Re: "Freedom of speech" hypocrisy
James Buchanan <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.freenet.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Matthew Toseland wrote: > You are saying that there is no professional child porn market? So all > the stuff I get in my inbox advertising russian juveniles involved in > depraved acts is bogus? I find that difficult to believe. Yes, I would say so. If you haven't ordered any, how do you know? They are most likely police stings. The police have the largest collection of child porn, which they use for that purpose (supposedly). > People get off on all sorts of things. I suggest that most of the above > is in fact illegal, if it involves children. The US courts have held > that there need not be nudity for an image of a child to be > pornographic. And many depraved activities which some freenet sites > appear by their titles to depict are surely pornographic that do not > involve the above. Because they are LEGAL. You can have murder but not touchy-feely? I find that bizarre! > All I am saying is: > > 1. If they get it from Freenet, they probably aren't paying for it. This > is by no means an iron-clad guarantee that it won't eventually result in > revenues for professional child pornographers. Where are the professional child pornographers? The clap-trap and hoo-ha about child porn is vastly overstated and disproportionate to the actual harm it causes and the amount of it that exists. _______________________________________________ chat mailing list [email protected] Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe