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

[torop20 at hushmail.com]

Child pornography is illegal because the production itself involves
actual victims.
The laws date back to a time when it wasn't possible to produce CP
without actual children.

It therefore made sense that sale, distribution and possession of
actual child pornography was made illegal, but the slippery slope
started when the governments around the world began to outlaw child
pornography without actual victims.

The first prohibition does not violate free speech, because the
material featuring actual children is integral to criminal conduct,
but the second prohibition on computer generated images and cartoons
is a regulation of thought.

And Julian and others are  really missing the point if they assume
that the realistic nature of the depictions is the borderline between
permissible and impermissible speech.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in one of its more speech
friendly cases that regulation of virtual child pornography on the
assumption that such will incite viewers thoughts is impermissible
regulation of thought.

You can't be an anarchist and defend thought crime legislation. Child
pornography without actual participants is victimless speech and is no
more abuse than crime comics, or ordinary adult pornography some want
to ban.

And yes, true untraceable anonymous communication can't coexist in a
society with thought crime legislation.

Rick Falkvinge has succinctly argued why child pornography  laws in
their current sweeping form pose a risk to privacy and free speech.

The question is very simple: If the price for enforcing anti-child
pornography laws is banning truly untraceable communication, enforcing
EU style data retention on all data packets flowing over the network,
is the price too high?

It isn't a price I am willing to pay, not even for the children.