weak governments that cannot protect children.
Violent videos do no such thing and do not have such a market.
Doesn't the black market on CP encourage the creation of new CP?

Also, there are community threads for the snuff and cannibalism communities on this forum.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Stay safe

666DEATHGAY

kiwifarms.net
Only pedos who should be shot or at least locked up watch CP.

Almost everyone likes violence in different forms. People need more understanding that humans are naturally very violent in order to protect ourselves from evil. Naivity passivity and indifference is how a lot of evil is allowed in our society.

I guess there are other ethical concerns like documenting crimes and journalism shouldn't be banned, or as others have pointed out CP creating a market to produce that stuff.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Apoth42

spurger king

kiwifarms.net
If we define freedom of speech to mean "The power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty" I can't say either example should be legally protected. I have to say, it's a bit sad seeing people try to draw some meaningful distinction between CP and mass killing in that regard. However, I view the mosque shooter as a combatant waging war against an occupying force and so I am okay with watching a video of that guy massacring a bunch of dune coons. I am not okay with kid fuckers though so I guess you could just say that I am okay with videos of combat, but not okay with kid fuckers. That seems like a fair position to me. In either case I am not counting on some nebulous freeze peach principles. I can watch anything I want to watch, and the government can sit in its corner and deal with it.
 

Apoth42

Hehe xd
kiwifarms.net
"It's not conveying any ideas"

Seems like a precedent that would entirely unravel free expression and it doesn't make much sense. How do you define political speech? I really doubt that's why anybody opposes CP being distributed.

We'll probably survive with CP being an exception because 99.9989% of people hate it and view it as evil but it does give the govt justification and a basis to entirely censor and control the internet.

CP exists as exception to the principles. Nearly all self identified free speech supporters want it banned and even free speech absolutists don't hesitate on opposing it despite the slippery slope it presents.
 

Mewtwo_Rain

Drown in the cesspool of darkness
kiwifarms.net
I think the differences whether I agree with it or not is what I call a "knee jerk" reaction within censorship and freedom of speech. Honestly I believe it's more likely to provoke already existing child offenders to repeat, and lad to a vicious circle of offenders, but at the same time I do wonder if stats on such a subject would equate to what is believed of it being available? (Violent game stats contradict the age old premise violent content being available leads to more violence: Sexual content leads to more sex crimes [Japan] which is also untrue, but it may be it's a dangerous thought to test because if it does follow the premise more CP=More predators that could lead to a disaster, assuming it already hasn't been tested.)

Though, I'd also have to point out sometimes there are exceptions to the rule, all rules have those exceptions and CP in this case may be that very one that makes the most sense to ban. Of course when explaining an exception you have to make it clear not everything will get that leeway on being said exception but this case should be self-evident just by the level of depravity and how most (the majority) see it or view optics of it.

Where as violent videos are a little different, we know concretely and scientifically violent content often doesn't lead to violent results. As others made mention of sure copycats could take notes on what to do, to preform a better shooting or make less mistakes but I find the numbers would be overall smaller. Also as made mention of could show vulnerabilities, how the shooter maneuvers to counter future shooters and more.

I can see violent videos like this recent shooting providing information to a degree, where as CP... You'd really have to specify an observation or situation where the video was helpful in anyway outside of knowing a location where it's taking place, but in the first place why would someone be watching it if they weren't part of a legal agency. (Hence their ability to track the predator or person doing those actions?)

Basically, I see it kind of like the old "Natural law" theory. Certain laws in civilizations are always enforced. Don't murder, don't steal. Why aren't X, Y, and Z enforced instead? It's generally because a majority agree with it or because the risk vs. reward is weighed (as far as can be seen) and it's deemed as an exception that needs to be censored in this case or a law enforced such as in the analogy.
 

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid

This will all end in tears, I just know it.
kiwifarms.net
By this argument, holocaust photos should be banned from public viewing because they're depictions of human suffering. This is what you get when you over-intellectualize your way to an all or nothing argument, which is a very Louis Le Vau argument to make.
Doesn't the black market on CP encourage the creation of new CP?
Does the open market for regular porn discourage the creation of new normie porn?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apoth42

Zersetzung

popular twitch speedrunner edward snowden
kiwifarms.net
We've all seen next-gen rendering demos like deepfakes and face2face, right?


Hypothetically, what happens in a year or three when anyone can download cp.exe and have it spit out a neural net-generated video literally indistinguishable from actual live action pornography? It seems like that kind of technology would be a drastically cheaper and safer way to produce that content, devaluing black market material and undermining the economic argument for prohibition. What then?
 

Zersetzung

popular twitch speedrunner edward snowden
kiwifarms.net
That was a super subtle way of saying answer me, you fucking cowards.

There's a huge tendency here for people to pay lip service to freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and freedom of speech while having this one particular reservation that you think is going to protect you when someone knocks on your door, like "protect the children" is a totem you're allowed to fucking claim, not just the door knockers. Deny it.

Get off Null's cock and have some guts.
 

