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

[Sam Joseph]

Again compiliing responses: David McNab Wrote: > From: "Sam Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ... I still won't want to run a Freenet node for fear of being party to > > distributing child porn, and I think there are a lot of people like me, > > maybe not on this mailing list, but they are out there, and busily > > not using Freenet nodes for just this reason. > We see here the power of 'spin'. > Such rhetoric could earn a nice fee from a news publisher as the basis of a > sensational story. > Most average people consuming such spin, especially if they haven't yet > heard of Freenet, will immediately form the prejudice that Freenet and its > supporters are dedicated to protecting child pornographers. Yeah, thanks David. I was really hoping that you might actually address the question that I was asking, about whether _anonymous_ distribution of images was necessary to support free speech, or even to help child abusers work through their problems. Thanks for making the point about spin. You'll notice that I'm not publishing this statement about Freenet, which I could easily do. If I wanted to create a sensationalist story it would be no problem and I could sell lots of magazines, however,that's not my objective. My reasons for not wanting to run a freenet node are my own, and are real and are not some attempt to generate spin. I saw what I took for child porn on freegle's latest additions, and it made me post to this mailing list. I'm not intending to create some kind of spin. I wanted to try and come to terms with my own issues, but I have yet to have a reply that has helped me move forward on this. Kris van Hulle wrote: > > > 1) UU-encode means there will always be binary data. See usenet > > > > Yeah, I heard you the first time. You don't think that UU-encoded > > documents could be filtered? Maybe you don't want to do that, fair > > enough, but don't tell me it can't be done without giving it some > > thought. English text has statisical properties not found in UU-encoded > > text. It could be filtered. > > > Um, I was under the impression that all data (text, etc..) on freenet > is encrypted - how the hell are you going to implement a language > filter on that ? If you wanted to filter it you could do it at the nodes when people inserted stuff. I'm not recommending doing it, I'm just trying to discuss what is possible. > ps: for the record, i'm against filtering of any kind, since it defeats > the entire purpose of freenet fair enough. I am not for or against filtering, I am just trying to get an answer to the question do we need to have _anonymous_ distribution of _images_ in order to support free speech. Or would just anonymous text do? But I think I will probably give up now as no one seems to want to address that question and I have other things demanding my time. CHEERS> SAM _______________________________________________ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat