4 ms·

In what democratic discourse are child porn traders engaged in? Protest over age-of-consent laws? The idea that some particular speech is protected in the inte

In what democratic discourse are child porn traders engaged in? Protest over age-of-consent laws? The idea that some particular speech is protected in the interests of democracy does not mean that all speech is in the democratic interest.

jlgreco 14y ago
Right, because facilitating that is the only reason someone might want to operate a Tor exit node.... The relationship between speech, particularly political speech if the distinction matters to you, and Tor should be plain.
- jessedhillon 14y ago
  Child porn is not a legitimate exercise of the first amendment anymore than shooting sprees are a legitimate exercise of the second amendment. The government has a legitimate interest in stopping such speech, just as it has a legitimate interest in prevent sprees. So far, the people on your side of the argument have only been able to draw lines in the sand and insist that ISPs and exit nodes are the same. They, and presumably you, claim without justification that "bad" speech cannot be pursued without chilling "good" speech. Your comment adds no real world understanding of this fact: people don't want child porn to be traded over the Internet. Your case that political speech cannot be free unless child porn is free, is uncompelling and lacks nuance.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    > Child porn is not a legitimate exercise of the first amendment >They, and presumably you, claim without justification that "bad" speech cannot be pursued without chilling "good" speech. > Your case that political speech cannot be free unless child porn is free, Sigh. Yet another senseless, dangerous, and borderline libellous misrepresentation. Allow me to strongly state this in no ambiguous terms: I do not oppose laws banning the production, distribution, or possession of child pornography. People who participate in any of those acts should be arrested and given a fair trial by a jury of their peers. I support these laws. I am not, IN ANY WAY, saying, suggesting, or attempting to appear as though I am suggesting, that I think child pornography is protected speech. Is this clear now? What I am arguing [snip] Edit: You know what? Forget it. I am not participating in this discussion at the risk of being so thoroughly misunderstood. Not with this topic. It is not worth it.
    - jessedhillon 14y ago
      Well, you started off with such a contemptuous and condescending tone, but you missed a crucial distinction: nobody is saying that you don't support outlawing child porn, the question is whether or not you prioritize the preservation of hypothetical free speech (the case where speech is so constrained that Tor is the only/best avenue for free speech) over the enforcement of the laws which you feel compelled to declare support for. So, less yelling, less sanctimonious wailing over how you're so misunderstood -- say how you think your priority of theoretical free speech isn't a de facto endorsement for transmission of child porn.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        Endorsing it? What the hell? I support the reasonable enforcement of the law. You accuse me of endorsing illegal activities for throwing in the word "reasonable"? I am not defending myself further against your absurd and vile allegations.
        jessedhillon 14y ago
        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto I'm not saying you support it, I'm saying your position has the effect of defending or perpetuating its mode of transmission.
        jlgreco 14y ago
        It does not have the effect of defending, nor the effect of endorsing. It does have the effect of meaning that some bad guys will get away, but that is how we as a society have agreed that our justice system should work. This is not a de facto defence of crime, nor endorsement. Imagine how much easier catching bad guys would be if we did not require warrants before searches. Would you accuse someone who insisted that warrants were necessary of in effect endorsing or defending crime? This is the real world, not a cop movie. We don't get to catch all the bad guys, and we don't get to break the rules to try to catch all the bad guys. Recognition of this reality is neither a de facto defence nor a de facto endorsement of crime. People calling for proper conduct and moderated response to crime are not, unlike the internal affairs guys or judges who throw out cases for technicalities in movies, secondary antagonists. I don't mind if you disagree with me when I say that in this case there is a line that should not be crossed without great care. That is a statement of opinion. Justice is an imprecise art, disagreement is to be expected. What I do have an issue with is you accusing me of endorsing or defending the crime, in a "de facto" manner or otherwise. I simply am not, and with this particular crime allegations like these can be incredibly damaging. It is not a joke to me, I have to take it seriously.
e12e 14y ago
In what democratic discourse are child porn traders engaged in? Protest over age-of-consent laws? I don't think that is as clear cut as you make it out to be. But yes, child porn, hate speech and a few other things might not be "essential for democratic discourse". I'm still not convinced censorship is the best tool to help fight the underlying problems. And I do believe the underlying problems (hate, violence, in some cases mental disease) should be dealt with -- I'm unconvinced the media files actually do much harm on their own -- due to the nature of their contents in general. Now we need laws to limit speech that attacks and harms people (such as being able to prevent people from (legally) distributing pictures and film on the Internet against our will) -- and it is natural that government does that on behalf of those that are not adult and/or have guardians that can do it for them. But there is a difference between that, and a blanket ban on media based on the imagery contained within. Child porn would at least be relevant as evidence in a trial, and possibly (with victims not recognizable) in media cover of such a trial.

jlgreco 14y ago

Right, because facilitating that is the only reason someone might want to operate a Tor exit node.... The relationship between speech, particularly political speech if the distinction matters to you, and Tor should be plain.

jessedhillon 14y ago
Child porn is not a legitimate exercise of the first amendment anymore than shooting sprees are a legitimate exercise of the second amendment. The government has a legitimate interest in stopping such speech, just as it has a legitimate interest in prevent sprees. So far, the people on your side of the argument have only been able to draw lines in the sand and insist that ISPs and exit nodes are the same. They, and presumably you, claim without justification that "bad" speech cannot be pursued without chilling "good" speech. Your comment adds no real world understanding of this fact: people don't want child porn to be traded over the Internet. Your case that political speech cannot be free unless child porn is free, is uncompelling and lacks nuance.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  > Child porn is not a legitimate exercise of the first amendment >They, and presumably you, claim without justification that "bad" speech cannot be pursued without chilling "good" speech. > Your case that political speech cannot be free unless child porn is free, Sigh. Yet another senseless, dangerous, and borderline libellous misrepresentation. Allow me to strongly state this in no ambiguous terms: I do not oppose laws banning the production, distribution, or possession of child pornography. People who participate in any of those acts should be arrested and given a fair trial by a jury of their peers. I support these laws. I am not, IN ANY WAY, saying, suggesting, or attempting to appear as though I am suggesting, that I think child pornography is protected speech. Is this clear now? What I am arguing [snip] Edit: You know what? Forget it. I am not participating in this discussion at the risk of being so thoroughly misunderstood. Not with this topic. It is not worth it.
  - jessedhillon 14y ago
    Well, you started off with such a contemptuous and condescending tone, but you missed a crucial distinction: nobody is saying that you don't support outlawing child porn, the question is whether or not you prioritize the preservation of hypothetical free speech (the case where speech is so constrained that Tor is the only/best avenue for free speech) over the enforcement of the laws which you feel compelled to declare support for. So, less yelling, less sanctimonious wailing over how you're so misunderstood -- say how you think your priority of theoretical free speech isn't a de facto endorsement for transmission of child porn.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Endorsing it? What the hell? I support the reasonable enforcement of the law. You accuse me of endorsing illegal activities for throwing in the word "reasonable"? I am not defending myself further against your absurd and vile allegations.
      - jessedhillon 14y ago
        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto I'm not saying you support it, I'm saying your position has the effect of defending or perpetuating its mode of transmission.
        jlgreco 14y ago
        It does not have the effect of defending, nor the effect of endorsing. It does have the effect of meaning that some bad guys will get away, but that is how we as a society have agreed that our justice system should work. This is not a de facto defence of crime, nor endorsement. Imagine how much easier catching bad guys would be if we did not require warrants before searches. Would you accuse someone who insisted that warrants were necessary of in effect endorsing or defending crime? This is the real world, not a cop movie. We don't get to catch all the bad guys, and we don't get to break the rules to try to catch all the bad guys. Recognition of this reality is neither a de facto defence nor a de facto endorsement of crime. People calling for proper conduct and moderated response to crime are not, unlike the internal affairs guys or judges who throw out cases for technicalities in movies, secondary antagonists. I don't mind if you disagree with me when I say that in this case there is a line that should not be crossed without great care. That is a statement of opinion. Justice is an imprecise art, disagreement is to be expected. What I do have an issue with is you accusing me of endorsing or defending the crime, in a "de facto" manner or otherwise. I simply am not, and with this particular crime allegations like these can be incredibly damaging. It is not a joke to me, I have to take it seriously.

e12e 14y ago

In what democratic discourse are child porn traders engaged in? Protest over age-of-consent laws? I don't think that is as clear cut as you make it out to be. But yes, child porn, hate speech and a few other things might not be "essential for democratic discourse". I'm still not convinced censorship is the best tool to help fight the underlying problems. And I do believe the underlying problems (hate, violence, in some cases mental disease) should be dealt with -- I'm unconvinced the media files actually do much harm on their own -- due to the nature of their contents in general. Now we need laws to limit speech that attacks and harms people (such as being able to prevent people from (legally) distributing pictures and film on the Internet against our will) -- and it is natural that government does that on behalf of those that are not adult and/or have guardians that can do it for them. But there is a difference between that, and a blanket ban on media based on the imagery contained within. Child porn would at least be relevant as evidence in a trial, and possibly (with victims not recognizable) in media cover of such a trial.