I’ve never considered that argument, but I think it has solid grounding.
I also err on the side of freedom, but it does pain me to think of how some may escape any worldly justice because all they did was download “something.”
If we had much more aggressive prosecution and harsher punishment for uploaders, this might work.
In any case, interesting perspective, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Something to think about.
Anyone truly educated on takedowns knows you go after the suppliers, then the distributors.
Going after the consumers is an almost entirely non-viable strategy.
That said, it's a tough subject to broach because when they're viewing children.. ehhh it's stomach turning.
The worst is that it seems they go after children who ended up stupidly taking pictures when they were young and then having them resurface later after they're an adult (so a victimless crime) harder than going after, say, Epstein Island consumers?
Really weird fucking world we live in right now. Really fucking weird.
Normally I'd also err on the side of freedom but the thought of viewing the indiscretions from just an information perspective is extremely off-putting to me.
Some people did that with Pizzagate investigations and they were depressed for months and IIRC didn't want to keep digging for a while.
I will say though that downloading as a crime is.. really sketchy from a freedom perspective, and a better handle should be on the people actually producing or disseminating.
Goes for all things, like piracy for games and movies too. Better availability, fairer pricing goes a long way on that front vs just trying to oppressively stop it on the consumer front. Taking down aggregates and such would be a better use of resources.
Exactly...because WHERE DOES THE ACTUAL 'CRIME' END??
If NO party was injured by my 'downloading' of (put anything here) then I have committed no crime. If, for instance, I re-upload or share what I've downloaded then that could be considered a contribution to a previous crime (although a very minor contribution).. but something nonetheless.
Simply 'having' something on your computer should never be a crime in itself. If the 'law' thinks someone committed a crime to obtain (illegal material here) then they need to prove that in a court of law. If someone paid for (illegal material here) then of course THAT could be considered a contribution to the crime.
Otherwise, simply 'having' something ON you computer without actually knowing HOW it got there is really no crime. IMHO
Let's say for instance some knucklehead posted a naked picture of a child on Twitter and before Twitter got around to removing it, it was downloaded by 30,000 people.
Should we ran-sack the homes of 30,000 people and haul them all in for pedophilia and put them all on the pedophile list?
Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? That's just one example of why just 'having' something 'bad' on your own private computer shouldn't be a crime just in itself.
I’ve never considered that argument, but I think it has solid grounding.
I also err on the side of freedom, but it does pain me to think of how some may escape any worldly justice because all they did was download “something.”
If we had much more aggressive prosecution and harsher punishment for uploaders, this might work.
In any case, interesting perspective, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Something to think about.
Anyone truly educated on takedowns knows you go after the suppliers, then the distributors.
Going after the consumers is an almost entirely non-viable strategy.
That said, it's a tough subject to broach because when they're viewing children.. ehhh it's stomach turning.
The worst is that it seems they go after children who ended up stupidly taking pictures when they were young and then having them resurface later after they're an adult (so a victimless crime) harder than going after, say, Epstein Island consumers?
Really weird fucking world we live in right now. Really fucking weird.
Normally I'd also err on the side of freedom but the thought of viewing the indiscretions from just an information perspective is extremely off-putting to me.
Some people did that with Pizzagate investigations and they were depressed for months and IIRC didn't want to keep digging for a while.
I will say though that downloading as a crime is.. really sketchy from a freedom perspective, and a better handle should be on the people actually producing or disseminating.
Goes for all things, like piracy for games and movies too. Better availability, fairer pricing goes a long way on that front vs just trying to oppressively stop it on the consumer front. Taking down aggregates and such would be a better use of resources.
Exactly...because WHERE DOES THE ACTUAL 'CRIME' END?? If NO party was injured by my 'downloading' of (put anything here) then I have committed no crime. If, for instance, I re-upload or share what I've downloaded then that could be considered a contribution to a previous crime (although a very minor contribution).. but something nonetheless. Simply 'having' something on your computer should never be a crime in itself. If the 'law' thinks someone committed a crime to obtain (illegal material here) then they need to prove that in a court of law. If someone paid for (illegal material here) then of course THAT could be considered a contribution to the crime. Otherwise, simply 'having' something ON you computer without actually knowing HOW it got there is really no crime. IMHO
I can give an easy example.
Let's say for instance some knucklehead posted a naked picture of a child on Twitter and before Twitter got around to removing it, it was downloaded by 30,000 people. Should we ran-sack the homes of 30,000 people and haul them all in for pedophilia and put them all on the pedophile list? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? That's just one example of why just 'having' something 'bad' on your own private computer shouldn't be a crime just in itself.