2 ms·

If I understand correctly, you're claiming that we must not censor child pornography? Isn't prosecution a form of censorship anyways? I think what you're sa

If I understand correctly, you're claiming that we __must not__ censor child pornography? Isn't prosecution a form of censorship anyways? I think what you're saying is a textbook example of a slippery slope fallacy.

leesalminen 6y ago
Following the law is a slippery slope? I’m pretty sure the parent is saying that because child pornography is explicitly illegal, it can (and should) be censored.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  I believe this is the same logic being used to sensor covid deniers, false cures, and fraudulent election crackpots like our last president. The latter type of lie incites people to insurrection and riles up violence, the other two cause people to do things that may kill themselves or others.
  - leesalminen 6y ago
    Last time I checked no court of law had convicted the former President of any criminal offense. So, no, I don’t see how that logic was used to censor him. Same for false cures to diseases, nobody imprisons pseudoscience witch doctors for recommending vitamins to cure cancer. (Maybe if they claimed to be a medical doctor?) If that were so, I know of a half dozen people in Boulder that would’ve been in jail by now. Certainly no court had convicted any of these people of a crime prior to censorship. So, as far as I can tell, these people had been censored without having committed (or at least convicted of) a crime.
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      He got off on a technicality. Even many of those that voted not to convict said that they thought he was guilty. They just didn't think they could convict a non-sitting president. False cures for diseases, yes, people absolutely go to jail or receive massive fines. Sometimes on charges of fraud, sometimes on charges of endangerment. If your fake cure doesn't actually do harm (and is just useless) then you can usually get away with it. A quick google search will show you multiple stories about criminal charges for fake covid cures.

If I understand correctly, you're claiming that we __must not__ censor child pornography? Isn't prosecution a form of censorship anyways? I think what you're sa

leesalminen 6y ago

Following the law is a slippery slope? I’m pretty sure the parent is saying that because child pornography is explicitly illegal, it can (and should) be censored.

jjeaff 6y ago
I believe this is the same logic being used to sensor covid deniers, false cures, and fraudulent election crackpots like our last president. The latter type of lie incites people to insurrection and riles up violence, the other two cause people to do things that may kill themselves or others.
- leesalminen 6y ago
  Last time I checked no court of law had convicted the former President of any criminal offense. So, no, I don’t see how that logic was used to censor him. Same for false cures to diseases, nobody imprisons pseudoscience witch doctors for recommending vitamins to cure cancer. (Maybe if they claimed to be a medical doctor?) If that were so, I know of a half dozen people in Boulder that would’ve been in jail by now. Certainly no court had convicted any of these people of a crime prior to censorship. So, as far as I can tell, these people had been censored without having committed (or at least convicted of) a crime.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    He got off on a technicality. Even many of those that voted not to convict said that they thought he was guilty. They just didn't think they could convict a non-sitting president. False cures for diseases, yes, people absolutely go to jail or receive massive fines. Sometimes on charges of fraud, sometimes on charges of endangerment. If your fake cure doesn't actually do harm (and is just useless) then you can usually get away with it. A quick google search will show you multiple stories about criminal charges for fake covid cures.