Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)

[Sam Joseph]

David McNab wrote: > The subject of child porn on Freenet throws me personally > into an interesting position. On one hand, I passionately share > the sentiments of totally supporting free expression. > But on the other hand, my wife and I jointly operate a respected > psychotherapy practice, and are responsible for training and > evaluation of other practitioners. > Child abuse has plagued society for at least many thousands of years. > From our exhaustive research into the subject, one of the principal factors > that perpetuates child abuse is suppression and secrecy. > In other words, suppressive measures such as censorship actually > encourage child abuse! Okay. I think I understand your point, and I agree that suppressing emotional pain can lead to abuse, but I think it is important to make a distinction between different kinds of repression. > In conclusion, I want to say that Freenet can in no way be held accountable > for perpetuating abuse of children. if anything, Freenet will have a role > in healing such abuse. Really? Is the widespread availability of child pornography actually important in allowing people to recover from their own abuse? I'm not saying it isn't, it just seems to me that we might want to be protecting the rights of those being abused as well as protecting the right of free speech. > Abuse of children is actually perpetuated by every man and woman who passes > moral judgement on others. > By every man and woman who pretends to be happy while suppressing their own > emotional pain (and expects others to do the same). > Abuse of children is especially perpetuated by those who advocate censorship > and other forms of suppression and punishment. So if I am suggesting that it is not such a good idea to make child porn available anonymously then I am perpetuating child abuse? I mean, maybe you are saying that in order for the child abusers to heal themselves, they need to be able to distribute and consume child pornography with total freedom? Maybe you are right. I am having difficulty putting my finger on it, but it feels like there should be some better approach. I am sure that psychotherapy for child abusers, as opposed to punishment, would be far more effective. I share that opinion on a number of subjects. Drug addicts, in my opinion, should not be treated as criminals, but as people with a medical condition who need help and support, the same goes for child abusers. In my initial mail, I was not suggesting that we try and repress feelings or censor ideas. I was just wondering if we could promote free speech, while not distributing child porn at the same time. Maybe you are saying it is okay to distribute child porn, because trying to censor it would lead to greater abuse of children, but I can't quite follow the logic of it. Seems to me that we need to work towards promoting open discussion of ideas on child porn, and child abusers (such as we are seeing here today) as opposed to the open distribution of actual child pornography. If Freenet allows an "above-the-law" distribution system for child pornography, can't all the people who see it and enjoy it start asking their friends to post more and more pictures on Freenet. Doesn't it's wide availability provide an incentive for people to consume it and demand more. Fine for anything else, but children will be abused in its production (and okay, that is assuming it is hard core stuff, right? - see other branch of this thread for more discussion on what is and isn't child abuse) I'm totally open to the possibility that I'm wrong on all counts, so let's discuss this further. CHEERS> SAM _______________________________________________ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat