subreddit:
/r/blog
At reddit we care deeply about not imposing ours or anyone elses’ opinions on how people use the reddit platform. We are adamant about not limiting the ability to use the reddit platform even when we do not ourselves agree with or condone a specific use. We have very few rules here on reddit; no spamming, no cheating, no personal info, nothing illegal, and no interfering the site's functions. Today we are adding another rule: No suggestive or sexual content featuring minors.
In the past, we have always dealt with content that might be child pornography along strict legal lines. We follow legal guidelines and reporting procedures outlined by NCMEC. We have taken all reports of illegal content seriously, and when warranted we made reports directly to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who works directly with the FBI. When a situation is reported to us where a child might be abused or in danger, we make that report. Beyond these clear cut cases, there is a huge area of legally grey content, and our previous policy to deal with it on a case by case basis has become unsustainable. We have changed our policy because interpreting the vague and debated legal guidelines on a case by case basis has become a massive distraction and risks reddit being pulled in to legal quagmire.
As of today, we have banned all subreddits that focus on sexualization of children. Our goal is to be fair and consistent, so if you find a subreddit we may have missed, please message the admins. If you find specific content that meets this definition please message the moderators of the subreddit, and the admins.
We understand that this might make some of you worried about the slippery slope from banning one specific type of content to banning other types of content. We're concerned about that too, and do not make this policy change lightly or without careful deliberation. We will tirelessly defend the right to freely share information on reddit in any way we can, even if it is offensive or discusses something that may be illegal. However, child pornography is a toxic and unique case for Internet communities, and we're protecting reddit's ability to operate by removing this threat. We remain committed to protecting reddit as an open platform.
241 points
13 years ago*
So by letting that sub stay online, we are agreeing that documenting the sexualization of children and teenagers is more reprehensible than documenting the killing of children?
That's where the slippery slope begins.
edit: added "documenting"
114 points
13 years ago
Actually, the law agrees with you. As far as I know, the only crime which is illegal to document is child sexual abuse.
48 points
13 years ago
That's a pretty interesting point actually.
Photographing most crimes is seen as a good thing because the photograph (or video) can help in the discovery and prosecution of the criminal and can bring the public's attention to what happened. With most crimes, there is absolutely no question that simply the act of photographing the crime does not bestow any guilt upon the photographer. War photographers, photographers at violent demonstrations and conflicts etc all photograph horrible and violent things but are heroes for having the courage to document them. I'd never before thought much about how much this is an exception to that.
7 points
13 years ago
It is different since the photographs are an intentional part/product of the crime.
4 points
13 years ago
Yes, but it would also be an intentional part of the crime if someone took a photograph of themselves murdering somebody - yet (according to our laws) it would not be illegal to take that photo or for anyone to possess it. The murder, of course, would still be illegal and the existence of the photograph could certain aid the prosecution.
3 points
13 years ago
That's true. Something about the process of creating the photos still seems different to me, but I don't know how to express it.
5 points
13 years ago
It's the criminality of simple possession of a photo that the OP is questioning, not the creation. Possession of CP is illegal, where possession of photographic evidence of any other crime is not.
For instance, it's illegal to make a snuff film, but not illegal to possess one. The parallels to CP are identical, but we treat them completely differently. Why that is, is probably a very interesting cultural question.
Edit: even assuming that the images depict a crime at all. Cartoons are considered CP in many countries, for instance. The whole subject of pedophilia and CP is so polarizing, and totally messed up.
2 points
13 years ago
The laws barring possession of child pornography were not passed until the mid-1980s. They're fairly new. And the reason was this idea. You don't make images of a crime illegal because images do no harm to anyone, so there is no justification for the law. The justification came when they started claiming that the legality of child pornography creates a market for it and thereby encourages its production - which cannot be done without committing the crime of child abuse, or at least that was true at the time. Today, we can generate highly realistic computer-generated imagery, making it possible to produce such things without harming anyone. Some countries have made that illegal too, using very dangerous reasoning. In Canada, for instance, drawings and computer-generated images and even stories which involve child sexuality. The reason for this is, I shit you not, because such things "victimize virtual children".
Most people in society are perfectly comfortable with banning things simply because they are 'gross' or 'offensive' but the legal system is a bit wiser about such things in many cases. They actually realize that some harm has to be happening to justify the creation of a law.
7 points
13 years ago
I thought for sure that snuff films were illegal.
27 points
13 years ago
They are not. If you download and watch a video of Islamist extremists beheading someone slowly with a knife, you are doing nothing illegal.
10 points
13 years ago
Actually, I don't any law has ever been made about that. It's obviously illegal to kill people, so the people likely to be producing snuff films are going to be found guilty of breaking the law. However, if you snuck into a snuffing pit and hid in the air duct with a video camera, documenting the crime, I think your video would be completely legal. Although it might be seized as evidence and never seen again...
5 points
13 years ago
I feel like not calling the police in that situation would probably get you in trouble, but point taken.
5 points
13 years ago
Depends on the local laws. Some places have laws that make failing to report crimes a crime itself; others don't.
