On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 11:06:42PM +0900, Sam Joseph wrote:
> Perhaps we might be able to agree that child porn requires the abuse of
> minors, since we don't consider them able to give consent to take part
> in the creation of the pornography. I don't know if everyone agrees,
> but isn't child porn the product of child abuse?
People who go for child porn are sick IMHO. But just because I
disagree with it doesn't mean it should be controled. The only reason
for controling it is because of what you have to put the children
through to get it.
But I'm not prepared to give up so much (free speech, etc, etc) just
to control child porn. Those who want control for their own benifit
constantly cite child porn as a reason why they should be given
power. It's red-baiting in a modern form.
> nodes, but it strikes me that in order to promote free speech, we could
> have a Freenet system that only held text files, and didn't support
> image or sound files.
That's unworkable. Text files are data. Images are data. No system can
ever stop people from writing a JPEG->Text converter which encodes
pictures in text. No filter can even keep up and stop such converters
without banning all text files.
AGL
--
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
PGP signature
