Shared publicly  - 
Good news for people who love stolen photos of 14-year old girls!
Matthew Kozachek's profile photoDave Cole's profile photoRobert Cooper's profile photoStefan Frings's profile photo
It's hard for me to fathom what the appeal of a image like that is. I just can't find a justification in my own mind that I would want to see those images.
Reason enough for me to avoid it.
There are worse things on reddit such as picsofdeadkids and beatingwomen. Talks of removing these subreddits cause cries of 'We must have Free speech!'
...even more reason to shut them down. If they are lacking both intelligence and integrity, who needs them.
When the people behind Reddit start getting personal visits from their local law expect the crap to come down.
Interestingly enough, the "people behind Reddit" are Advance Publications, an American media empire whose subsidiaries include Condé Nast which publishes Wired, Vanity Fair, and the New Yorker.
So do you think that possession of this content should be illegal, or do you simply think that legal content you happen to object to shouldn't be allowed on Reddit? (Or is there some third interpretation I haven't thought of?)
Possession of this content IS illegal.
Wait a minute, which content are we talking about? /r/jailbait is, according to the article, "photos of girls between the ages of 12 and 17. No nudity is allowed". That's illegal?
Yeah, you were probably right to stop reading before you got to the point of the article.
Pardon me- that is not illegal.
+Robert Sheets Having this content in any form, will get you arrested and charged in most countries. So yes it is illegal, hiding behind non censorship as reddit has is a diversionary tactic.
+Rebecca Watson I'm not sure if that was aimed at me, but I read the article and I believe I understand the point of it. If illegal content is posted, it should be removed. I'm still not sure whether people seem to think the content on r/jailbait is illegal, or if perhaps they'd just rather Reddit didn't contain any material they personally object to.
I think part of the problem is that the article discussed two types of content. "Creepy" content that's probably legal, and "child pornography" which is clearly illegal. Then, the comments on this post started talking about "this content", which is overly vague.

Edited to add: I am just as guilty as others of being too vague, in my first comment above. For that I apologize.
Wonder if they have any pride in their corporate reputation?
I guess I'm just tired (due to a shitfest on Facebook over this post, not necessarily your posts, Robert) of men (it's always been men, but maybe there are women who do this, too, somewhere I don't frequent) insisting that people are claiming things they are definitely not claiming. No one that I've ever met thinks that pics of clothed underage girls in non-sexual situations are illegal, regardless of whether or not someone is masturbating to them.

This is what everyone with sense has been saying: distributing child pornography, which they are obviously doing, is criminal. Stealing people's photos and posting them elsewhere is criminal. Stealing and posting sexualized images of young girls may be illegal depending upon the photo, and it is always immoral. Because of the immorality AND/OR the illegality of what is happening, Reddit should not provide a community for people to do these things.

I'm seriously sick of seeing people nitpick over what is happening because they have some misguided idea of freedom of speech, a half-baked Randian Libertarian philosophy, or just some deep need to be edgy and contrarian.
+Rebecca Watson I'm definitely sorry if I'm making your day worse, or if you think what I'm writing is (or is contributing to) a shitfest. I just think it's far too easy to say "that's creepy, so it shouldn't exist" or "that's sort of related to something illegal, so the people who are doing it should go to jail".

I'm sure some would disagree with me on this, but I think it's clear that people who enjoy sexualized images of young girls will find somewhere on the internet to trade that sort of material. If r/jailbait is such a place, at least the moderators there are apparently doing their best to make sure the content there is legal. If it were shoved into some darker corner of the Internet, I doubt that would be the case.
Just one more reason for me not to visit that site. I'm not familiar enough with the story to know the legal issues. I do know that it's not right to sexualize teens for an adult audience.

I'm glad you wrote this article, and I hope you ride the storm out. :)
+Robert Sheets That's a false dichotomy (or something). The darker corners exist already. The point is that a highish profile place that pretends at some legitimacy like Reddit shouldn't be a part of something like this.
Exactly Travis. It's really a matter of Reddit's choice if they want to allow something like this. If they want to be a mainstream site, they shouldn't allow this.
+Travis English I understand what you're saying, but do we need to give more people a reason to seek out the dark corners? For that matter, which objectionable thing do we remove from Reddit next, and who decides what's objectionable and what's not? I think we're better off erring on the side of letting people discuss whatever they want.

(Edited to remove a comment about +William Brinkman's missing verb, which has been found.)
There are lots of tasteless things all over the place, including Reddit. Depictions of Muhammad are thought by many to be tasteless (or worse). If there were a subreddit dedicated to drawings of Muhammad*, should that be shut down? It's sure to offend a large number of people, and in their minds its existence might irreparably tarnish the reputation of the site.

+Kyle Heimbigner Let's say for a moment r/jailbait were gone forever, and not only that but it had been removed the very moment someone noticed it was there. Surely there's something else on Reddit that you'd object to. Does that have to be removed too?

