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