Post #2642069

Replies (1)

• @cubeos@hachyderm.io 2026-05-09 21:24

  @footrest@mastodon.social You may have a different view of how human culture works than I have. But I have used the novel "name of the rose" as an example as the scene I think about here is a situation in which a medieval monk novice has an unintended but consensual sexual encounter with a woman. The words Eco uses to describe this from the narrators, i.e., the monk's point of view are essentially holy texts (since our poor monk has no other words to describe the experience) while the fact of what happens is quite sinful in the perception of the poor novice. Nevertheless, this text would very much be considered forbidden under your law. So here are holy texts, in this case excerpts of the bible and other catholic books to describe sexual pleasure. So these should be forbidden? So now your law censors religious texts. So you might say "but it's the context", but that depends on the recipient of the communication. So you might say "then block it and people can take it to court" and people will and clog the court system with every single expression. We've all been down this road before, limiting communication based on vague cultural categories does not work. There is a fighting chance (but still difficult) to limit speech on hard categories such as calls for violence, defamation, fraud etc. and already here we're struggling. It somewhat works for public speech with a recognizable speaker. It doesn't really work well across borders and different legal systems. Limiting speech in private, encrypted channels such as VPNs for vague categories such as pornography is a waste of time and effort. The thing that in my opinion actually works is targeting the source, i.e., making creation, distribution and monetization illegal. Which is practically already the case for CSAM but needs an update regarding AI-generated images. Let's start there.

  Open ##2642070