* For all I know, this exists. I haven't checked.
If the Skepchic blog was used to facilitate the transmission of child pornography, would that be sufficient grounds to have it shut down?

I have absolutely no issue with the illegality of child pornography - it's horrendous and is deservedly marked by the significant repercussions associated with its creation or trade. I do, however, think that this particular topic deserves more discussion than, "It disgusts me; it shouldn't exist."
+Kyle Heimbigner So how should Reddit go about deciding which things need to go? Do they just ask you? I'm still not seeing the difference between this, which clearly you and others have a problem with, and any other random thing, which presumably some other person and some other group of people strongly object to.
A concession that they're doing this because they can - and not because of ethical or moral concerns - would be perfectly suitable as far as I'm concerned.

In reality, I have no issue with r/jailbait being taken down; my only problem is that it seems a majority of people (but not all) are attempting to justify this based on what is essentially irrational: "I don't like this." It's difficult to put this in a framework of logical consideration, but argumentum ad populum holds up no better in this discussion than in any other. 
I remember hearing a speaker suggesting that we shouldn't allow someone's offence, or even our own be a control on content. But we should be vigilant against material that incites. (And beyond the question of legality, some of this material can incite...) And in a public forum, open place we do, I think need to practice a sterner or more cautious morality than we might choose amongst our personal circle. There is a case to be made for recalling the practice of public civility. (I think the last serious engagement with the topic was by Scott Peck of The Road Less Travelled fame.) There are innocent bystanders in public places (not that that seems to dawn on mobile phoners.) There are innocent shoulder surfers in public places, and so the display of some images/videos/lyrics which I might think are fine for me might be deeply disturbing and un-erasable for someone glimpsing my screen, hearing my stream.
And should you think not, then am I allowed, when I don the costume of my alterego schooooolteacher am I entitled to use whatever language comes to mind, leave whatever images, DVDs I want lying on my desk?
I think some of the commenters here are losing sight of the actual issue. This is an internet forum designed to share and distribute sexualized pictures of young girls between the ages of 12 and 17. Not birthday party pictures or school trip pictures but sexualized pictures.

Is it legal? Does it really matter? Marital rape didn't become a crime in all 50 United States until 1993. In 1992, would you be insisting that it's okay for a husband to rape his wife since doing so wasn't illegal?

The fact remains that the sexualization of young girls is harmful to girls and to women:

"The thing is: the adultification/sexualization of young girls is paralleled by a infantilization of adult women. This adds up to a conflation of women and children which serves to uphold prejudice against adult women and the exploitation of girls."

Here are a few more links that I pulled from the top results of a Google search for "harmful sexualization of young girls":

So when you disregard the actual content of this forum and instead focus on whether people are arguing that reddit should take down the board merely because we don't like it, you are ignoring the actual harm that the board does to women and little girls.
I don't want to be on the side of "the bad guys who steal pictures of young girls post them on the internet so that other bad guys masturbate to them" but, what will happen from now on... Should reddit also get rid of /r/trees? because it encourages people to smoke weed? (which is illegal) Who is going to choose from now which subreddits to close? I think that's the point that +Robert Sheets is raising and it is a fair point.
If weed exclusively screwed up kids, were illegal everywhere for everyone, were disturbingly immoral, and were able to be transmitted via the Internet, you would have a very good point.
Among the multitude of things that are disgusting about such a Reddit group is that the girls lose whatever privacy they had to a bunch of anonymous droolers. Instead of shaming these creeps into seeking therapy, I have to tell my daughter cautionary tales. 
Right, I understand then. As I said, I'm not in favor of it. I'm just against censorship, and subreddits are made by the users not by Reddit. So, I just want to know the concrete reasons behind the removal of a subreddit, to know how it will affect the rest of the site.

Because of reddit I learned more about skepticism, atheism, and science. And reddit is the reason that I listen to the SGU. Now there are countries where this type of content is regarded as "inappropriate", etc. And that's why censorship always scares me, any type of censorship.
Although that would be an argument from consequences which is a logical fallacy lol...
Maybe there should be a campaign to downvote everything posted in /r/jailbait. I don't know if would do anything, but it's a thought.
Ok, so after doing a little bit of research:
- Jailbait has been removed.
- The reasons of this is because people were actually using the site to transfer or share illegal stuff, real child pornography.
The particular justification is that people were trading and requesting to trade child porn - the genuine reasons involve the CNN/Anderson Cooper exposé, and the greater community's dislike of the subreddit.
Sorry, maybe off topic under this threat, but hopefully it's here getting the broader attention of the right skeptical audience: A German female (!) homeopath prescribes globules for women who don't want to give head, reports the German anti-quack blog That's one of the most absurd web findings on homeopathy in the last weeks, I think. For those of you understand German, see here:
Add a comment...