4 ms·

Child exploitation content is an unfortunate canary in the coal mine for free speech. If a service or network is robust enough (in terms of censorship resistan

Child exploitation content is an unfortunate canary in the coal mine for free speech. If a service or network is robust enough (in terms of censorship resistance and anonymity) for them, then it will be good enough for you too. On the other hand, if whatever platform you are publishing to is free of this objectionable content, then yours isn't safe either.

semi-extrinsic 10y ago
I don't agree, and I don't think most people do either. The sane approach we would like is to have an internet where harmful and illegal content like child porn can be censored and the criminals behind it identified and prosecuted, but where legal forms of free speech are strongly protected from censorship. There isn't really a slipperly slope here. Very few forms of content are banned in this way, and the list is unanimously agreed upon and changes extremely infrequently. No one is trying to ban extreme-but-consensual-among-adults porn. No one is trying to ban extreme graphical violence. Etc. etc. The only area where there is a problem, as this case illustrates, is with copyright and trademarks. The correct solution to this problem is to implement more sane copyright laws, internet or not.
- jMyles 10y ago
  If it's possible for the arm of the law to reach particular speech, is that speech really free? We need an internet were speech isn't protected because the government blesses it and decides not to censor it. We need an internet where the government is wholly unable to censor it. Then we'll see what actual free speech looks like. ...and the matter of what speech is permissible is far from unanimous. The list of content that various governments deem taboo is enormous and growing. In the USA we have it much better than most places, but even here we have a very robust system of denial-of-service via DMCA and other legal means, including the trademark at issue here. There's little doubt in most people's minds that the kinds of actions that The Yes Men execute are protected by the first amendment, yet here we are.
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    Analogy: think of the police system. Yes, in a dysfunctional society, police can beat you up, demand bribes at random, even kill you. Yet we all agree that police do useful work. Is the correct solution to this problem to introduce a technical system where everyone can hide perfectly from the law if they spend some time and effort? Or is the correct solution to implement a system where the powers of the police are clearly and strictly limited and where the punishment for transgressions is severe?
    - jMyles 10y ago
      > we all agree that police do useful work. What a strange conclusion to which to jump. While I happen to agree that police are a benefit to society, their placement as a tool of the state is something that I hope to see changed, maybe even in my lifetime. Professional police are a very new thing in common law society; still in an experimental stage in my view. And with the emergence and eventual maturity of the internet, I (and I think many of us through the open source world) think that it's totally plausible that police-as-a-service-of-the-state will be judged to be more trouble than it's worth. > Is the correct solution to this problem to introduce a technical system where everyone can hide perfectly from the law if they spend some time and effort? We aren't talking about "hiding perfectly from the law," at least not if the law in question casts no shadow over speech based on its content. Being able to publish content without any possibility of destruction of that content seems, at least to me, an entirely orthogonal venture to that of exacting violence or theft of some kind (ie, the more natural implications of the law). If the state is made unable, in a physical and technological sense, to reach out and eliminate particular bytes-on-the-wire deemed illegitimate, I assert that the law will grow stronger, not weaker, precisely because we won't have to concern ourselves in the political realm about what to and not to censor.

semi-extrinsic 10y ago

I don't agree, and I don't think most people do either. The sane approach we would like is to have an internet where harmful and illegal content like child porn can be censored and the criminals behind it identified and prosecuted, but where legal forms of free speech are strongly protected from censorship. There isn't really a slipperly slope here. Very few forms of content are banned in this way, and the list is unanimously agreed upon and changes extremely infrequently. No one is trying to ban extreme-but-consensual-among-adults porn. No one is trying to ban extreme graphical violence. Etc. etc. The only area where there is a problem, as this case illustrates, is with copyright and trademarks. The correct solution to this problem is to implement more sane copyright laws, internet or not.

jMyles 10y ago
If it's possible for the arm of the law to reach particular speech, is that speech really free? We need an internet were speech isn't protected because the government blesses it and decides not to censor it. We need an internet where the government is wholly unable to censor it. Then we'll see what actual free speech looks like. ...and the matter of what speech is permissible is far from unanimous. The list of content that various governments deem taboo is enormous and growing. In the USA we have it much better than most places, but even here we have a very robust system of denial-of-service via DMCA and other legal means, including the trademark at issue here. There's little doubt in most people's minds that the kinds of actions that The Yes Men execute are protected by the first amendment, yet here we are.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  Analogy: think of the police system. Yes, in a dysfunctional society, police can beat you up, demand bribes at random, even kill you. Yet we all agree that police do useful work. Is the correct solution to this problem to introduce a technical system where everyone can hide perfectly from the law if they spend some time and effort? Or is the correct solution to implement a system where the powers of the police are clearly and strictly limited and where the punishment for transgressions is severe?
  - jMyles 10y ago
    > we all agree that police do useful work. What a strange conclusion to which to jump. While I happen to agree that police are a benefit to society, their placement as a tool of the state is something that I hope to see changed, maybe even in my lifetime. Professional police are a very new thing in common law society; still in an experimental stage in my view. And with the emergence and eventual maturity of the internet, I (and I think many of us through the open source world) think that it's totally plausible that police-as-a-service-of-the-state will be judged to be more trouble than it's worth. > Is the correct solution to this problem to introduce a technical system where everyone can hide perfectly from the law if they spend some time and effort? We aren't talking about "hiding perfectly from the law," at least not if the law in question casts no shadow over speech based on its content. Being able to publish content without any possibility of destruction of that content seems, at least to me, an entirely orthogonal venture to that of exacting violence or theft of some kind (ie, the more natural implications of the law). If the state is made unable, in a physical and technological sense, to reach out and eliminate particular bytes-on-the-wire deemed illegitimate, I assert that the law will grow stronger, not weaker, precisely because we won't have to concern ourselves in the political realm about what to and not to censor.