[ue_]

I don't think that the anguish that someone feels due to having photo/video of them distributed justifies censorship, and I think that there is even less justification in the case where the 'victim' (I put that in quotes, because they may not have been victimised by the act itself) consents to the distribution (if they are able to consent).

Granted that we probably have different standards for what we deem to be enough to censor people, I do not believe any curtailment of freedom of speech or expression ought to be allowed in a free society. This is one of the reasons I am an anarchist, actually. Laws that prevent me from sharing materials once I have received them I believe to be inherently unjust.

The act iteslf of child abuse is heinous, very few people deny this (though I believe there ought to be a good debate and scientific and philosophical and psychological investigation into the concept of 'age of consent', and what age that is), though I do not believe that to merely create a video of the act should be illegal, unless it has been demonstrably in order to cause psychological anguish, and I certainly do not believe that distribution of such video should be made illegal for those who have not contributed at all to the act.

I think that it is totally disjoint from privacy laws, and just as I believe copyright is unjust, so too I believe any kind of censorship is unjust. Child abuse may be illegalised, so too may cracking into a bank account, so too may installing secret cameras in someone's home - but the distribution of the materials obtained therein, unless demonstrably causing harm (and even this is a dubious concept, though worthy of debate as if it justifies censorship) should not be illegalised, at least in my opinion.

Not only does it set a dangerous precedent that censorship is in fact OK but it also causes people to police what they say for fear of censorship, and furthermore influences truly stupid laws such as those criminalising drawn pornography of fictional characters who appear to be under the age of 18. Such a law as is present in the US, UK and many other countries, would have no basis at all if it were not for the fact that people think censorship is OK at any level.

And if you do not think these are bad things, observe that in Canada a man was let off a criminal conviction which would have given him jail time. His crime? Importing a sex doll torso from Japan, which appeared to represent one of a personage under the age of 18.

When people go to prison for having certain drawings or sex dolls, there is a problem with society.

[ycmbntrthrwaway]

> though I believe there ought to be a good debate and scientific and philosophical and psychological investigation into the concept of 'age of consent', and what age that is

All arbitrary ages and numbers should be questioned. What I like about arbitrary numbers and ages is that copyright, patents and "intellectual property" have never been defined without arbitrary ages as it would make an idea of wheel and lightbulb someone's "property". So even if someone believes property is there due to "natural laws", intellectual property is either not a property or not natural, just a privilege and a protectionist measure.

Tough question for anarchists is what age a child is not a child anymore. It is not only the "age of consent", but the age when someone is not considered to be his parents property anymore. What if this age is 0? Is there any reason it is not exactly 0?

[ue_]

I completely agree. One common thread of argument re the age at which one is not one's parent's property is that it's adulthood, the age at which someone can be reasonably expected to make informed and rational decisions for oneself, but arguably even by that (arbitrary) standard 14 and 15 year olds may qualify for example.

An often used justification is that parents usually know what's best for children - to eat vegetables rather than chocolate, to do homework rather than play games all day, to be active rather than sedentary etc. yet again it's an arbitrary measure, and there are many examples where parents do not know better than the children.

Ultimately these questions need decision either at the state level or at the familial level or at some other level of relationship between a parent and child. I don't know what the answers are, but we should most certainly not deny discussion of them.

Intellecutal property is a horrible beast, the idea that because ideas have value by virtue of having them first is silly, and is actually a by-product of the capitalist system where the first entrant into a particular market status is valued. What's worse is the fact that someone can say "I had this idea first therefore I can stop you from doing things with that idea, even if you came up with it independently of me".

The problem is that there is nobody to listen to you. Democracy does not want these arguments (preferring instead silly arguments about tax) and leaders do not want to hear it anyway (for risk of losing power). Even within philosophy, daring and controversial ideas are shunned (on the concept of property, capitalism, copyright, age of consent).

It's unfortunate.