zlacker

>>feross+(OP)
His argument that we should have opt in moderation rather than censorship is largely based on consent, but it misses a third category of communications which is where two parties are engaged in a consensual communication about a third party who does not consent. Basically the CSAM scenario, but also non consensual adult porn, snuff, libel etc.

There needs to be some way of dealing with this that respects the rights of the person who is being talked about, and that has to involve some censorship.

>>r_hood+AE
>His argument that we should have opt in moderation rather than censorship is largely based on consent, but it misses a third category of communications which is where two parties are engaged in a consensual communication about a third party who does not consent. Basically the CSAM scenario, but also non consensual adult porn, snuff, libel etc.

>There needs to be some way of dealing with this that respects the rights of the person who is being talked about, and that has to involve some censorship.

IANAL, but isn't exchanging CSAM, non-consensual adult porn and snuff videos, in fact criminal action in most jurisdictions?

If that's true, legal action can be taken against those involved.

As for libel (let's call it defamation to make it more inclusive), there are legal avenues (civil litigation and, in very rare cases, criminal charges) which can be pursued there too.

Are those avenues insufficient in your view? If so, what would you suggest, other than the current legal regime, in such situations?