[grecy]

> 1) Child pornography

Obviously this is an extremely touchy subject, but I think the fact you have even one exception shows you are not grasping the problem here.

So in your country, "Child" may mean <18, while on the other side of the world, it's <21, or maybe even <16. Even more troubling, the clothes that many teenagers choose to wear in many western countries are clearly considered pornographic in nature in other more conservative countries.

It just makes no sense to say "There are no exceptions. Except this one, that can be interpreted in hundreds of different ways". Once you leave it for interpretation, the scope will expand and expand until children are being listed as sex offenders for taking photos of themselves.

[marchdown]

> the scope will expand and expand until children are being listed as sex offenders for taking photos of themselves.

The fact that this is already happening gives me chills.

We really need to openly discuss and codify the reasons behind the war on child pornography.

[revscat]

> Obviously this is an extremely touchy subject, but I think the fact you have even one exception shows you are not grasping the problem here.

Or we are discussing two different things, which is completely my doing.

I was thinking of speech in the constitutional sense; I was not speaking of domain seizures. I completely agree that the government/corporations should not have the power to seize domains under any circumstances.

(Although eminent domain might be an interesting angle to consider, although that is another beast entirely.)

[marchdown]

grecy wrote in response to our common parent comment:

> > I was thinking of speech in the constitutional sense

> Remember, many countries don't have a constitution and don't care for yours.

For some reason I can't see a reply link under hir answer, so I'll just leave this here:

Constitution is neither the only one, nor the most effective assertion of unalienable freedoms. Since the aftermath of WW2 there have been many Charters, Conventions and Declarations of all sorts, many of them accepted ("ratified") by many countries alongside their local laws.

Perhaps the most widely known and accepted one is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_...

[Timothee]

Just for future reference about "For some reason I can't see a reply link under hir answer".

I believe that the deeper a thread is, the longer it takes for a reply link to appear on a comment. This is to prevent endless flamewars, which immediate replies facilitate.

[grecy]

> I was thinking of speech in the constitutional sense

Remember, many countries don't have a constitution and don't care for yours.

[jacquesm]

Slippery slopes notwithstanding you could easily make a case that anything lower than the lowest age-of-consent is at least clearly child porn.

After that you're in a gray area, but below that you definitely should get into a lot of trouble.

[grecy]

So does that include a photo of my 1 year old girl wearing only a diaper? What about my boy? What about when they're 3? or 7? or...

And what about teenagers wearing tiny bikinis?

The slope is more than slippery, it's vertical.

[adrianN]

It is not well defined what "porn" is. In my country it is, as far as I know, perfectly legal to distribute photos of nude children, as long as they are not engaged in a "sexual act". cf. the art of David Hamilton.