We’re not just talking about ‘ew gross icky’ exclusion from a social network. We’re talking about images whose possession is a felony. Images that are unambiguously the product of child rape.
This paper treats them the same. You’re defending that false equivalence. You need to stop.
Who places the bar for “exclusion from a social network” at felonies? Any kind child porn has no place on the fediverse, simulated or otherwise. That doesn’t mean they’re equal offenses, you’re just not responsible for carrying out anything other than cleaning out your porch.
We’re not JUST talking about exclusion from a social network.
Do you speak English?
The subject matter is the part that’s a felony - so the glib inclusion of the part you just don’t like is dangerous misinformation.
I am calling out how this study falsely equates child rape and gross drawings, and your neverending hot take is ‘well I don’t care for either.’ There’s not enough ‘who asked’ in the world. One of these things is tacitly legal and has sites listed on Google. One of these things means you die in prison, anywhere in the world.
And here you are, still calling both of them “child porn.” In the same post insisting you’re not equating them. Thanks for keeping this simple, I guess.
They’re studying the prevalence of CSAM under the definition of the country they’re in. It’d be arbitrary to separate the two and make two different conclusions.
No possible definition of child sexual abuse can include drawings.
Tell me otherwise in the same breath as insisting you’re not making that false equivalence. Apparently my patience is limitless when the lie is that fucking obvious.
edit: Hang on, the obvious lie disguised a stupid lie. What country do you think Stanford is in? Drawing Bart Simpson’s dick is not illegal in America. You could do it right now, in MS Paint, and e-mail it to the FBI, and they’d just formally tell you to go fuck yourself. Which would obviously not be the case with ACTUAL “child sexual abuse materials,” being evidence of abusing a flesh-and-blood child.
(a) In General.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
(1)
(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)
(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
No possible definition of child sexual abuse can include drawings, no matter who writes it. That’s not what those words mean.
Drawings… aren’t children. It is literally that simple.
And if you think any of this is identically illegal to actual photos of child abuse - one, there’s a whole network of shamelessly public US-hosted sites for you to turn in and be a national hero, and two, you might be wholly incapable of remembering what you’re arguing. Whether you think these things are equivalent oscillates between letters.
It’s pretty funny having you state, re-state and re-re-state the exact same obvious things that everyone understands while not seeing that everyone gets that, that you’re missing the point, and that you’re yelling in a hole
Why do you keep going?
Are you that painfully unconvincing in real life like cmon
We’re not just talking about ‘ew gross icky’ exclusion from a social network. We’re talking about images whose possession is a felony. Images that are unambiguously the product of child rape.
This paper treats them the same. You’re defending that false equivalence. You need to stop.
Who places the bar for “exclusion from a social network” at felonies? Any kind child porn has no place on the fediverse, simulated or otherwise. That doesn’t mean they’re equal offenses, you’re just not responsible for carrying out anything other than cleaning out your porch.
We’re not JUST talking about exclusion from a social network.
Do you speak English?
The subject matter is the part that’s a felony - so the glib inclusion of the part you just don’t like is dangerous misinformation.
I am calling out how this study falsely equates child rape and gross drawings, and your neverending hot take is ‘well I don’t care for either.’ There’s not enough ‘who asked’ in the world. One of these things is tacitly legal and has sites listed on Google. One of these things means you die in prison, anywhere in the world.
And here you are, still calling both of them “child porn.” In the same post insisting you’re not equating them. Thanks for keeping this simple, I guess.
They’re studying the prevalence of CSAM under the definition of the country they’re in. It’d be arbitrary to separate the two and make two different conclusions.
Also you seriously need to take a chill pill
No possible definition of child sexual abuse can include drawings.
Tell me otherwise in the same breath as insisting you’re not making that false equivalence. Apparently my patience is limitless when the lie is that fucking obvious.
edit: Hang on, the obvious lie disguised a stupid lie. What country do you think Stanford is in? Drawing Bart Simpson’s dick is not illegal in America. You could do it right now, in MS Paint, and e-mail it to the FBI, and they’d just formally tell you to go fuck yourself. Which would obviously not be the case with ACTUAL “child sexual abuse materials,” being evidence of abusing a flesh-and-blood child.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A
(a) In General.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that— (1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene; or (2) (A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
No possible definition of child sexual abuse can include drawings, no matter who writes it. That’s not what those words mean.
Drawings… aren’t children. It is literally that simple.
And if you think any of this is identically illegal to actual photos of child abuse - one, there’s a whole network of shamelessly public US-hosted sites for you to turn in and be a national hero, and two, you might be wholly incapable of remembering what you’re arguing. Whether you think these things are equivalent oscillates between letters.
Step up the reading comprehension please :)
It’s pretty funny having you state, re-state and re-re-state the exact same obvious things that everyone understands while not seeing that everyone gets that, that you’re missing the point, and that you’re yelling in a hole
Why do you keep going?
Are you that painfully unconvincing in real life like cmon
Step it up