Tony at tdrmail.co.uk
Tue May 16 12:49:46 UTC 2006
You can say the word fire though in a conversation. Therefore it is not censorship. The content is not being controlled. If you shouted anything in a crowded theatre you would probably be kicked out.
Censorship doesnt target active known paedos like 'Megans Law', It just targets people that might choose to look at pictures (or anything else that someone else decides that you cant look at)
From: owner-or-talk at freehaven.net on behalf of Matej Kovacic
Sent: Tue 16/05/2006 12:36
To: or-talk at freehaven.net
Subject: Re: cenzorship
OK, this need more clarification.
First of all, I am not pro-cenzorship.
But I think that freedom of speech is not unlimited. And if it is not
unlimited, that involves some form of cenzorship.
Foir instance shouting "fire!" in full theatre could be viewed as
freedom of speech, but also as a crime, because there will be panic and
lot of people would be dead.
So it is reasonalby to restrict freedom of speech, when we are
protecting some other important liberty. (OK, another problem is that
government is "protecting" us against "terrorists"...)
> Nope. You're confusing crime with the information created
> in the process of the crime. The information itself is no crime.
Could be problematic, when you are talking about privacy violation. I
don't want my personal data, pictures, etc. published. I have a right to
restrict publication of that information. And that is some form of
> The idea is very simple -- and quite wrong, unfortunately.
> And even if it was so, are you proposing establishing a police
> state, just because "buuuut it's for the chiiildren".
Yes, I know why is that problematic. I am just explainig what the
legislators were thinking of. However, in case of paedophilia, there
were some research (empirical data) about paedophiles. And Megan laws in
US were enacted because there is empirical evidence that 70% of the
paedophiles are commiting crimes again.
I know, this is problematic, and I am not pro Megan laws for some other
reasons, but they have some arguments. If there is empirical evidence
that cutting demand will cut the supply - and if there is strong
correlation between these two factors, that is pretty good argument.
However, we have not seen any analysis of anti-terrorist's measures (how
more safe we are because of them, which are successfull, which not,
etc.). That is the problem.
> Please tell me how a police state will kill less people.
Actually it's simple - and not secret. State of law, transparency of
police, secret services and government, etc. All things we had few years
ago, and still have them "on a paper" (but not in reality anymore)...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 5175 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the tor-talk