4 ms·

Why "Future"? It's the present. None of the most popular websites supports free speech, in the sense that they will not censor anything legal for them to distr

• moron4hire 11y ago
  Child pornography is not free speech. Free speech is not "say whatever you want."
  • bruceb 11y ago
    Child pornography is not quite the same as saying something. You could say you support child pornography and create stories about it. Just not create it with actual children. Yes free speech is "say whatever you want" What do you think it should be?
  • tomp 11y ago
    I'm not sure parent was referring to pornography, but to countless examples of sites like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit censoring information that they find inconvenient (e.g. the fappening, r/fatpeoplehate, etc.). > Free speech is not "say whatever you want." Parent clearly defines "free speech" as "they will not censor anything legal", which the websites above unfortunately don't follow. > Child pornography is not free speech. Ironically, in many jurisdictions "child pornography" includes virtual child pornography and cartoons, which any sensible person would say should be free (we can see movies depicting children getting murdered, people getting decapitated and women getting raped, but not of 17 year olds having sex?!?)
    • RaleyField 11y ago
      > Reddit censoring information that they find inconvenient (e.g. the fappening, r/fatpeoplehate, etc.) Calling it information is being generous. As a private entity they simply don't have to suffer that speech. Fappening is probably illegal, and even if it were not it would be an acceptable courtesy call to remove it. Fatpeoplehate was about moderators harassing employees of imgur.
  • tiglathphilizar 11y ago
    Free speech is just that FREE even if others consider what a individual says distasteful.If it wasn't for FREE Speech there would have been no civil rights movement. David Finkelhor, a sociologist who directs the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, sees the moral weight of the law , but not the empirical proof. “The evidence doesn’t yet tell us to what extent the experience of being a pornography victim aggravates the experience of the sexual abuse itself. How do you separate it out?”. What the law says is equivalent to aying voodoo is real. No one has to actually commit a crime they just have a look at an image or have a thought and they are guilty of the crime. A person that observes a digital image that has no form or life then through osmosis gives those images or objects a legal force, a power, is practicing voo-doo. To make things easy judges have allowed government prosecutors use of those unseen images in a computer file that have nor hold no power to communicate in the courtroom. Before long, the people are ensnared by the compulsion to give power to a thing of their own definition. www.truthmovement.us