censorship

[Tony]

Censorship does not prevent people molesting kids. It doesnt even target people that molest kids. 
 
There are plenty of pictures I would probably rather didnt exist. But then again I dont have to choose to look at them.
 
If I found pictures like you say - I would want to get the person that made them, not those that simply looked at them.
 
It is clear that for now that in general censorship of such material is the status quo in most countries. And is getting more and more widespread. It is also clear that reported cases of abuse are rising. Therefore QED censorship does not address the problem. 
 

________________________________

From: owner-or-talk at freehaven.net on behalf of M
Sent: Tue 16/05/2006 12:21
To: or-talk at freehaven.net
Subject: Re: censorship



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tony wrote:
> Just like any other form of censorship, the definition of 'child', 'porn' and 'abuse' is open to interpretation. Looking at pictures that already exist doesnt directly involve abuse as already mentioned. The problem is that to make the picture usually involves abuse. But censoring existing pictures doesnt deal with the original problem.

<RANT>
Say with me: "Molesting kids is sick. If you need kids to get you off
you are sick and need treatment." Just use your common sense to judge
what is cp, it's not so hard. Theres nothing wrong with censoring cp
even if it means censoring material that already exists what difference
does it make? If you had children what would you think if you found CP
from internet involving your child? I dont think that you would be like
"Oh, it's OK, those pictures already exist" (except if you are a
pedophile).

Children should have normal and safe childrenhood, I dont think that
anything involving child abuse (meaning CP) should be available.

I just hate people like NAMBLA who are trying to justify their sick
urges. "Dude, you're having sex with children!" <- There is no defense
for that.
</RANT>

> As many have already mentioned censorship is a slippery slope and there is no way you can reach a definition of what is acceptable to all. Censorship of already published information is never justified imo.
> 
> Not to mention I assume the whole idea of a project like TOR is to defeat censorship.

Defeating censorship is good, CP is bad. It's sad but CP and child abuse
just doesn't go away but that doesn't mean that we should accept it and
stop fighting back.

<RANT>
Uhhuhh... I just hope that Tor doesn't become like Freenet (or has it
already become). I dislike Freenet because it's so full of CP, some
groups openly support CP in Freenet (and it's written in Java).
</RANT>

M
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3-cvs (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org <http://enigmail.mozdev.org/> 

iD8DBQFEabWx6fSN8IKlpYoRAp7KAJ9nOHqTMd4HeJ1zbuXYRcAoH/PU2gCfT5Yz
CxxP7X0fwn3zoUNVVnawMQo=
=AUWI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 5663 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/attachments/20060516/eed4ff31/attachment.bin>