PC and Video Game censhorship in Australia

[Charles Darwin]

DHYp8tIOprA

I think adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want...... unless it's something like child porn.

[iNow]

I think adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want...... unless it's something like child porn.

Why stop at child porn? If you think people should be able to read, hear, and see whatever they want, then CP should be included. What argument can you make for limiting that?

 

I ask because I think I know your answer... "It's just icky" or "It's simply wrong." The challenge with that is the subjectivity involved... the lack of clear definition about what constitutes "wrong." It's not some binary state, but instead a large and encompassing gray area. What is wrong to one person may not be wrong to another. Since you are advocating restricting someone elses freedom (disallowing them from viewing CP), then you ought to be able to make a good argument and a well-reasoned case for why that freedom warrants limiting... when at the same time similar things (let's say sex with animals or BSDM) does not.

 

I tend to agree with your sentiment, but would like to see some good arguments why this sentiment is justified/appropriate.

[Charles Darwin]

Child porn actually causes verified harm to someone else.

 

Point awarded to me, thank you for playing.

[Genecks]

Yeah, iNow? Devil's advocate for child porn? Are you serious?

[iNow]

Child porn actually causes verified harm to someone else.

 

Point awarded to me, thank you for playing.

 

Listen guys... Just trying to make an interesting conversation out of a thread that would probably have died pretty quickly, so chillax. Here's the point though.

 

It is the individual who produces the CP who is harming the child, not the consumer of it. However, your law seeks to punish the consumer. Why is this a good thing, why is this helpful, and how is consumption in this context any different than all of the other freedoms of consumption you seem to support?

 

Point rescinded. Game on.

[Charles Darwin]

A large number of people who view child porn go on to harm children.

 

Plus they are supporting the vile trade.

 

Points - 2 to me, none to you.

[A Tripolation]

Really iNow.

By viewing it, they are creating a demand for it, which leads to more child porn produced.

Can you really not see that?

[iNow]

A large number of people who view child porn go on to harm children.

Correlation [math]\ne[/math] Causation. There are also a large number of people who view standard everyday run-of-the-mill porn who go on to harm women. Why does your logic apply in one case, but not the other? Lots of rapists view porn. Does that mean all porn should be illegal? No. Of course, it doesn't.

 

Your argument (as currently presented) simply does not hold.

 

 

Plus they are supporting the vile trade.

Okay, but you've simply pivoted back to your subjective "it's icky" argument, without actually offering anything of merit. I agree with you... It's rather gross, and want to make that ABSOLUTELY clear. However, make a good argument for it.

 

Why is your description of "vile" any more relevant than another persons description of "vile?" You know... like the people in the video you shared in the OP who think the video games are vile, and that regular porn is vile?

 

I'm trying to be careful with this. I know I'm treading on dangerous waters, and I have ZERO intention of supporting CP. However, let's see how well you can argue it.

 

If you'd prefer, I'll back away. Just let me know. I thought perhaps we could turn this into a thread which is actually interesting, and more intellectually stimulating than a mere video about video game ratings in Australia.

[Charles Darwin]

Barely anyone who views porn with consenting adults go on to harm women. That's a complete lie.

 

In fact, countries with more liberal views on porn have lower rates of rape.

 

Points to me 3.

[iNow]

By viewing it, they are creating a demand for it, which leads to more child porn produced.

Can you really not see that?

 

But the demand is met by the individual producing it, so why shouldn't the laws focus solely on the producers? We all seem to agree that the harm to the child comes from them.

 

Trust me, mate. I REALLY want to agree with you on this, but your logic simply doesn't hold and I'm looking to see someone build a more rock-solid case.

[A Tripolation]

But the demand is met by the individual producing it, so why shouldn't the laws focus solely on the producers?

 

Wrong.

 

People that buy/view child porn create a demand for it. You cannot refute that.

By creating a demand for it, more children are subjected to that deplorable thing.

 

So, while it is the producers that are causing a DIRECT harm to the children, the consumers are the one's DRIVING the producers to create more, meaning they are causing harm, be it indirectly.

 

That's enough logic to kill the consumer and producer in my opinion.

