[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: cenzorship

On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:10:53AM +0200, Matej Kovacic wrote:

> There are some forms of cenzoship, which are bad, but there are some
> forms of it which can be justified.

Nope. None of them.
> The difference between porn and child porn is the abuse of a child.
> There is also privacy violation of a child, which can not give conscious
> consent. I think cenzorship in that case is justified.

Nope. You're confusing crime with the information created
in the process of the crime. The information itself is no crime.
> OK, it is a problem of being punished for only possesing child porn,
> however idea is very simple: if there will be no demand, there will be

The idea is very simple -- and quite wrong, unfortunately.
And even if it was so, are you proposing establishing a police
state, just because "buuuut it's for the chiiildren". 

Any justification involving pedophilia involves pushing a hidden
agenda. Ditto terrorists. Ditto drugs, and mobsters.

> no supply. But I agree, in general that could be a problem. For instance
> DMCA prohibits freee speech in area of removing copyright protection.
> The problem is that ideas and possessing information becomes illegal,
> not some explicitely hurting criminal act.
> But the same problem is with freedom. By prohibiting murders, my freedom
> is limited, someone could say. In general iti is correct, probititing
> murder is a kind of restriction. But it is obvious that it is good
> restriction.

Please tell me how a police state will kill less people.
> On the other side, prohibiting free speech is bad restriction. But in
> the middle - it is a matter of discussion, even struggle. That's why we
> have legal state and democracy.

Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature