M maillist at piirakka.com
Tue May 16 11:21:21 UTC 2006

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.

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

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.

> 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.

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).

Version: GnuPG v1.4.3-cvs (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the tor-talk mailing list