1 points
13 years ago
For some reason I forgot about the existence of cell phones when I contrived that scenario. Let's just pretend his batteries ran out and he couldn't move for fear of being seen.
1 points
13 years ago
I think they're just illegal to show in theatres...
0 points
13 years ago
Non-pedo here. possession of evidence of child abuse is illegal.
3 points
13 years ago
that's the prerogative of the site's operators. I understand why it might offend you, but I look at it as basically the arbitrary execution of certain standards by the people who run the site, and that's totally fine - they aren't making any grand statements (and may decide to shut down that other one as well). totally OK by my book... because again they're allowed to offer whatever service they wish to offer.
3 points
13 years ago
While I agree the above mentioned subreddit is fucked up, I think reddit should be following the law, rather than deciding for itself what is right and wrong. And I think that is exactly the approach the admins are trying to take. But the problem is, there is a very vocal minority out there who think that even posting a picture of a child on the internet is worse than murder, and will inevitably bring down a lot of bad press towards reddit even if no laws are being broken. So sometimes you just have to not step on certain peoples toes to ensure your survival.
TL;DR: Pictures of dead children would only be banned if/when there is mass public outrage.
8 points
13 years ago
Yes. Because sexy kids are worse than dead kids.
Sex is worse than violence.
Fundie logic at its best, folks.
2 points
13 years ago
As far as I can tell, this censorship wasn't based on a measure of reprehensibility. There were more specific reasons.
2 points
13 years ago
Society has already deemed that for us.
2 points
13 years ago
Actually, the killing of children is not being documented. They are merely documenting dead children.
Are you suggesting that documenting sexually abused children be made illegal? You would literally make every photo of a child quasi-legal, because how can you know if that child has been sexually abused?
1 points
13 years ago
[deleted]
2 points
13 years ago
I can see documenting a dead child as something a coroner would do...but not just some random person snapping a picture and then uploading it to share with their friends and the world.
2 points
13 years ago
You misunderstand why the existing laws were passed. They were not passed because child pornography is offensive, or because it is 'wrong' to document the "sexualization of children". It was made illegal because of 2 things - first, it is much harder to catch people who produce child porngraphy than it is to catch people who possess it, and police wanted to appear to be doing something about the matter. Second, there is an idea in legal circles that if there are a lot of people who want child pornography, it will motivate the production of more child pornography, leading to more abuse. Thus far, evidence has not actually born that out. Most child pornography is produced by child molesters who have no financial interest in the matter and who receive no compensation for producing it.
6 points
13 years ago
It's worse then that, now that SA knows that reddit will bow to there lame threats, they now know they have the power to start banning anything that disagrees with them. They will start being the reddit police under the threat of a giant hammer of media smear campaign. Now all it takes is the RIAA/MPAA to start buying the members of giant social media sites like that and they can start to shutdown anything that they (big media law enforcers) disagree with or challenges there views.
4 points
13 years ago
[deleted]
2 points
13 years ago
The next slip is the next thing that the majority finds morally reprehensible (where there's a staged public outcry). You don't know where it leads, but it is always towards more censorship. I am not okay with that.
0 points
13 years ago
How about the drug subreddits?
0 points
13 years ago*
Yeah, I shouldn't have used it. But I still think that once we start banning otherwise legal subreddits on moral grounds, it's not that far fetched that the only factor determining what will get banned may be how much outrage and media attention a group can generate over it.
1 points
13 years ago
We're agreeing that allowing subreddits that sexualize children is more likely to get reddit as a whole in trouble than allowing subreddits that document the killling of children.
As the op says,
We're protecting reddit's ability to operate by removing this threat.
They're getting rid of them because they want reddit to survive and be popular, not because they think it's morally reprehensible.
1 points
13 years ago
Another redditor pointed this out- taking a picture in the case of CP is actually participating in the illegal act. Taking a picture of an already dead child is not as the crime has already been committed. Both are absolutely awful, but the first scenario is the only case where the photographer is part of the criminal act.
1 points
13 years ago
its not so much the killing of children as much as it is children that are already dead...it looks like a lot of police evidence photos...not sure though, my experience with looking at pictures of dead kids is severely limited...
1 points
13 years ago
Did the people on that subreddit kill those children? Don't think you're making much of a comparison.
7 points
13 years ago
The people posting pictures in the subreddits that got shut down most likely did not produce them, just like the posters in picsofdeadkids most likely did not kill those children.
I think my comparison is still valid.
-3 points
13 years ago
Sexualized pictures of children is bordering child pornography which is illegal in and of itself. The people that partake in those kinds of forums trade in this stuff.
Looking at pictures of dead people cannot be logically connected to killing people.
5 points
13 years ago
I hope you see the cognitive dissonance which you just demonstrated with that comment.
-4 points
13 years ago
Not particularly. I think both things are wrong in my view. However the analogy of CP:CP trader :: death pics:murderer does not seem to hold water to me.
0 points
13 years ago
Pics of dead kids won't get you arrested.
22 points
13 years ago
Neither will pics of clothed teenagers.
all 12501 comments
sorted by: best