Twitter Bans QAnon But Discussions on “Attraction Towards Minors” Are Permitted

submitted by scrubking from thegatewaypundit.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]happysmash27 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

The left hates pedophiles. I was banned from /r/Anarchism in large part for saying that the distribution of child pornography (but not filming) should be legal (due to my strong belief in freedom of speech, expression, and information), and have been banned from many other places for trying to discuss this belief and change it. Everyone in the LGBTQ+ community who I have heard talk about pedophilia talks about it in a bad light, and say that pedophiles are not welcome in the LGBTQ+ community. I can't even say why I was banned from /r/Anarchism on /r/Libertarian, because it supposedly violates Reddit's rules to do so. Maybe some fringe people on the left may push for pedophilia, but I can assure you that the mainstream left is heavily against it, and will try to silence you if you come even close to advocating for it.

I cannot take such an argument that the left pushes for pedophilia seriously, when I have gotten so badly censored by the left for an opinion that doesn't even advocate for pedophilia itself, that it made me suicidal.

[–]cybitch 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

due to my strong belief in freedom of speech, expression, and information

What part of recordings of people getting fucked has anything to do with any of those 3 terms?

[–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Recordings are information, able to be expressed in numbers, usually 1s and 0s, and I do not believe that illegal numbers should exist. This is the same reason why I believe digital piracy should be legal, and I also do not believe someone should be able to go to jail just because someone else sent them illegal information.

[–]cybitch 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm sure noone would mind if you were to consume the recording in the form of a number, people wouldn't be able to tell what it is then. It's the non-number form people tend to take issue with. And overall, what is the value of allowing these recordings to not only exist, but to also be sent to others? I support free speech, but only in matters that count as the protection of someone's rights - open debate on issues of race and gender from the perspective of all sides for example. The only rights involved with these recordings are the ones being broken by them, so free speech is not an excuse to support them IMO.

[–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It still, effectively, ends up making certain numbers and strings of characters illegal, and that is the main thing that bothers me. It also means that someone can send someone else illegal data, to get them in trouble. The current way these laws are implemented makes it far too easy to frame someone.

People's rights are also (fictionaly) broken in any media where someone kills someone else, yet there is much less support for banning that type of media entirely. Do you also propose banning violent video games and TV?

I also forgot to mention the way this violates freedom of expression. The way some of these laws are implemented, it is also illegal to create fictional depictions of child pornography, which I am a lot more opposed to making illegal than I am of recordings, because it shouldn't be illegal to draw certain things on a piece of paper, especially those that are feasible to draw in a short amount of time. Courts have agreed with this at times, though; fictional child pornography is currently in a legal grey area in the US, from what I understand.

I support free speech, but only in matters that count as the protection of someone's rights

TBH, I don't even care so much about this issue itself much anymore, but rather, just want to be able to discuss it without fear of being banned. That was the main point in my original comment, not that child pornography should be legal to distribute (which is just the opinion from a couple years ago I was banned from a lot of places for). I have no skin in the game regarding the legality of child pornography, but I do have skin in the game regarding the ability to discuss it, because unexpected censorship of it has harmed me a lot in the past.

A slightly separate issue from this: the heavy stigma about paedophilia can harm people, including children. It also ended up harming me at age 16, despite not being a pedophile myself, because it clashed with my radical ideas about freedom of information.

Edit: Also, I think it's somewhat ridiculous that minors can be charged for having illegal images of themselves. Is that not a bit overkill?

Thank you for responding so high on the pyramid of debate, by the way. I am going to give you an insightful vote, just for being so much more civil than a lot of other people have been about this. Usually I would try to make it more clear that I am mainly talking about the ability to express my opinion, and not the opinion itself, but I didn't feel as much need to this time because there are little to no hidden rules preventing one from saying certain opinions on SaidIt. It seems the comments have evolved to talking about the opinion itself, though, rather than just the ability to express it.

[–]cybitch 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is always the possibility of people being framed for any crime by others who wish them harm, this doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law against it. Currently if you send anyone anything illegal, it's you who will be on the hook for it, not them. Sending them is considered distribution, so the person they're trying to frame should be grateful for those laws.

As far as banning violent video games etc, I'm not sure the depiction of violence and the depiction of sex have similar effects. For one thing, violence is usually depicted as either having a reason of some sort, or being applied indiscriminately towards people of any race or sex. Sexual activity is by nature discriminatory, one gender, or age group, is being "targeted" and therefore "othered" by the person who's consuming the media. This can have a detrimental effect on how that group of people, and their rights, are viewed by the consumer as the media will only take their POV into consideration. The target group is only depicted in the context of what is pleasurable for the consumer. And, because of the nature of the male and female sex drives, even people who aren't searching specifically for the content directed at them will not come across any recordings of this nature in which they are the othered group as opposed to the consumer. This will work to essentially cut them off from ever being able to really empathize with the target of their sexual desires. Instead their biased views of the target group will be confirmed. So the analogy doesn't work - sexual activity is "directed" while violence can be applied to anyone by anyone.

As for minors being charged for owning the nude images of themselves, yes, it's overkill, but that doesn't mean sexual behavior needs to be encouraged when it comes to this demographic. Sexual behavior has consequences, reminding teenagers of that is not a bad thing. That doesn't mean abstinence needs to be preached, but this whole modern day culture of not "kink shaming" and teenagers being put on hormone pills is not the way to go either.