• humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I read it and it seems reasonable. Child pornography is not always children having sex, it also could be a photo of one’s own child. I know at least one case that such a law was exploited by a government: https://www.imrussia.org/en/human-rights/3405-december-2021-the-ingush-case,-memorial-and-ovd-info,-yuri-dmitriev

    ~~PS: IDK who’s Aaron Schwartz ~~

    Edit: ah, yes JSTOR case. Fuck Elsevier.

    PS2: look at Sartre and his mistress Simona support letter for legalizing pedophilia

      • humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Nope. Child abuse is fucking disgusting, immoral, and should not be encouraged. But the whole ‘child pornography’ thing is vague so it makes cases like this arise. This should be reformulated to not include just nudity and,in general, equated with a tape containing video of a crime

          • humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Like, let’s reread it together

            Child pornography is not necessarily abuse. Even if it was, preventing the distribution or posession of the evidence won’t make the abuse go away. We don’t arrest everyone with videotapes of murders, or make it illegal for TV stations to show people being killed.