3 ms·

I have to take the hit for this.. Really? Think of the children? Why do discussions about censorship always lead to a) child pornography b) family matters (i

I have to take the hit for this.. Really? Think of the children? Why do discussions about censorship always lead to a) child pornography b) family matters (imagine your children / your wife) I may very well be stupid, but I cannot understand how these kinds of arguments make any sense. First of all I agree with other commenters: I think your examples are not helping to convice me that this bill makes sense. There's no harm sharing/printing even the kind of links you point out. Second I fail to understand how this artifical sample helps justifying the bill. If you think that there are ~some~ edge cases where your moral value supports this bill, then it should be restricted to these specific areas. Get a law that bans child pornography. I'm suprised you don't have one yet... And last but not least: Reducing a discussion to this kind of dilemma ('Are you supporting the bill or supporting child pornography') is very irritating and a somewhat annoying trend.

edanm 15y ago
"I think your examples are not helping to convice me that this bill makes sense. " I think I was pretty unclear with my original post. My point wasn't to defend the bill. I think the bill is ridiculous. My point (which I guess I made very poorly) was that the parent's arguments only sound silly because people here already disagreed with the bill. I was trying to say, "If the topic were something that isn't already a contested issue, then the parent's arguments wouldn't work. They only work because people already agree". I was worried about bringing up murder and child pornography, which is why I added the footnote stating these were not equivalent. I'll answer the only thing in your post which wasn't about the bill (since I wasn't talking about it): "There's no harm sharing/printing even the kind of links you point out." I disagree. As others have pointed out, it's probably already illegal to some degree (e.g., if I give you the phone number of a hitman, knowing that you plan to use his services, I can probably be arrested as an accomplice. This is the same thing). "And last but not least: Reducing a discussion to this kind of dilemma ('Are you supporting the bill or supporting child pornography') is very irritating and a somewhat annoying trend" I hate this as well, but I wasn't doing that in the least. Sorry it came off that way.

edanm 15y ago

"I think your examples are not helping to convice me that this bill makes sense. " I think I was pretty unclear with my original post. My point wasn't to defend the bill. I think the bill is ridiculous. My point (which I guess I made very poorly) was that the parent's arguments only sound silly because people here already disagreed with the bill. I was trying to say, "If the topic were something that isn't already a contested issue, then the parent's arguments wouldn't work. They only work because people already agree". I was worried about bringing up murder and child pornography, which is why I added the footnote stating these were not equivalent. I'll answer the only thing in your post which wasn't about the bill (since I wasn't talking about it): "There's no harm sharing/printing even the kind of links you point out." I disagree. As others have pointed out, it's probably already illegal to some degree (e.g., if I give you the phone number of a hitman, knowing that you plan to use his services, I can probably be arrested as an accomplice. This is the same thing). "And last but not least: Reducing a discussion to this kind of dilemma ('Are you supporting the bill or supporting child pornography') is very irritating and a somewhat annoying trend" I hate this as well, but I wasn't doing that in the least. Sorry it came off that way.