zlacker

>>miohta+(OP)
To those asking you are right that there is no victim. The issue that they are trying to solve is that allowing this will (or at least may) harm society in the long term by normalizing the content. We've somewhat lost the way to communicate this idea in our current individualist society. In East Asia for example all porn is censored not because it is helping victims but as an attempt to enforce a certain level of morality in their societies. Even though in many of these places there is no real recourse for distributing uncensored porn and all those countries are generally atheist. It is more about having the law so as to keep it from becoming accepted in society. We can argue whether that is a desirable value for society but I don't think anyone is saying there is a victim for this crime. It may also be worthwhile to compare this with public indecency laws that exist here which range from prescribing minimum attire in public to the banning of public defecation. There are many differences in practice between all these points but I think they all touch on the point of victimless crimes to some extent.

>>fngjdf+Ke
It's unsavory when institution's default mode of acting in face of issues is to enact bans instead of actually solving core issues in society.

In this case, shouldn't we solve child abuse (by, for example, promoting social safety nets) instead of spending already limited resources in victimless crimes?

Edit: clarification

>>ranyum+fl
My assumption here is that few will actually be jailed for whatever law is being created. If lots of resources are used to enforce this problem then I think it will be a failure. Not just of wasted money but also of invasion of privacy and some other issues. It should be more like shutting down clearnet websites that are obviously creating and distributing material that is banned, especially those that are making money from it. And I don't think social safety nets can prevent children from being abused. It certainly can't stop them from being abused by teachers and parents. I think the big issue here is that governments don't know how to frame this issue as anything but "someone is immediately being harmed by this action" which is not the case.

>>fngjdf+tq
> My assumption here is that few will actually be jailed for whatever law is being created. If lots of resources are used to enforce this problem then I think it will be a failure. Not just of wasted money but also of invasion of privacy and some other issues.

First. Rightly said, it's an assumption. Then, I'd like to highlight that resources are limited. This means that if want to spend resources on X you have to take resources from Y, and is this trade-off really acceptable for this case in particular?

What outcomes can we really expect from a law like this? How do we know? What's the best and worst scenario? How will it be enforced?

I'd bet nobody can answer these questions with data supporting them. Including policymakers.

> And I don't think social safety nets can prevent children from being abused

Just today on the front page: >>39374152

Anyway, all of this is just speculation because research on this topic is banned in practical terms.

>>ranyum+jy
I saw that article earlier today but skipped it. From a brief skim and control f it doesn't seem to say anything about abuse. I just have a hard time imagining how it would help even if there were data that seemed to indicate that it was so. As long as children are dependents they can be abused by those who they depend on. That basically means their parents and teachers (or generally 'community leaders'). I agree that research is sparse although I have seen that the amount of men who are attracted to young girls is actually rather high. [0]

[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00057... See graphs on pages 687 and 689

>>fngjdf+4G
>I just have a hard time imagining how it would help even if there were data that seemed to indicate that it was so.

I was only assuming that a higher happiness was correlated with children not being abused. It was just speculation on my part. Sorry I should've clarified that.