Appendix: Stallman on child sexual abuse material
This is the complete list of published opinions Richard Stallman has expressed regarding the production, distribution, and/or possession of child sexual abuse material (commonly known as “child pornography”).
Special consideration is given to the following quote, which we have separated from the rest of our sources:
A woman in the UK received a child porn video and forwarded it to friends in outrage. One of the people she sent it to was her sister, a cop. Now the cop is being prosecuted for not denouncing her sister as a criminal for this.
The article does not say whether the sister who sent it will be prosecuted too.
– stallman.org, 2 November 2019 “Non-denunciation”
This quote’s notability and cause for inclusion is established in light of the fact that it is the only published comment from Stallman on the topic of child sexual abuse material following his September 2019 retraction for which the reader may reasonably, if not unambiguously, interpret the quote as a defense of the distribution of child sexual abuse material.
The sources which follow on the remainder of this page are quotes in which Stallman’s defense of child sexual abuse material is explicitly unambiguous, or in which Stallman cites a source which is explicitly unambiguous in its defense of child sexual abuse material.
The works deleted include the photo that helped end the Vietnam war, which showed a naked Vietnamese girl running toward the camera. The photo doesn’t show her back, which had been burned by a US napalm bomb.
Rick Falkvinge warns that in some countries it is a crime to republish that photo, because it is considered “child pornography”.
– stallman.org, 11 July 2018 “Social censorship web sites”
In the US, people convicted for having copies of child pornography tend to get longer prison sentences than those convicted of having sex with children.
Mere possession of child pornography should not be a crime at all. To prosecute people for possessing something published, no matter what it may be, is a big threat to human rights.
– stallman.org, 5 June 2017 “Possession of child porn”
Nigel Lang’s life was damaged irrevocably when thugs accused him of possession of “child pornography” based on making a typo in a search.
It is wrong to prosecute people for “possession” of copies of any sort of works, no matter how bad the making of those works may be.
– stallman.org, 31 March 2017 “Nigel Lang”
A survey in Germany found that 2.4% of men admitted to viewing “child sexual abuse images”. I share the article’s concern, but my conclusions are very different from those in the article.
To imprison such a large fraction of society would be outrageous. In the US, that would amount to millions of people. (The US already imprisons far too many of its residents.) This shows that the current repressive approach is untenable.
The boundaries of “child sexual abuse images” are subject to a lot of stretching, and I don’t know what those men had in mind when they answered, or whether they were shown a specific definition. We must not label everyone under 18 as “children”, nor assume that sex for someone under 16 or 18 (take your pick) is invariably “abuse”, nor treat images of fictitious children as real “abuse”. But real children are sexually abused for real, and I support laws against that. Efforts against the business of making and distributing images of that are justified — but these must not be done by dangerous methods.
A law against looking at or possessing a copy of some publication, no matter how odious it is or why, is a threat to everyone. It is an excuse for fishing expeditions, when the state seeks an excuse to imprison someone. It also provides an easy way to manufacture a case against someone. How hard is it to slip copies of things into your computer?
– stallman.org, 9 November 2016 “Child sexual abuse images”
The UK imprisons people for possessing copies of drawings depicting an imaginary child in a sexual way.
The article is too timid: this law is flat-out injustice and is inexcusable. If we were to tolerate prohibitions of various kinds of art or writing because their ideas are deemed “dangerous”, it is clear where that will lead.
What’s more, it is an injustice to ban possession of a copy of any work or publication whatsoever. Such laws put everyone in danger.
Merely having a copy of an image that shows a crime taking place against a person should not be illegal either. Should thugs be able to ban possession of videos that show them committing crimes, on the grounds that their victim is wronged again each time the video is seen? They would be delighted to use that excuse, or any other excuse, to cover up their crimes.
– stallman.org, 18 October 2016 “UK imprisons people for possessing drawings”
A father was concerned that his daughter was sexting, so he asked thugs to convince her to stop. (The last thing your child needs is to have thugs involved in per life!) He copied the photos as evidence, so he was charged with possession of “child pornography” and labeled as a sex offender.
The “sex offender” list does little to protect anyone and a lot to ruin people’s lives. But fundamentally it is unjust to prosecute people for having a copy of anything whatsoever.
– stallman.org, 16 October 2016 “‘Sex offender’”
The FBI claims that every time someone looks at a photo of sexual abuse of a minor, the minor suffers fresh harm. So how can it excuse distributing those images for months as a sting? Wasn’t this a bigger crime than the crime it was trying to catch?
If all we know is that a photo is prohibited, we should not assert it is “child pornography”. That may or may not be true.
We should not assume that the people appearing in those photos were children. I suppose many of them really were children, but not all. Surely some were minors (under 18) but sexually mature, thus not children. Surely some were adults who looked like minors, or else the photos were retouched to make them appear to be minors.
– stallman.org, 3 September 2016 “FBI’s distribution of photos of sexual abuse”
Nude Selfies: What If They Are Just an Ordinary Part of Teenage Life?
In the UK, 2000 minors have been reported for “crimes” involving nude photos. We must suppose that most of them either made the photos of themselves, or received them from minors that photographed themselves.
(The article calls them all “children”, but most of them are surely teenagers, too old to be considered “children”.)
I hope society relaxes and stops making a twisted fuss about nude photos. As a plus, we wouldn’t need to prohibit “revenge porn” if the “victims” didn’t care.
– stallman.org, 3 September 2016 “Nude photos”
A Pennsylvania man has been imprisoned for receiving nude photos from his 16-year-old girlfriend, and will have to register as a sex offender, but “only” for 15 years.
The willfully blind law pretends there is no difference between a teenager and a child.
– stallman.org, 30 August 2016 “Man imprisoned for receiving nude photos”
Distribution of “child” pornography is now hidden on sites that normally appear to have only adult pornography. The result is that people trying to download the adult pornography may get “child” pornography they did not want. They could be jailed for this.
This is yet more proof that it is intolerable to prosecute people for having downloaded something, or having a copy of something — no matter what that something is.
Be careful not to take the term “child abuse images” on face value. It’s accurate for some of the images, which are photos of real sexual abuse of real children, but not all of them. Some of the “children” are adolescents, or even adults that appear to be adolescents, and others are not real people at all.
– stallman.org, 26 April 2016 “Hidden distribution of ‘child’ pornography”
Some US states punish technicians that notice “child” pornography on a client’s computer and don’t report it.
Keep in mind that “child” includes teenagers of age 16 or 17, who in Massachusetts can legally have sex. It even includes women of 18 or older, if they look younger or have small breasts.
– stallman.org, 29 January 2016 “Punishment for ignoring ‘child’ porn”
It is no coincidence that this arose in the search for people downloading illegal images. The making of those images, if it involved real sexual abuse of real children, deserves to be prosecuted, but prosecuting people for downloading something leads to tyranny.
Perhaps these images were really images of children’s being abused. However, in practice “child pornography” includes 17-year-olds having sex, or 20-year-olds that look younger and are getting paid.
– stallman.org, 26 January 2016 “Downloading illegal images”
This is an edited version of a response I sent to someone who told me, anonymously, that he was drawn to look at images of sex with children.
I don’t think it is wrong to distribute “child porn” images, even when they [depict] children rather than adolescents. However, making them is wrong if it involves real sex with a child. For the sake of opposing sexual abuse of real children, I suggest that you boycott the images that involve real children. Imaginary children can’t be hurt by drawing them.
I can’t suggest any way you could talk publicly about your prediliction[sic] without being the object of a witch hunt. Americans go nuts where they imagine that children are in danger, and in their frenzy they exaggerate tiny risks — look at how they jail parents for letting children go to the park or stay home without an escort.
To be sure, a child faces the danger of sexual abuse mainly while at home. But not while home alone with no members or friends of the family present.
– stallman.org, 2015-2016 “Witch Hunt”
Two 14-year-olds in New York State face felony charges for making a video in which one of them has sex with someone else. Other students they sent the video to are being punished as well.
Provided the other star was involved voluntarily (information not available), then I think it is wrong to punish any of them.
It is even more clearly wrong to punish students for receiving a message containing the video. And parents that examine their children’s phones to see if they have been sent sexts are held by this twisted law to have committed the same “felony”.
Any law making it a crime to possess a copy of some text, photo or video is injustice, pure and simple.
– stallman.org, 14 November 2015 “14-year-olds charged over sex video”
In the UK, 3/4 of the people caught viewing images of child abuse never do anything to children.
So don’t presume that people who only look are guilty of harming anyone else.
– stallman.org, 03 August 2015 “Viewing images of child abuse”
The most important point I see in this article is that the prohibition of “child pornography” puts you (i.e., anyone and everyone) at the mercy of whoever decides to send you some.
Laws prohibiting possession of something that has been published, or sent to you, are intolerable tyranny. It makes no difference what things they prohibit, or why.
– stallman.org, 09 June 2015 “Ethics of publishing leaked data”
The forces opposed to encryption and bitcoin are now citing “child abuse images” as a reason.
The term “images of child abuse” is an open door for a witch hunt. It covers making pictures of raping a child; the rape ought to be a crime. However, the same term is used to describe images of young-looking 18-year-olds having voluntary sex, and drawings of fictional minors in fictional sex.
– stallman.org, 08 June 2015 “The term ‘images of child abuse’”
A UK minister says, if the government could watch all communications, it would find more “pedophiles”.
They are not talking finding and imprisoning men that have sex with children. They are talking about finding and imprisoning men who have or redistribute copies of images that depict sex with children, or perhaps with adolescents labeled as children; they want to imprison them because there is some chance they would have sex with children, or with adolescents. I don’t believe that should be done at all.
This campaign, unjust in itself, is presented as an excuse for total surveillance of everyone. That power would of course be used against other targets — journalists’ sources, dissidents, anyone who gets in the way.
– stallman.org, 02 January 2015 “Watch all communications”
Most people that view images depicting sexual abuse of children will never do anything to real children. However, they are all likely to be imprisoned.
– stallman.org, 06 December 2014 “People who view depictions of sexual abuse”
A UK politician has been forced to resign from some positions because his swiped credit card number was used to buy pornography depicting children. The fact that it wasn’t him is, apparently, not sufficient to protect him; being falsely accused is considered reason why he must resign.
Isn’t this nuts?
These events illustrate that the crusade against “child pornography” endangers everyone. This result tends to happen whenever possession or purchase of some sort of publication is illegal. We must abolish such laws because they whip up witch-hunts.
– stallman.org, 25 November 2014 “Crusade against ‘child pornography’”
A man in the UK has been sentenced for prison for having a cartoon depicting a fictional child in some sort of sexual situation.
The advocates of this kind of censorship started by saying they were trying to protect real children from being abused in order to take their photos. Making such photos should be a crime, and is a crime, but that is no reason to prohibit possessing copies of the photos.
However, they have already gone far beyond that. No child was harmed in drawing the cartoon.
To criminalize possession of copies of anything published — no matter what it is — is oppressive, and leads to many other forms of tyranny.
– stallman.org, 26 October 2014 “Prison for cartoon”
I don’t understand the pretext for banning pornography involving animals. If extreme animal rights activists demanded that, at least there would be some sense in it.
“Child pornography” should not be illegal either.
I wonder how long it will take for thugs to start carrying around kids they can fondle as they arrest people and beat them up. Then any photos of the brutality would be “child pornography”, and the photographer would be sent to prison.
– stallman.org, 06 August 2014 “Criminalising possession of porn”
The Virginia thugs have given up on making child pornography of a teenager threatened with imprisonment for sending a picture of his penis to his lover.
The laws against “child pornography” are unjust, and this is one of many reasons.
– stallman.org, 11 July 2014 “Teenager accused of ‘child pornography’”
People in Britain are accused of arranging to have children sexually abused in the Philippines and get video streamed to them.
Censorship laws are not needed to prosecute this, since they have participated in conspiracies to abuse those children. In general, the real abuse of real children can be stopped without censorship.
– stallman.org, 17 January 2014 “Stopping abuse of children does not require censorship”
This hack pointed out the injustice of the laws against “child” pornography, which is good, but doing that by causing other people to be jailed seems wrong to me. (Hacks can raise ethical issues just as other activities do; cleverness and playfulness do not guarantee that one can do no wrong.) It is also foolhardy to taunt a dangerous monster.
– stallman.org, circa 2014, “On hacking”
The methods now being developed to obstruct access to “child” pornography will enable blocking anything in the future, such as perhaps the revelations of the next Snowden.
– stallman.org, 05 December 2013 “Methods that will enable blocking anything in the future”
Prohibition of “child pornography” led to charges against journalists that published a video of two students having sex in a classroom alongside an article
I wish I knew who made the video, who distributed it, and whether the students in it approved of doing so. Depending on those facts, someone might have done something wrong here, but probably not the news site.
– stallman.org, 04 December 2013 “Prohibition of ‘child pornography’”
The next excuse for snooping on everything on the Internet will be “child” pornography.
The term “child abuse images” is deceptive: I think in practice it includes teenagers labeled as “children”, and stretches the word “abuse” too. However, some of these images will show real abuse of real children.
The government should focus on protecting the children themselves, not on censoring (and surveilling) all communication.
