Of course they do. If the content was created non-consensually, you think it should be illegal to posess (if I’m understanding you right). It’s a restraint on content, even if it’s a restraint on content that was created a certain way rather then on content that depicts a certain act.
Of course not; I don’t think children should have the same rights as free adults.
Why do you think that posession of such videos should be illegal? I’d guess–and correct me if I’m wrong–that it’s because you believe that posession of such material somehow indirectly harms those victimized by its creation (i.e., by creating a demand for such videos). Ultimately, you think that the posession of those videos should be illegal because the interests of the victims of the video’s production is harmed by someone posessing them, and that the harm caused by posessing them outweights the free speech rights of the person posessing them.
More abstractly, you think that posessing information can cause harm, and that the harm caused can be reason to limit the liberty of the person who wishes to possess such information.
Shodan believes in this same principle; the difference between his position and yours is that he believes that more kinds of information can cause harm by being posessed then you do.
Would I do what? Would I distribute information on troop movements if I had it? Of course not. Should it be legal for me to do so? Well, that depends. If I’m a member of the military or a related organization and I voluntarily agreed not to distribute that kind of information (and in doing so voluntarily agreed to waive part of my free-speech rights), then it most certainly should be illegal for me to do so. I wouldn’t maintain that the right can’t be voluntarily waived.
Also, I’d like to once again point out that I’m only talking about posession. What harm is caused by anyone possessing information about troop movements, if I do nothing irresponsible with the information?
“Possession” to me also includes non-commercial distribution. I agree that it doesn’t make any sense to have possession be legal but all forms of distribution be legal; if that were the case possession would be criminal evidence of distribution.
You’re misrepresenting what you were asked, and you know it. The Passion was an example of a kind of movie but the question was not just about that example. What about my other examples? What about just an unnamed hypothetical example?
It’s obvious that you simply can’t answer the questions without either contradicting yourself or sounding ridiculous. If you want to run away, that’s fine. We understand.
Dude, did you not see the South Park episode “The Passion of the Jew”? :dubious: Mel Gibson is clearly a nutter who gets off on being physically abused. Q.E.D.
This topic would make for an interesting debate. Have you thought about starting a thread for it? I will withhold comment on it here, as to not derail the current discussion.
Ooooh, kiinkeee… …wait a minute, who would be raping whom? 'cause I’ve seen the broadcasts from the Commons and there ain’t nobody there I wanna see tied up and given the treatment, y’know?
BTW for those who are unaware of the origin of the reference, it relates to The Blair Witch Project, an indie horror film from back in the late 90s, that was pitched before release under the guise of being a posthumous documentary by some amateur filmmakers, using the footage they had shot while being stalked by their killer; of course it was obvious soon enough it was all an act. As in the case of The Blair Rape Project, as soon as the faux-reality veneer is shown to our satisfaction to be just that, then it moves into the legal-but-tasteless zone.
If the content was created non-consensually, you think it should be illegal to posess (if I’m understanding you right). It’s a restraint on content, even if it’s a restraint on content that was created a certain way rather then on content that depicts a certain act.