I apologize my comment didn't survive the crash.Every single one of these arguments also applies to the mosque shooting video. I just see no other way to be internally consistent.
so you're saying what I should do is put on my bowling shoes and turn on my gopro and fuck a dozen muslim kids before shooting them in the head so that you can get the fucking pointone is pornography which is for pedos to jerk off to and the other is showing the events of how the massacre happened which is why one is allowed and the other is not
1. your misconstruing my point by blending the two togetherso you're saying what I should do is put on my bowling shoes and turn on my gopro and fuck a dozen muslim kids before shooting them in the head so that you can get the fucking point
What if a politician rapes their political rivals child to get one over on their enemy? What about child rape in the context of genocidal war (Yugoslavia, etc).The shooting in New Zealand was politically motivated. The shooters motivations are dangerous to the status quo and are thus censored/banned or spun one way or another. Child porn is non of those things, it's just the sexual abuse of a child.
It's not a "Just because" argument. It's an argument of magnitudes. If you look at the two concepts they can seem the same, but the freakonomics/meta physics (Whatever you want to call it) of the situation have differences in the details. Which is where they greatly differ.I have trouble accepting a "just because" argument, internally.
One could easily argue that inspiring mass shootings is more damaging than child porn.
But even if viewing violent images increased the propensity of violence I still wouldn't be in favor of banning them. So you can see my issue, internally.
I want to ban child porn but it feels like I'm not being consistent.
I mean there's no reason you can't commoditize mass murder footage. Arguably the media already does this.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.
I've also been thinking that, despite a full fledged black market not being as likely as a cp one, mass murder videos do inspire copycats and/or dregs of society like incels into antisocial action ("going ER", which are the initials of Elliot Rodger, is a very popular incel term)I mean there's no reason you can't commoditize mass murder footage. Arguably the media already does this.
Yeah, I totally see where you're coming from, and any distinction does seem... arbitrary. And just like you say, that doesn't change the fact that I in no way want CP protected by free speech, nor do I want any aspect of free speech (Or the assumed accompanying free expression...) to be limited further. But, taking a step back, objectively, I can't logically find anywhere to make a meaningful distinction that doesn't itself introduce further limits.Oh I understand it. Child porn is viscerally disgusting in a way even murder is not. Which is odd since, logically, at least the victimized children have a chance at life. The murdered don't. But it seems to be how we're programmed.