On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 04:29:57PM +1200, David McNab wrote:
> > > So my question to you David, is do we actually need the ability to
> > > _anonymously_ distribute images to achieve any of the things you are
> > > talking about? Or would _anonymous_ distribution of text do just as
> > > well?
>
> If you're against the ability to distribute pictures and other multimedia on
> *this* point-2-point networking platform, then you're perfectly welcome to
> go off and build your own text-only point2point network.
>
> With such total freedom and control, you can build in logic to detect and
> suppress uu-encoded media.
> You can even censor out naughty keywords like 'fuck' and 'cunt' and 'felch'
> and cum.
> You can even ban the word 'sex', unless a grammatical analysis shows the
> word being used in a strictly gender sense.
>
> We wish you luck with your new, clean, anonymous text-only p2p network.
In addition, why would we want to create a p2p network designed to
keep people from transmitting images and such just because someone
could use it to transmit kiddie porn. And why would we even try to
block kiddie porn?! As other people have also said, kiddie porn may
almost be a good thing because without out it those people who would
view it would instead molest children, and therefore MORE sexual
abuse/exploitation of children would result.
Finally, trying to block out kiddie porn helps send us down the
slippery slope of censorshop - even the smallest amount of censorship
helps make it easier to impose further censorship which in turn helps
make it easier to impose further censorship... You get the picture.
--
Yes, I know my enemies.
They're the teachers who tell me to fight me.
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance,
hypocrisy, brutality, the elite.
All of which are American dreams.
- Rage Against The Machine
PGP signature