[iNow]

It appears that I may have sheepishly stumbled upon the third rail in this thread. Later, guys.

[Dudde]

What a disappointing thread. Normally I see all these other people asking for references, this was a straight simple plow through as if you didn't know how to use google =\

 

A large number of people who view child porn go on to harm children.

 

In fact, countries with more liberal views on porn have lower rates of rape.

 

Child porn actually causes verified harm to someone else.

 

References? Links? When you say harm to someone else, do you mean harm to someone else beside the victim or the producer? What about Shock sites and darwin awards? Causes harm to someone else, no?

 

 

As someone who's spent considerable amounts of time invested into fighting the US legal system for video games, I don't disagree, but why should we allow killing people or beheading families and then disallow something where nobody dies?

[A Tripolation]

As someone who's spent considerable amounts of time invested into fighting the US legal system for video games, I don't disagree, but why should we allow killing people or beheading families and then disallow something where nobody dies?

 

As an avid gamer, I hate censorship too (for people that are legal adults), but IN GAMES. We DON'T allow killing people or beheading families in REAL LIFE.

I really fail to see what point you are trying to make, Dudde.

[Dudde]

...are you serious?

 

As an avid gamer, I hate censorship too (for people that are legal adults), but IN GAMES. We DON'T allow killing people or beheading families in REAL LIFE.

 

Thanks. I was kinda hoping the context of the thread would have guided that home. Please, my mistake, let me clarify:

 

I don't disagree, but why should we allow killing people or beheading families and then disallow something where nobody dies?

 

insert: why should we allow killing people or beheading families in games, but then disallow something where nobody dies.

 

for the record, I'm not really an avid gamer, but at one point was studying to be a game designer for several years - to clarify where my distaste of nonsense censorship comes from.

[padren]

It appears that I may have sheepishly stumbled upon the third rail in this thread. Later, guys.

 

Well, I want to say something in support of your devil's advocate remark, or more accurately, share some words:

 

 

relevant part starts at 6:50 to 8:50 (the end)

 

It's a standup comic (and very NSFW language, probably offensive to many people) but sometimes that's where you find the most honest observations about third rail topics.

 

 

On the "arguments against" side (angel's advocate? ) It's worth noting that on the causation != correlation front, we should be aware many people do drive better at BAL 0.08 than a lot of legal elderly people drive at 0.00 - yet, we punish all drivers under the influence equally due to the correlation that the majority of that demographic are hazards to others on the road.

 

Lets take this thread to something a little less "third rail" and consider a hypothetical website that offers subscriptions to view "videos of crimes." People can upload videos (either captured as observers, or captured while committing crimes) and people pay money to view them.

 

Included are rape, viscous beatings, even rape/murder and torture. If someone goes out and sets a guy on fire and films it, and making money off of it, are the viewers who pay for it responsible in some way for the crime?

 

If you steal the content and don't pay for it, does that really make you less complicit? If you view it for free and increase traffic (using an ad revenue model) are you less complicit?

 

The question becomes, when a crime is committed on the assumption of compensation visa vi an audience, does becoming part of that audience make you involved in that crime? You become entwined in the motive. Even if you don't pay for it, they expect the more people who see it, the more people liable to get "hooked' and pay for it, via ad revenues or subscriptions. Every viewer on their site for via viral distribution increases the value of that video, and thus increases the incentive to commit those crimes to create more valuable videos.

 

I think this is the real key issue in child pornography and while we may allow knee-jerk reactions and outrage to be enough to justify the laws against it's viewing, if we explore the issue further we could find an interesting discussion on the nuances between censorship and complicity in criminal activities.

[Dudde]

I like the argument, and in that certain situation it would be quite difficult to choose the correct action, obviously I doubt such a site would post their credentials right on the site for any authorities looking for 'questioning' - especially if you could upload videos with an account. Personally I would blame the watchers for creating the market, and the producers for feeding it. The heavier punishment should go to the producers, but I would hardly see room to let anyone feeding such a market get away with just disappointment.

 

 

I would like to point out, though, that it's not exactly the same as a video game in which one watches or commits the actual crime, seeing as in a game the only family you're hurting is made of pixels and will quite happily reset once the power is cycled. On a real website, there would be real people being affected -

[A Tripolation]

Personally I would blame the watchers for creating the market, and the producers for feeding it. The heavier punishment should go to the producers, but I would hardly see room to let anyone feeding such a market get away with just disappointment.

 

And I think this is precisely how it should be. If I offer money to see someone being killed, then that person's blood is on my hands as well. You can try to obfuscate that point as much as you want, but it doesn't change that simple fact.

 

I would like to point out, though, that it's not exactly the same as a video game in which one watches or commits the actual crime, seeing as in a game the only family you're hurting is made of pixels and will quite happily reset once the power is cycled. On a real website, there would be real people being affected -

 

Again, this is spot-on. I personally don't play games like this as I find it incredibly disturbing to murder innocents (even in video game form), but I won't tell someone they can't kill imaginary people.

 

The thing with child porn and "censorship" is that you are viewing something being done against someone else's will. Thus, you are creating demand for it, meaning that more criminal acts of that nature will take place.

And yes, I do think it should be illegal to view other crimes as well, eg, people being murdered.

[iNow]

Well, I want to say something in support of your devil's advocate remark, or more accurately, share some words

Thanks for proving that there are at least some members here capable of discussing this maturely without getting their panties in a wad. I think your alternate example does a fine job, too, of allowing us to approach the same basic ideas without the third rail of CP.

 

Also, funny vid. I appreciate your sharing it.

 

 

 

Again, this is spot-on. I personally don't play games like this as I find it incredibly disturbing to murder innocents (even in video game form), but I won't tell someone they can't kill imaginary people.

 

The thing with child porn and "censorship" is that you are viewing something being done against someone else's will.

 

Okay. So, by this reasoning, you also will not tell someone they cannot have video games depicting porn with children, since they are imaginary people and nobody is getting harmed, right? You're okay with it since it's in a video game and nobody is getting hurt. Well... at least if you're being consistent with your logic, that is. It would be mighty strange if you had no qualms with people murdering innocents in a video game but put your foot down with people fornicating with youngsters in a video game.

 

Why one and not the other? Why are your personal preferences and interpretations of what is/is not vile relevant here?

 

 

 

Also, for all you idiots out there with short attention spans and poor memories, here's a reminder: I'm asking for entirely academic reasons. I in no way, shape, or form wish to suggest that these are good ideas.

Edited November 8, 2009 by iNow

[foodchain]

This makes me think of a stand up comic named Eddie Izzard. In one of his shows he equates the lack of a stable global population in terms of peace and all of that jazz to why the NRA exists and why kids get guns to blow up their fellow classmates. I think its an interesting point in all reality because you can find all this variation on law and what is acceptable all over the world. Even in cultures that share and evolutionary affinity like the western world for instance. Most people in America would never think of having law that allows for drug use like you might find in Amsterdam, but on that note why has that city not turned into a bunch of drug crazed zombies riddled with addiction and violent crime.

 

So how do you say what is right and what is wrong is to me something that is ultimately subjective really. I do not care to have my liberty taken from me in the form of being murdered anymore then what video game I can or cannot play, but you have that problem to me I see of how you engineer civilization as the world is not just me. How do we deal with freedom and environmental issues, and what can you take as objective and turn into law.

 

All terribly complex questions, and I typically just think humanity on a whole is far to ignorant to really make it all work.

[A Tripolation]

Okay. So, by this reasoning, you also will not tell someone they cannot have video games depicting porn with children, since they are imaginary people and nobody is getting harmed, right? You're okay with it since it's in a video game and nobody is getting hurt.

 

 

That's exactly right.

 

But I would hate the people that made the game and the people that bought the game.

[iNow]

That's exactly right.

 

I have always found you to be a very sincere man, and in general you are very authentic with your thoughts, however... I highly doubt that you would be okay with the depiction of child pornography in a video game. I think you are just paying lip service so your argument does not crumble. Your feelings are too strong on this issue to be "okay" with a video game which had a bunch of child porn.

[mzatanoskas]

I always find the standard forum format is really not that great for these kind of debate threads. It's a pity because there's a lot brain power to be harnessed out there and a lot of interesting debates to be had. When I have time I shall surely come up with a better system.

 

In the mean time a few general comments:

 

We are dealing with informal reasoning here, not formal logic. Pointing out that something is not certain or absolute or immutably true is almost a truism. So while having a devil's advocate is great, it shouldn't mean they just get to ask the questions and don't have their burden of proof/refutation to fulfill as well!

 

We have the OP's eloquently phrased position :

"I think adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want...... unless it's something like child porn."

 

So I'd ask iNow or dudde to come up with a position in response. It would give others the chance to examine the consistency of their position and the reasoning behind it and should make the thread more disciplined and more fruitful.

 

And now for some more specific comments for our devil advocator in general, iNow:

 

It is the individual who produces the CP who is harming the child, not the consumer of it.

 

I disagree with that characterisation. I would say that the producer directly harms the child, and the consumer indirectly harms the child.They both contribute and both have moral responsibility. (I'm sure you could split up the process even further into things such as perpertrator/facilitator/accessory etc, but it doesn't seem very helpful in this case)

 

This is a fairly common pattern of argument though not always applied as consistently as it might. It sometimes rears its head in arguments on the so-called "war on drugs", proliferation of guns, sweat shops, child labour, human trafficking etc... At the end of the day though, it's the specifics of the case that make the difference.

 

However, your law seeks to punish the consumer.

 

Again I dispute your characterisation of the fictive law. It is unreasonable to suggest that the censorship's purpose (the reasoning behind those who legislated it) was to "punish the consumers" of child pornography. I would suggest a better characterization would be that the law "seeks" to protect children, given that that is the reason which those who would implement such a law would give.

 

Why is this a good thing,

because it helps protect children

why is this helpful,

because it helps protect children

and how is consumption in this context any different than all of the other freedoms of consumption you seem to support?

 

Because consumption of child pornography encourages the manufacture of child pornography which in turn harms children. The basic tenet of demand and supply.

 

But the demand is met by the individual producing it, so why shouldn't the laws focus solely on the producers? We all seem to agree that the harm to the child comes from them.

 

I don't think we agree. The harm to the children comes from the whole process/industry of child pornography of which the consumer is an integral part.

 

Correlation [math]\ne[/math] Causation.

 

Establishing scientific data for such correlation and causal effects is practically and ethically problematic in the extreme in these kind of cases. How would you propose a double-blind test of the correlation between child pornography and the sexual abuse of children? Given the severity of the risk and the difficulty/impossibility of obtaining the full data, this particular claim comes down to a more pragmatic appraisal. Ie the probability of a link vs the severity of the problem if there is a link.

 

There are also a large number of people who view standard everyday run-of-the-mill porn who go on to harm women. Why does your logic apply in one case, but not the other? Lots of rapists view porn. Does that mean all porn should be illegal? No. Of course, it doesn't.

 

Your argument (as currently presented) simply does not hold.

Regardless of my previous comments, the difference in the two situations comes down to the details of course. But I feel you are coming up with unnecessarily weak analogies here. You phrased your analogy as:

 

There are also a large number of people who eat cornflakes in the morning who go on to harm women.

 

Well obviously a correlation of this sort is not the point of the argument here. Even if the OP hasn't phrased the argument as accurately as you might have liked, it would be more interesting/helpful for the thread if you were to point out how it could have been phrased better, where ambiguities lie. Instead of setting up strawmen.

 

Also you don't seem to answer responses other posters have made to your points. In fact re-reading the thread, it seems that most of my rebuttals have already been made and ignored. That is a scatter-gun approach worryingly reminiscent of certain individuals of a creationist bent...

 

ahem, poorly disguised ad hominem

 

 

Anyway I absolutely agree that we should examine our assumptions and think why we draw lines where we do. We can't expect certainty though and I think that you are being slightly too trigger happy to be a really constructive devil's advocate!

[iNow]

I dismiss your attempt to shift the burden of proof to me. I have not made claims, simply challenged those made by others.

[mzatanoskas]