Apoth42

Hehe xd
kiwifarms.net
I can see violent videos like this recent shooting providing information to a degree, where as CP... You'd really have to specify an observation or situation where the video was helpful in anyway outside of knowing a location where it's taking place
Allowing only "useful" speech seems like a worse precedent.
 

Kittykin

kiwifarms.net
Greetings

The other day I was watching the Nick Rekieta video featuring @Null about the hosting of the mosque shooting on KF and the subsequent world community reaction to it.

At one point, I can't remember at what point in the video, the ethics (or lack thereof) of hosting this kind of video against cp was brought up and both Nick and Null agreed on the point that cp is "too far" when it comes to freedom of speech and should never be hosted (or something along those lines), but I could hear in their tone how they were struggling to come up on an "objective" difference between a shooting video and cp, simply laughing off the notion that they're very similar and quickly moving on.
Stating the obvious here, videos are not 'speech'. They are recordings of child rape or sexual abuse.

And yet, I fail to see how those are so inherently different: they are both material that feature human suffering for the viewer's "pleasure" (and I mean it in the loosest of terms), they are both illegal, they are both very painful to the victims (both in the video and their surviving families/friends). And these are just the points that come at the top of my head.
They shooting was not intended for pleasure.
CP is created/intended for pleasure and profit at the expense of children.

In fact, I can argue that a shooting video has more suffering on the simple notion that more people become victims, on a strict numerical scale that doesn't take the value of human life into consideration. But even if you want to take it into consideration and argue that children suffering is worse that adult suffering, how many people have to die before they "outweigh" the suffering of one child? Would the video of hundreds of people being executed at the same time under some backwater third world regime be as despised and banned as cp? If yes, why? If not, why not? Would changing the number of victims change your opinion? Would it change if it was the video of 50 raped adults versus the video of 1 killed child? Can you even do such a "calculation"?
Ridiculous question.
You are attempting to equate entirely different concepts and intents. They are exclusive to each other.
I can concede that, at least, a shooting video can be formative to LEOs to prevent or be better prepared against future shootings, but this is not really a "freedom of speech" argument. Maybe I'm not seeing something obvious here; I refuse to watch videos of human suffering so maybe I lack some kind of insight about it or it might skew my view about this kind of content.
You're right, it's not a freedom of speech argument the way it has been conflated with CP.

And so I ask, in one of the last bastions of free speech on the Internet (I don't feel this is hyperbole lately), why don't we purge both as a despicable product of human evilness? If not, where do we draw the line and why there specifically on objective terms?
Raping children is destruction of your own species.

(I also want to specify that I'm not even considering the possibility of "elevating" cp as a category of stuff protected by free speech, only to "downgrade" other forms of snuff media to "not worth saving/consuming")

Thanks

I hope the post didn't come out as too autistic, but every once in a while I like to challenge my perspective of what seems "obvious" as a mental exercise. I'll also probably be put on some list because of this post but whatever.
Violence is inherent to humanity, as is sexuality, however most parents ( unless they are pedophiles themselves) have a very strong instinct about protecting their offspring. Many pedophiles have died at the hands of angry parents.
 
Last edited:

Mysterious Capitalist

Collect [REDACTED] as you pass
kiwifarms.net
Stating the obvious here, videos are not 'speech'. They are recordings of child rape or sexual abuse.
Speech is intended as "expression", so if you make a video without uttering a word, your freedom to put whatever you want in said video is still protected under freedom of speech, I believe. I might be wrong on the definition, but this was the message I was trying to convey.

They shooting was not intended for pleasure.
CP is created/intended for pleasure and profit at the expense of children.
Again, with "pleasure" here I meant "to enjoy" (hence the bit where I specified "in the loosest of terms"). You'd be foolish to think that people that specifically want to see this kind of violent and raw content online aren't there to get some sort of enjoyment out of it, even if it's just to scratch and itch of curiosity.

Ridiculous question.
You are attempting to equate entirely different concepts and intents. They are exclusive to each other.
You're avoiding my attempt at a intellectual exercise. Why are the concepts so different and exclusive to each other? I just want an answer that's different from "it's a tingling in the back of my brain that makes me say so"

You're right, it's not a freedom of speech argument the way it has been conflated with CP.
See my first point in this post

Raping children is destruction of your own species.
I can assure you that raping children is a thing that's happened since before we could be called "human beings" (and at some points in history it was even regarded as a good thing) and yet here we are.

Violence is inherent to humanity, as is sexuality, however most parents ( unless they are pedophiles themselves) have a very strong instinct about protecting their offspring. Many pedophiles have died at the hands of angry parents.
This is either grossly naive or terribly ignorant of reality. In either case: :optimistic:
 

Kittykin

kiwifarms.net
Speech is intended as "expression", so if you make a video without uttering a word, your freedom to put whatever you want in said video is still protected under freedom of speech, I believe. I might be wrong on the definition, but this was the message I was trying to convey.
Then you need to check the definition, and the legal definition where it is applicable. I'll leave that to you. Minimum we will be discussing the same meaning. Splitting hairs with lefties that change the definitions of words on the fly is an irritation to be avoided.

