However much I despise child pornography or violence censoring the subject matter doesn't solve anything. In fact more often than not it makes things worse. If you mystify something you often make it attractive to inquisitive people. If it's out there, they can see it and be disgusted by it. The thing that needs fixing is society itself.
I absolutely disagree that censoring the subject matter, in terms of child pornography, doesn't solve anything.
First, there are some things that we criminalize regardless of whether or not making them criminal actually prevents them. Murder, for example, isn't clearly deterred by the fact that it is illegal. Second, the subject of the content in the case of child porn is a minor, who cannot consent and has no control over the images, and can be emotionally harmed and placed even in physical danger based on the images being available. Third, allowing distribution and viewing of content means that it can be marketed and monetized, and without legal censorship child porn actually becomes profitable...which encourages it.
Child porn is actually, also, evidence of another crime - molestation or statutory rape.
With things like child porn, therefore, censorship isn't really (or shouldn't be) about content/subject matter...it is about actual real effects of the speech or harm that must be done in order to create the speech. This distinction is clear when we move to a discussion of "mock" child porn - where actors/actresses who are of age, or CGI effects, are used to simulate something that looks like it involves children. That, I argue, should NOT be criminalized or censored, and where it is that is a threat to free speech.
I think you're confusing censorship with legality! The child porn black market will be there, censorship or no censorship. Censorship will make it worse and more profitable for the marketeers because you've driven it underground and made it exclusively available through a black marketeer. Also the curious will buy it, people that probably wouldn't have because one look would have put them off. Prohibition never works. This has been proven time and time again through history.
There's absolutely no way that it can be anything other than black market...because child porn again is visual evidence of sex crimes against minors.
If the actual act or situation filmed is itself a crime, you really can't have anything but a black market because marketing and distributing such material is revealing yourself to be guilty of a crime. Even if you were to make child porn somehow "legal" it would be like making snuff films "legal" - you still can't make the material without committing other crimes.
Again, this is a situation where it doesn't matter if it solves the "problem." Some things are illegal regardless of whether the fact that they are illegal "prevents" the behavior. They're illegal simply because they're harmful and we agree as a society the perpetrators should be punished.
Using murder as an example again, the fact that it's illegal doesn't "promote" murder by making it attractive because it's illegal.
I know that the internet is a big and scary place with lots of dark corners, but censorship of something that big takes us down a road that we don't come back from.
But neither should it be used to spread hate and death! Given the two alternatives, I'd say something should be done! Freedom is not very practical if it results in the removal of the "freedom" that gives us the right to "life", Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does it?? Or does it only count for those "survivors"! The biggest problem with "freedom", is those that abuse it! You can huff and puff FREEDOM all you want, that doesn't make it your own.
The Internet, for all its flaws, is possibly one of the most important innovations ever conceived. A FREE medium in which to exchange ideas, post results and bounce ideas and solutions off of each other. A perfect example: a remote control helicopter enthusiast starts an open forum about how to make quadrocopters. He posts all the parts, prices, design blueprints and data. He also allows others to view, post and download freely any thing uploaded onto the site. Soon others are trying his designs out an improving upon them and posting their results, then others try theirs and improve them and post them and so on and so forth. Within months these enthusiasts are with simple parts from radio shack and home depot making for less than $1000 what aerospace companies are developing for millions of dollars. Companies are driven by profits, enthusiasts are driven by awesomeness. (certain) Companies would censor the internet to save their profits and would suffocate the enthusiasts progress.
its possible to set up parental controls. Though I admit, it requires the parent to be better at computers than the children. Its similar to a school computer, it has a smart website system that blocks out "bad" content and websites based off pre-established criteria. This sort of censorship is much different than gov't saying what i can and cant look at or read
There are many things that should be hidden or deleted...and things that we've historically done that with outside and within the internet.
Child porn, for example. Legally defamation, for another.
First, there are some things that we criminalize regardless of whether or not making them criminal actually prevents them. Murder, for example, isn't clearly deterred by the fact that it is illegal. Second, the subject of the content in the case of child porn is a minor, who cannot consent and has no control over the images, and can be emotionally harmed and placed even in physical danger based on the images being available. Third, allowing distribution and viewing of content means that it can be marketed and monetized, and without legal censorship child porn actually becomes profitable...which encourages it.
Child porn is actually, also, evidence of another crime - molestation or statutory rape.
With things like child porn, therefore, censorship isn't really (or shouldn't be) about content/subject matter...it is about actual real effects of the speech or harm that must be done in order to create the speech. This distinction is clear when we move to a discussion of "mock" child porn - where actors/actresses who are of age, or CGI effects, are used to simulate something that looks like it involves children. That, I argue, should NOT be criminalized or censored, and where it is that is a threat to free speech.
If the actual act or situation filmed is itself a crime, you really can't have anything but a black market because marketing and distributing such material is revealing yourself to be guilty of a crime. Even if you were to make child porn somehow "legal" it would be like making snuff films "legal" - you still can't make the material without committing other crimes.
Using murder as an example again, the fact that it's illegal doesn't "promote" murder by making it attractive because it's illegal.