Re: [tor-talk] Child pornography, anonymity and free speech

[Ein Baot-is <egskalhaeinbaotis@xxxxxxxxx>]

There are better mailing lists for this discussion.
On Oct 21, 2012 2:00 PM, <torop20@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Julian wrote:
> "* It's possible to wank without porn. We can reach places in our
>   imagination that no amount of “reality” can take us. In my
> experience
>   an orgasm that starts in the mind is *much* more fulfilling than
>   one involving porn. It's also possible to reach orgasm without
> wanking
>   (i.e. by having sex). "
>
> But the anti-child pornography laws proceed on the assumption that
> even non-commercial possession of computer generated images must be
> banned because inducing the stimulation or wanking is a legitimate
> societal interest to be regulated.
>
> It's classic thought crime control. Sure everyone can wank and have
> their thoughts, but only until the state manages a way to control what
> people think.
>
> If someone wrote a decentralized truly realistic fantasy Virtual
> Reality simulation in which everyone could get their  desire without
> killing, maiming or molestating another, do you think the government
> would allow such a program to exist?
>
> I bet not.
>
> "Getting into bed with the porn producers risks
>   alienating the feminist movement who would otherwise be naturally
>   aligned with Tor's goals."
>
> You must be kidding.
> Google for Catharine Mackinnon and Andrea Dworkin and the Indianapolis
> pornography ordinance.
>
> The feminist movement has changed since the 1960s.
>
> These two leading feminists have called for the prohibition on hate
> speech and pornography. And only thanks to the ACLU did they not
> succeed in Indianapolis.
>
> The question is not whether someone likes pornography, but whether
> he/she believes the state should control it.
> If you believe that the state should regulate which material I view in
> my own home you can't in the long run be a friend of Tor's goals.
>
> Enforcement of the neo-feminist movement's censorship goals is no more
> friendly to Tor's goals than those of the Christian conservative
> movement.
>
> Aside from the failed war on drugs, there are three policy goals which
> often beget more censorship: Protect the children, national security
> and enforce copyright.
>
> I don't want censor happy feminists on my side. They are as toxic to
> free speech, privacy and anonymity as the RIAA.
>
> Fortunately, both the protection of hate speech and virtual child
> pornography is a settled constitutional question in the US, so the
> worst which can happen is that other nations f-ck up their own laws.
>
> _______________________________________________
> tor-talk mailing list
> tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
_______________________________________________
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk