cenzorship

[Matej Kovacic <matej.kovacic@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

> I want to add my two cents about child porn. Censorship is censorship,
> it doesn't matter what you censor or by what logic you censor. Banning
> child porn is censorship, copyright is censorship, and stopping people
> from speaking who have opposing political views is censrorship. It seems
> to be a well known fact that freenet is filled with pedophilia, yet
> freenet is just fine and dandy. If pedophilia was a *real* threat to
> privacy services, then proxies wouldn't exist.

That is correct. But privacy protection - I mean personal data
protection - is also cenzorship.

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

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.

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
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.

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.

bye, Matej