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

Re: cenzorship

Supply does not equal demand with child porn. Regardless if people
WATCH cp, the creators will still be making it and children will still
be "violated". What you have to consider is that lots of the kids
(especially above 12) are doing it willfully with webcams etc. In
addition, there have been plenty of examples where children and adults
have been in loving relationships and that sex helped them. For some
reason, sex is a very taboo topic in this country and until we remove
the taboo, it will be very difficult to talk honestly about it. In
addition, lots of cp "victims" are brainswashes into thinking what
happened was wrong. For lots of rape (non CP) victims, the worst part
is the guilt or responsibility they feel for the incident and how
"outcast" they feel from society. Let's face it. The earth isn't flat,
the earth isn't the center of the universe, etc. It's time to put the
old morals that aren't based on proof/logic where they belong, in the
trash!

On 5/16/06, Matej Kovacic <matej.kovacic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
Hi,

OK, this need more clarification.

First of all, I am not pro-cenzorship.

But I think that freedom of speech is not unlimited. And if it is not
unlimited, that involves some form of cenzorship.

Foir instance shouting "fire!" in full theatre could be viewed as
freedom of speech, but also as a crime, because there will be panic and
lot of people would be dead.

So it is reasonalby to restrict freedom of speech, when we are
protecting some other important liberty. (OK, another problem is that
government is "protecting" us against "terrorists"...)

> Nope. You're confusing crime with the information created
> in the process of the crime. The information itself is no crime.
Could be problematic, when you are talking about privacy violation. I
don't want my personal data, pictures, etc. published. I have a right to
restrict publication of that information. And that is some form of
censorship.

> 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".
Yes, I know why is that problematic. I am just explainig what the
legislators were thinking of. However, in case of paedophilia, there
were some research (empirical data) about paedophiles. And Megan laws in
US were enacted because there is empirical evidence that 70% of the
paedophiles are commiting crimes again.

I know, this is problematic, and I am not pro Megan laws for some other
reasons, but they have some arguments. If there is empirical evidence
that cutting demand will cut the supply - and if there is strong
correlation between these two factors, that is pretty good argument.

However, we have not seen any analysis of anti-terrorist's measures (how
more safe we are because of them, which are successfull, which not,
etc.). That is the problem.

> Please tell me how a police state will kill less people.
Actually it's simple - and not secret. State of law, transparency of
police, secret services and government, etc. All things we had few years
ago, and still have them "on a paper" (but not in reality anymore)...

bye, Matej