Just like any other form of censorship, the definition of 'child', 'porn' and 'abuse' is open to interpretation. Looking at pictures that already exist doesnt directly involve abuse as already mentioned. The problem is that to make the picture usually involves abuse. But censoring existing pictures doesnt deal with the original problem. As many have already mentioned censorship is a slippery slope and there is no way you can reach a definition of what is acceptable to all. Censorship of already published information is never justified imo. Not to mention I assume the whole idea of a project like TOR is to defeat censorship. ________________________________ From: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Matej Kovacic Sent: Tue 16/05/2006 09:10 To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: cenzorship 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
<<winmail.dat>>