#lolisho

lets indulge in questionable dynamics with Mama

Predators are actively going after REAL children.

Pedophiles suffer from a PARAPHILIA. Which is a trauma response.

i drew this dumb guy to make fun of antis ^_^ might make a stupid webcomic off of him

his names antina fleutterbeau and hes js a shota version of that one nazi looking anti mascot everyone hated. he hates proshippers and radqueers and all the fun people

people who hate paras are so fucking embarrassing it ain't even funny

oh yea? you're "protecting" children? hows bitching on reddit helping a single victim out there. Like the moment you equate real life children suffering to "fictional children" is the moment you fully lost the fucking plot. It's such a slap in the fucking face to every goddamn victim out there.

Yea I'm sure that make-believe victim truly is just so much more important than being fucking normal and doing anything to help actual victims in the real world. sure it's worth spreading misinfo about kink & paras completely drowning out actual abuse victims' stories.

/gen

Freedom of Expression does NOT cover things that cause tangible harm to specific people.

Think of it this way:

Everyone has innate human rights. Freedom of Expression is one of them, but it is not the only one. People also have rights to bodily autonomy, privacy, dignity, safety, and to not be sexually exploited.

Child Sexual Abuse Material ("CSAM" - this is now the preferred term for "child pornography") may technically be a form of "expression" in the most literal sense - but it is a form that is the documented product of the sexual abuse of a real child, and its circulation continues that abuse.

Likewise, Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery ("NCII" - this is now the preferred term for "revenge porn") is the non-consensual distribution of intimate material in a way that directly violates a specific person’s privacy, dignity, and safety.

So I really don't think this is a case of making some prudish exception to anti-censorship principles. It's a case of recognizing that one person’s claimed "expression" cannot include the right to violate another person’s human rights.

And, as a side note, that is also why FICTIONAL depictions of abuse, or even ugly works that seem to romanticize or encourage abuse, fall into a very different category.

Those works may be highly disturbing, exploitative, disgusting, or morally rotten, but they are NOT actually abusing a specific real person in the way CSAM and NCII are - the harm there is direct, concrete, and inseparable from the material itself.

With fiction, the argument is usually vague and indirect: some third party might consume it, be influenced by it, and then do something harmful later. That kind of causal chain is speculative, hard to prove, based on the actions of another person with their own free will, and potentially limitless once you start to expand on it. If you make that the standard for censorship, then practically any book, film, fantasy, or artwork could potentially end up suppressed on the theory that it might negatively affect someone somewhere.