• magnetosphere@kbin.social
    82·
    1 year ago

    That is a piss-poor analogy. Considering that you’re trying to defend the indefensible, though, I’d say it’s the least of your problems.

      • magnetosphere@kbin.social
        41·
        1 year ago

        Understood. I don’t know where you’re from, so let me tell you about a common legal concept in the United States: aiding and abetting. Basically, if you knowingly help someone commit a crime (possessing cp), you’re often guilty of a crime as well. Plus, there’s the issue of distributing cp. That’s a crime in itself.

        To me, though, the legal details are secondary. My biggest issue is informed consent. Children cannot give informed consent. Therefore, any sexual pictures/video are exploitation. That’s not okay.

        Just the other day, I was talking with someone about the important difference between morality and legality, but in the case of cp, I think they got it right.

        (If you choose to reply, take your time. I’m headed out and won’t be able to answer right away.)

          • magnetosphere@kbin.social
            2·
            1 year ago

            Oh. We’re talking about slightly different things here. I was arguing against the instance existing at all.

            As for aiding and abetting, I can see it being successfully argued that yes, having the instance show up IS aiding and abetting. Granted, it’s not as clear cut, but if it’s proven that the people maintaining the search engine knew it was an instance that contained cp, that could be a major issue.