– stallman.org, 20 November 2013 “The next excuse for snooping on everything”
Whistleblower Donald Sachtleben has been convicted of giving information to journalists. He was identified through the seizure of the phone records for 20 staff of the Associated Press.
He was also convicted of possessing “child” pornography, which is defined to include images of anyone under 18. You shouldn’t assume that having those images is in any way wrong — but even if in his case it were wrong, it would not justify prosecuting him for giving information to the public.
– stallman.org, 24 September 2013 “Convicted of giving information to journalists”
Richard Falkvinge: “child porn” laws aren’t as bad as you think — they’re much much worse. They cause a litany of injustices, including interference with journalism of the most socially important kind.
– stallman.org, 04 September 2013 “‘Child porn’ laws interfere with journalism”
A new method for attacking dissident US journalists: send them a “leak” which is really “child” pornography, and get them imprisoned when they look.
To criminalize possession of any kind of digital material is an injustice, and endangers all other human rights.
– stallman.org, 13 August 2013 “Sending ‘child’ pornography to journalists to get them imprisoned”
Botnet operators takes advantage of the witch-hunt against “child pornography” to frighten users about getting their PCs disinfected.
This is yet another reason why the ban on possessing “child pornography” must be eliminated, to add to all the other reasons.
I put that expression in quotation marks because, in the US, it includes selfies made by teenagers for sexting.
– stallman.org, 09 August 2013 “Witch-hunt against child pornography”
The UK wants to extend its witchhunt against “child pornography” to blocking searches in search engines.
Don’t they do that in China already?
There are other materials on the web that are deemed “illegal”. If search engines accept this form of censorship, the next step will be to make them block searches for Snowden’s revelations.
I find gruesomely violent pornography disgusting, as disgusting as gruesomely violent nonpornography. However, censorship is far more disgusting. The UK is rife with censorship, and that’s the injustice it ought to address.
– stallman.org, 21 July 2013 “Blocking searches in search engines”
The witch-hunt against people who watch “child pornography” may provide an excuse for US to start ordering people to decrypt their files.
Note that “child pornography” in the US includes images of people who are old enough that they can lawfully have sex in many states.
– stallman.org, 08 July 2013 “An excuse for the US to order people to decrypt their files”
We are asked to believe that the distribution of child pornography — and I mean real child pornography — leads people to commit sexual abuse of children. But evidence suggests it’s not so.
There are two arguments for prohibition of “child pornography”. One is that “it was made in a real act of sexual abuse”. In some cases, that is true. However, in many countries, the “child” may be an adult, or even nonexistent, since the censorship extends even to drawings. Meanwhile, in the US, the “child” may be 17 years old and taking the photos. This argument does not apply to those cases.
The other argument is based on the supposition that looking at these images leads people to commit sexual abuse. The article casts doubt on that supposition.
Making child pornography through real sexual abuse of real children can be prosecuted without censorship. Likewise selling it in a commercial arrangement with those who made it. There is no reason for the censorship which has generated a witch hunt that has ruined the lives of people not even alleged to have harmed anyone.
– stallman.org, 16 May 2013 “Distribution of child pornography”
A victim of the “child porn” witch hunt condemns the idea of these accusations on principle.
– stallman.org, 02 February 2013 “‘Child porn’ witch hunts”
Rick Falkvinge joins me in demanding an end to the censorship of “child pornography”, and points out that if in the US you observe the rape of a child, making a video or photo to use as evidence would subject you to a greater penalty than the rapist.
The article does not mention that it’s common practice for teenagers to exchange nude photos with their lovers, and they all potentially could be imprisoned for this. A substantial fraction of them are actually prosecuted.
– stallman.org, 15 September 2012 “Censorship of ‘child pornography’”
European governments are pushing for a world-wide Internet censorship scheme.
I doubt that “child” pornography, even when it really depicts children and not postpuberal teenagers, plays a big role in leading people to sexually abuse children, because adults have done this for a long time even though porn was not available. In any case, the main risk to a child comes from people in the family.
So I think this is simply an example of a common political phenomenon: a phony solution that allows politicians to pretend they are doing something, while serving other interests (the copyright industry) and harming the public.
– stallman.org, 11 June 2012 “World-wide Internet censorship”
The Internet has made it much easier for the FBI to catch people who collect child pornography.
I see nothing to criticize in the FBI’s methods in getting evidence against Cafferty. It steered well clear of entrapment. The characters in its nonexistent videos were described as unambiguously children, not stretching that term to the postpuberal. My only objection is to the idea that people should be imprisoned for having a collection of images based on what subject matter they depict.
And it seems to me that the FBI could just as easily to apply the same methods to prosecute people interested in any other kind of material. Material from Wikileaks, for instance.
– stallman.org, 29 April 2012 “The FBI”
If you unexpectedly receive “child pornography”, the last thing you should do is report it to the police.
However, just deleting the files may not be safe either. Police investigating you for some other reason might find the data of that deleted file, and then not believe you received it by accident.
I put the term in quotes because US law dishonestly defines images of young adults even of age 17 as “child pornography”, despite the fact that most Americans of age 17 have had sex. Perhaps in the UK the term is limited to children.
To punish people for possessing some sort of published work — whether “child pornography” or “terrorist information” or anything else — is simply wrong. And it regularly hurts the innocent.
– stallman.org, 9 March 2012 “Pornography”
Germany has eliminated the network filtering to block access to sites that distribute “child” pornography. Instead it will aim to shut down the sites.
This is an improvement, since it doesn’t create an excuse for filtering, but it is still a kind of censorship, and it is based on a persistently repeated falsehood: the claim that all “child” pornography is an image of real abuse of a real child. For instance, this article quotes someone saying, “These pictures and videos have to come from somewhere. Children are being abused.”
In the US, if two 17-year-olds have sex and take a photo of it, they can both be imprisoned for “making child pornography”, but only a twisted sex-hater would say they “abused” each other. This is why I put quotes around the word “child”. Once humans are sexually mature, it’s normal for them to have sex, and with cameras ubiquitous it’s normal for them to take a photo.
I don’t know whether Germany’s definition of “child” includes 17-year-olds, but the European Cybercrime Convention’s prohibition includes drawings and animation made without living models. Who is “abused” by the act of drawing a cartoon?
Lots of children are being sexually abused in the world today, mostly by family members. Many have been forced into prostitution by their families. Adults are being sexually abused, too. But censoring art has nothing to do with ending that.
– stallman.org, 06 December 2011 “Germany Eliminates Filtering”
“Child” pornography is being used as an excuse to threaten all American internet users’ privacy.
The term “child pornography” is dishonest. The censorship of it puts young lovers in direct danger of prosecution.
Many published works are disgusting, but censorship is more so. In the Internet, enforcement of censorship puts other rights in danger.
Please support demandprogress.org’s campaign against this bill.
– stallman.org, 29 August 2011 “Child Pornography Bill”
If you want to protect children on the Internet, forget about so-called “child porn.” The real danger is from insecurity — in their feelings, and in their mobile phones.
– stallman.org, 21 July 2011 “Effective Child Protection”
The article falls into a common kind of error when it says that “possession of child pornography is a heinous offense”. It is the error of rhetorically legitimizing the previous attack against our rights in arguing against the next one.
This “child pornography” might be a photo of yourself or your lover that the two of you shared. 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?
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.
– stallman.org, 4 June 2011 “Border Searches”
New Jersey is considering a law to reduce penalties on teenagers who share naked photos of themselves with their lovers, or even keep such photos themselves.
It is just a first step towards a return to sanity. “Child pornography” should be illegal only for those involved in an activity that involves real abuse or exploitation of a real child.
– stallman.org, 19 March 2011 “Sanity In New Jersey”
The US obsession with child pornography led to criminal charges against a defense lawyer for showing other defense lawyers how photo editing can fake images of apparent sex. Then he was sued by the parents of children whose photos he demonstrated this with.
The parents say their children were harmed by this, but it seems that no one connected these morphed photos with any particular children except the prosecutors. Thus, if any harm ever comes to the children as a result, it will be because the parents drew attention to the matter by suing.
The US Supreme Court overturned the 90s law that prohibited faked images of sex with children, but it was replaced by a narrower but still unjust law that prohibits them when they are “obscene”. In the end, the obscenity of censorship has had a victory.
– stallman.org, 31 January 2011 “Unjust Porn Charges”
“Blocking child porn sites ’exacerbates policing problem’.”
I have explained elsewhere that the term “child porn” is a lie and why outright censorship of it is unjust. The way to protect children from being used to make porn is to punish those who are involved in the distribution business together with those who make porn using real children.
– stallman.org, 29 January 2011 “Blocking Child Porn”
The EU could be next. There is an EU proposal to require filtering of the Internet to block “child pornography”. ISPs are fighting against it.
