[xyzzy123]

Big public projects can have policies which minimise negative externalities.

You can still privately publish any photo you like, within the bounds of the law.

There is lots of middle ground. "Legally you can, but morally, should you?"

Time series get interesting.

If it comes to actual law and courts, it's definitely context dependent. Intent matters a lot. Surf cam is more OK than "revenge cam" of ex's house. Yes that means humans ascribe morality to certain arrangements of bits (and how the bits are evaluated is affected by who they were created by, and why). No, publishing and freedom of speech are not absolute but depend on purpose and intent.

To put it another way, technically child pornography is just a time series of pictures right?

[jMyles]

> child pornography is just a time series of pictures right?

But presumably it's not the capturing of the photons that is criminal in the case of child pornography. Even if you used a fake camera, it's still illegal, right?

[colejohnson66]

I'd assume that's just child exploitation/molestation, not pornography. But that's just me.

[jMyles]

Right right.

Well, then, I suppose what I'm saying is: in an information-age society, it's the child exploitation/molestation that's properly a crime; capturing the same as a piece of media is no modifier.

[xyzzy123]

But the media itself is illegal to posess. Some images / videos are Ok, some are not. Moral judgement is involved.

What I am saying is, if society wants to, it can totally declare that some pictures / videos are ok and some are not. This already happens all the time.

[jMyles]

Maybe that's not really OK anymore. I tend to be of the belief that, for freedom to prevail in the information age, information freedom must be absolute.