Again, with "pleasure" here I meant "to enjoy" (hence the bit where I specified "in the loosest of terms"). You'd be foolish to think that people that specifically want to see this kind of violent and raw content online aren't there to get some sort of enjoyment out of it, even if it's just to scratch and itch of curiosity.
Curiosity is not about pleasure. For some , you will be correct, for others, it is merely information. Movies galore attest to the high tolerance for violence. When it is in the realm of fantasy, anything goes, but when the blood is real, it's another story, but both appear the same for all intents and purposes. The mosque shooting video was a political message which the main stream media was anxious to shut down. The hypocrisy of that alone, should be questioned.

You're avoiding my attempt at a intellectual exercise. Why are the concepts so different and exclusive to each other? I just want an answer that's different from "it's a tingling in the back of my brain that makes me say so"
I already stated the difference. Reread it, and explain to me what aspect you are not understanding.
They shooting was not intended for pleasure.
CP is created/intended for pleasure and profit at the expense of children.


Killing for the sake of a political statement, is not sexual release as in the case of raping kids ( or anyone for that matter)


See my first point in this post
The crime of raping a child and recording it for distribution remains a crime. At no point in the modern civilized era am I aware, has it been considered "acceptable". "laudable" or what have you. Nor should it be. Children are physically incapable of engaging in sexual activity unless it is forced. It is not consensual.

I can assure you that raping children is a thing that's happened since before we could be called "human beings" (and at some points in history it was even regarded as a good thing) and yet here we are.
You would be stating facts of the actions of those with some malfunctioning between their ears.


This is either grossly naive or terribly ignorant of reality. In either case: :optimistic:
Seriously? Try again. Look at the crime rates as they are increasing, and violent crimes as well. Which point are you specifically referring to? Parents have killed, and many more would, were it not illegal. Perhaps I should be clearer, pedophile = someone who has molested their child as opposed to a 'friend' who is a pedophile but has not acted on his/her 'urges.'
 

Mysterious Capitalist

Collect [REDACTED] as you pass
kiwifarms.net
Then you need to check the definition, and the legal definition where it is applicable. I'll leave that to you. Minimum we will be discussing the same meaning. Splitting hairs with lefties that change the definitions of words on the fly is an irritation to be avoided.
Wikipedia said:
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The term "freedom of expression" is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
There you go. I didn't think this would be necessary since other people in the thread didn't need the reminder, but I guess this way it's impossible to, as you put it, "Split hairs with lefties"

Curiosity is not about pleasure.
You're still taking the word pleasure at its face value, like someone literally gets off when they go and check stuff out online out of curiosity. Then let's change the word "pleasure" in "personal satisfaction". Would that be clearer for you?

The mosque shooting video was a political message which the main stream media was anxious to shut down. The hypocrisy of that alone, should be questioned.
Based on this and the previous "lefties" remark, should I assume that you think there's some kind of conspiracy behind the video and those that would like it to disappear from the Internet? Because I really don't care about that and it's beside the point of the thread. Just a heads up in case you wanted to bring that up.

They shooting was not intended for pleasure.
CP is created/intended for pleasure and profit at the expense of children.
Since you refuse to engage in the intellectual exercise this thread was meant to be even when I ask explicitly, I guess I'll take it to you directly: are you saying that, if the shooter started to masturbate on the dead bodies and wanted the video to be a snuff film for sociopaths to get off to, as in it would be intended for pleasure like any cp video, you'd be against it's distribution? What about videos of children abused, but not sexually, as in the are not intended for pleasure? What about if someone made cp for academic purposes and was 100% truthful about it, so it would still be not intended for pleasure? Would they be fair game to host and redistribute then? Tell me what you think about it, where you'd draw the line of acceptability and why.

Killing for the sake of a political statement, is not sexual release as in the case of raping kids ( or anyone for that matter)
What if killing for the sake of a political statement was intended for sexual release, though? Like some fucked up rp scenario. Would that change your opinion about it?

You would be stating facts of the actions of those with some malfunctioning between their ears.
I guess this says a lot about the human race, then.

Look at the crime rates as they are increasing, and violent crimes as well.
This is an old people fallacy where you believe that since before today it was harder to gain the knowledge that, indeed, the world is full of fucked up people, that it wasn't full of fucked up people before today. It's not that the crime rates are increasing, it's just your perception of them that's increasing and mainstream media doesn't help (with their sensationalist titles created to sell more). But objective data showed that this is the best time to be alive and crime hasn't been lower globally. But this is besides the point of the thread.

Parents have killed, and many more would, were it not illegal.
You do know that a lot of children are sold by their parents because they live in a shithole country and by selling their children they get both a lot of money and one less mouth to feed, right? Obviously we don't have official data (that I know of), but I suspect that the percentage of parents guilty of this in third world countries is not... unsubstantial.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino