Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)

[David McNab]

> Really? Is the widespread availability of child pornography actually > important in allowing people to recover from their own abuse? I'm not > saying it isn't, it just seems to me that we might want to be protecting > the rights of those being abused as well as protecting the right of free > speech. Freenet also provides an anonymous means for people to expose *proven* child abusers. Such exposure may not be effective, though, unless it is backed up by evidence. Also, such exposure would have best effect if it compassionately called upon abusers to seek healing. If child abusers are exposed with convincing evidence, they will be left with little option but to seek healing. It would only take a few abusers going public about their healing to start to really turn society around. Imagine, say, a book called "Confessions: A Rock-Spider's Healing Journey", written by a reformed abuser. Many people reading such a book would cringe, because they would recognise in themselves many of the ingredients that can culminate in child abuse. But it would pull the whole issue out into the open. Cheers David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "freenet-chat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 2:14 PM Subject: Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet) > > David McNab wrote: > > > The subject of child porn on Freenet throws me personally > > into an interesting position. On one hand, I passionately share > > the sentiments of totally supporting free expression. > > But on the other hand, my wife and I jointly operate a respected > > psychotherapy practice, and are responsible for training and > > evaluation of other practitioners. > > > > Child abuse has plagued society for at least many thousands of years. > > From our exhaustive research into the subject, one of the principal > factors > > that perpetuates child abuse is suppression and secrecy. > > In other words, suppressive measures such as censorship actually > > encourage child abuse! > > Okay. I think I understand your point, and I agree that suppressing > emotional pain can lead to abuse, but I think it is important to make a > distinction between different kinds of repression. > > > In conclusion, I want to say that Freenet can in no way be held > accountable > > for perpetuating abuse of children. if anything, Freenet will have a > role > > in healing such abuse. > > Really? Is the widespread availability of child pornography actually > important in allowing people to recover from their own abuse? I'm not > saying it isn't, it just seems to me that we might want to be protecting > the rights of those being abused as well as protecting the right of free > speech. > > > Abuse of children is actually perpetuated by every man and woman who > passes > > moral judgement on others. > > By every man and woman who pretends to be happy while suppressing > their own > > emotional pain (and expects others to do the same). > > > Abuse of children is especially perpetuated by those who advocate > censorship > > and other forms of suppression and punishment. > > So if I am suggesting that it is not such a good idea to make child porn > available anonymously then I am perpetuating child abuse? > > I mean, maybe you are saying that in order for the child abusers to heal > themselves, they need to be able to distribute and consume child > pornography with total freedom? Maybe you are right. > > I am having difficulty putting my finger on it, but it feels like there > should be some better approach. I am sure that psychotherapy for child > abusers, as opposed to punishment, would be far more effective. I share > that opinion on a number of subjects. Drug addicts, in my opinion, > should not be treated as criminals, but as people with a medical > condition who need help and support, the same goes for child abusers. > > In my initial mail, I was not suggesting that we try and repress > feelings or censor ideas. I was just wondering if we could promote free > speech, while not distributing child porn at the same time. > > Maybe you are saying it is okay to distribute child porn, because trying > to censor it would lead to greater abuse of children, but I can't quite > follow the logic of it. Seems to me that we need to work towards > promoting open discussion of ideas on child porn, and child abusers > (such as we are seeing here today) as opposed to the open distribution > of actual child pornography. > > If Freenet allows an "above-the-law" distribution system for child > pornography, can't all the people who see it and enjoy it start asking > their friends to post more and more pictures on Freenet. Doesn't it's > wide availability provide an incentive for people to consume it and > demand more. Fine for anything else, but children will be abused in its > production (and okay, that is assuming it is hard core stuff, right? - > see other branch of this thread for more discussion on what is and isn't > child abuse) > > I'm totally open to the possibility that I'm wrong on all counts, so > let's discuss this further. > > CHEERS> SAM > > > _______________________________________________ > Chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat > _______________________________________________ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat