Because there has been this "out of context" argument used several times in this discussion, and I don't understand it:
Can you explain to me how the context of [1] and [4] makes [2] and [3] - "is having that photo is not hurting everyone" - sound different than without the context?
"[1] This "child pornography" might be a photo of yourself or your lover that the two of you shared.
[2] It might be an image of a sexually mature teenager that any normal adult would find attractive. What's heinous about having such a photo?
[3] But even when it is uncontroversial to call the subject depicted a "child", that is no excuse for censorship. Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone, so and if you or I think it is disgusting, that is no excuse for censorship.
[4] The government will invent an unlimited number of opportunities to censor us and search us if we grant the legitimacy of its all-purpose excuses for doing so."
I think that #3 is one of rms’s terribly ineffective and perhaps self-destructive “technically correct” arguments.
I read that he’s intending the extremely literal meaning of “having” as he often takes extremely precise, literal meanings that make his writings more difficult to understand than would otherwise be.
Let me be clear: I’m not in any way supporting child porn, but I can see how rms could hold a view that merely having a specific sequence of bits that can be displayed as a picture does not harm anyone.
Perhaps someone was harmed by the circumstances under which the picture was taken. Perhaps some ex- is harmed by the thought that you might have that photo. Almost surely allowing the purchase or trading of such pictures encourages future harm. There are lots of reasons to oppose child porn, but rms is, for reasons known to him, choosing to argue that, in a very literal sense, the passive having of the bits is not among them.
Context: I’ve read a lot of rms writings and worked for FSF as his typist for 9 hours back around 1990 before I quit. (I wish I’d have been able to do it longer, but it wasn’t worth the $10/hr to listen to rms dictate keystrokes and enter them. I would frustrate him as I was trying to learn what the keystrokes were doing and he just wanted me to type faster. When I told him I was quitting after the third three hour session, he graciously offered that I was just getting fast enough to not be frustrating, that most people quit in session 1 or 2, and he’d make sure FSF sent me the $90 which they did.) I don’t consider myself to have a particular “side” here, but if my minor interactions with him are relevant to anyone, I wanted to disclose them.
Like I wrote in another comment, this would split the fact of "stealing" from "having a stolen object". Like "having the stolen object" does not harm anyone, the taking away is the harm done. I don't think this argument flies with anyone - it did not fly in kindergarten for me - and I'm not sure if RMS sees the world this way or it's only with child porn.
To play devils advocate here:
Taking GPL code into your product and selling it, the fact of selling your product is not harming the person who wrote the GPL code. But with GPLed code RMS has a totally different view than with pictures of nude children.
Having a stolen physical object of mine means I don’t have it. You are literally continuing to deprive me of the property by merely having it.
I can imagine reading an rms essay on how coming into my yard and taking my ladder without permission, using it without damage, and returning it before I noticed it missing imposed no harm upon me, so the taking of my property was not wrong, though the ongoing possession would be.
To your later-added devil’s advocate paragraph: rms is fine with you selling a product that includes GPL code and as far as I can tell always has been. What he’s not fine with is you imposing restrictions that prevent someone that you do sell the code to from effectively modifying or further sharing that product.
You added that part afterward in an edit and I was still replying to that part, but you’re right and that’s what rms is encouraging: that we both have the code and both have the freedom to learn, modify, and tinker on it as does anyone we convey the code to.
You misunderstand the point of the GPL. It's not there to protect the author of the code. It's there to protect the user of the code, i.e. the one you're selling the product to.
In your scenario, the user won't have access to the code they'd need to modify the product you sold them. That is the harm the GPL is designed to protect against.
Maybe if you and your girlfriend are 17 , she sends you a picture, then next day you are 18 but her picture is of a 17 years old so you are a criminal now.
So make CP illegal, find the criminals if you can, stop the commerce with such material , my paranoia is that I could be setup by police, or by someone that does not like me or even by a fucking troll. In today world such an accusation can destroy your life.
There have been cases of both the girl and boy being about 16 and sexting each other, and still being convicted for transmission of child pornography. I recall a specific case where the girl's father was pissed off when he discovered what they did, and used the photos to drag the boy to court. The boy is now registered as a "sex offender", same as a child rapist.
Strange how the law sees nothing wrong with two teens fucking each other, but somehow sending nude photos of themselves to each other is a felony.
This "child pornography" might be a photo of yourself or your lover that the two of you shared.
Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone, so and if you or I think it is disgusting, that is no excuse for censorship.
Having a photo of you out there, shared to people you did not intend or want to have it shared with can most definitely hurt someone.
I can't find the quote right now, but there was an interview in the news here last year with a woman who's dad had taken and sold explicit images of her as a child, and she said a major part of her issues as an adult was that a mere glance from a stranger could trigger a crippling fear that the stranger had seen those photos and had recognized her. Let alone a proper look from someone.
Even though the images might have been taken with consent, unlike my example case, they might later have been spread without consent as in the numerous "revenge porn" cases. Again this can inflict real hurt to those depicted.
Can you explain how a drawing of imaginary person hurts somebody? What about texts? the characters in some books like the ones used in Game of Thrones TV series are very under aged, do you accuse the readers of the crime ? if yes who was hurt ?
I understand the point about hurting children or adults by the porn industry but I would hope we can find better methods to stop this crimes , social media justice is not the way,,, I read about under cover cops catching soem criminals so let's fund them to do their jobs ... and I also read about some teens killing an old man because someone accused him to be a pedo
I can come up with some scenarios where it might lead to someone getting hurt, but IMO drawings of imaginary persons is one of the least interesting subset of possible cases.
Even in the case that you bring up having the photo in your possession should not be illegal. Distributing it or producing it without the consent of the ADULT subject should be illegal. That's where the damage is being done. Every new set of eyes that sees the photo makes it worse.
In other words if:
1. someone already has a photo.
2. No one interacts with it besides the current owner
3. Nobody knows or will ever know about it but the current owner
Do you think there is damage being done? Right now I don't think so. I think all of the damage is done when material is produced and spread, and then spread again.
I dislike talking about this subject so I'm alright with disagreeing.
I don't disagree entirely with your post, as with most things legal it comes down to a balance of many aspects.
I also don't disagree entirely with the point RMS is trying to make regarding unmotivated searches of property and person. I do disagree with the specifics of his argument though.
Child pornography is in many cases indeed a heinous offense, however blanket searches of person and property is also a grand invasion of privacy.
Can you explain to me how the context of [1] and [4] makes [2] and [3] - "is having that photo is not hurting everyone" - sound different than without the context?
"[1] This "child pornography" might be a photo of yourself or your lover that the two of you shared.
[2] It might be an image of a sexually mature teenager that any normal adult would find attractive. What's heinous about having such a photo?
[3] But even when it is uncontroversial to call the subject depicted a "child", that is no excuse for censorship. Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone, so and if you or I think it is disgusting, that is no excuse for censorship.
[4] The government will invent an unlimited number of opportunities to censor us and search us if we grant the legitimacy of its all-purpose excuses for doing so."