The article surrenders the first battle for freedom of expression by granting that “child pornography” ought to be censored somehow. It raises only the question of what method will really work and avoid collateral damage.
When making pornography involves real abuse of real children, those who distribute it under a business relationship with the abusers arguably participate in the abuse. They could be prosecuted for doing so. However, that does not excuse censorship. No matter how disgusting published works might be, censorship is more disgusting.
– stallman.org, 13 January 2011 “Censorship in Vietnam”
The demonization of “child” pornography has endangered US national security by creating an opportunity to blackmail officials that look at it.
I put “child” in quotation marks because that word is part of the dishonesty. It is meant to suggest that only a pervert would find them attractive. Many of these “children” are old enough that they could legally get married in some states — and most normal adults will find them attractive.
The article says that downloading “child” pornography converted these people into security risks. In the past, when people could be blackmailed for being gay, the same was said against homosexuals: that their conduct made them security risks. We now understand that it was the prejudice against homosexuality which had that effect.
Note how the article calls it a “problem” that certain people could not be prosecuted because “it could not be established that the children had been abused.” This shows the dishonesty of the claim that this is about protecting children. If that were their real goal, they would say, “We were pleased to discover in some cases that no children had been abused.”
If people are seriously concerned not to let children have sex in making porn films, they could use the approach that has successfully eliminated cruelty to animals in films. You have seen the statements certifying that “no animals were harmed in making this film.” There could be a similar certification that “no minors had sex or were nude with adults in making this film.”
– stallman.org, 09 August 2010 “Demonization of child pornography endangers US national security”
UK airport body-scanners can’t be used on anyone under 18 because the images are “child pornography”.
The irony of this case demonstrates the general absurdity of this system of censorship — including its supposition that people of age 17 are not accustomed to having sex. But the real harm of the law is in the cases that are not related to security: for instance, art, taking pictures of or for one’s lovers, and taking pictures of one’s children. These important cases are, naturally, not the ones that the UK proposes to legalize.
This law should be abolished.
If the concern is about real sexual abuse of children, it would make more sense to aim action at actual abuse (in which photos are rarely taken), rather than censor images. That would also be safer for society, since it would not offer an excuse for the dangerous practice of censorship.
– stallman.org, 08 January 2010 “Absurdity of child pornography laws”
Sharing nude photos of themselves has become standard practice for US teenagers, and cruel prosecutors try to imprison them for years for this.
This demonstrates the basic absurdity and injustice of laws against “child” pornography.
If there is any truth to the idea that older men can “prey on” teenagers, it is only because the teenagers are inexperienced. The cure for that is not imprisonment. The cure is to help teenagers to be more sexual empowered, to understand sooner what they do and do not want in sex.
– stallman.org, 17 January 2009 “Laws against ‘child’ pornography”
The first target of this censorship is sites and newsgroups that supposedly contain “child pornography”. This term is dishonest, since the law defines “child” as “anyone under 18”. For instance, Americans of age 16 are hardly children. They are sexually mature, almost half of them have had sex, and any normal adult will find them attractive. But our government calls them “children”, with the implication that being attracted to them makes you a pervert.
– stallman.org, 23 June 2008 “Internet censorship & child pornography”
Photographer Bill Henson faces prosecution in Australia for nude photos seized from an art exhibition. Many respected artists have come to his defense.
This shows where the perverse crusade against “child pornography” naturally leads.
– stallman.org, 31 May 2008 (Photographer Bill Henson)
1300 men have been arrested in the UK for downloading “child pornography” on the Internet. “Child pornography” was once the excuse of choice for increased surveillance and censorship of the Internet, before terrorism came conveniently to hand.
The arrested men are described as “suspected paedophiles”, a cleverly ambiguous term. Just what are they suspected of? Is it that they do or did something with real children? If so, the downloaded pictures are not evidence of it. Or is it only that they might feel an attraction to children? If so, then they stand accused of nothing but a mental inclination: thoughtcrime. The term conceals either one injustice or another, and thus obscures them both.
When pressed, the authorities will say these men are to be punished for possession of forbidden pictures, not for anything else. But if that were sincere, why make ambiguous accusations of something else? The prohibition of these pictures is really an excuse to lock people up who are condemned for their thoughts.
There are more serious crimes than sex with children–murder, for example. Perhaps people who have thought about murder should be imprisoned too. With the help of the USA PAT-RIOT Act, the police could examine bookstore records and arrest everyone who has bought a mystery novel, on the grounds that he or she might have an inclination to murder someone someday.