Re:Oh and I forgot to address part of your argueme
on
Freenet 0.5.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
No, I haven't raped any women lately.. However, you could just ask my girlfriend and she'd probably tell you how much I hit on her and talk about sex. The thing here is, she's an adult woman capable of making informed decisions, and I'm rational, fairly mentally sound, and respectful of her so I know when to back off. My point was that people view what they want to to, as I'm sure a rapist would probably enjoy rape porn more than something I might like. Don't forget either, pedophiles are *sick* and are not capable of rational decision under circumstances when they might possibly have the chance to assert authority over children.
I'm all for punishing people who actually commit crimes, the ones who lack self control must be put in prison because they lack self control. Looking at pictures however doesnt prove they lack self control and in my opinion just viewing it shouldnt be a crime. Actions should be a crime. IF you put the pictures on the network this is an action, if you view it, thats not really an action.
I don't feel as if there is any good reason to protect these people in the name of free speech. No, the internet doesn't teach them to be pedophiles.. What I'm saying is it's like.. Cops pulling people over for a minor violation and finding out that the person is in a stolen vehicle or that the person has outstanding warrants. Even if you don't want to incarcerate someone for viewing child porn, do you not understand that getting a mental disturbed person help before they can harm anyone will do good?
We arent protecting pedophiles, you think pedophiles care about free speech? Pedophiles are going to rape and abuse children either way.
. Even if you don't want to incarcerate someone for viewing child porn, do you not understand that getting a mental disturbed person help before they can harm anyone will do good?
Yes but I'm not the one to judge someone as mentally disturbed just because they view pictures which I think are weird.
I think it takes more than just viewing the pictures to be labeled a pedophile, you need a history of ACTIONS toward children.
We can agree to disagree I suppose, I just can't imagine you being okay and excusing people's actions in the name of free speech instead of being for getting them help.. (if nothing else..)
Either you support free speech or you dont, just like the taliban and china are selective about which free speech they support, so are Americans I guess.
I think hate groups are as bad if not worse than kiddie porn, should they be banned from the net? Should people who view the websites be put in jail? whats your opinion on this?
Hate has done more harm to society than any other form of communication. Hate is the cause of all wars, millions of deaths, and could be responsible for humanities self destruction. Its responsible for 911, columbine, slavery/racism, etc.
Theres alot of things on the net right now which most people dont agree with but its legal. If you ban kiddie porn because its something you dont agree with, can I then ban hate speech because I dont agree with it?
Oh and I forgot to address part of your arguement
on
Freenet 0.5.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Straight people look at straight porn, gay people look at gay porn, and pedophiles look at child porn. A curious person may take a glance at something different once or twice, but it takes a lot more than a curiousity to view mass amounts of child pornography. You view it because you like it, it's MENTAL DISORDER.. We are not talking about sane, rational people.. The bridge from viewing to creating is not a big one!
Ok so your arguement is, vast amounts of childporn are bad? How much is vast amounts?
The bridge from viewing to creating is not a big one! I mean, I'm sure there's some model or actress.
This is debateable. You view straight porn, have you raped any women lately?
The difference between children and adults, adults can legally sign a contract to allow you to take these pictures, the pedophiles however are taking pictures of kids who cannot sign such contracts. These pedophiles are like the people who put cameras in bathrooms to spy on people, and who record rapes.
The pictures are wrong, but what gives you or anyone the right to try to control the internet just to stop some pictures from being viewed?
You have a good arguement here but once again no proof.
I keep telling you, you cannot have partial freedom. If this is what you want, you are no different than the chinese,the soviets, the iraqis, sure they had MOST of the freedoms we had, but not true freedom. The Iraqis cover their women up, they dont believe in taking pictures, and so on, people in other countries actually believe that by covering women up (censoring them), that it will prevent women from being abused or raped.
However
I'm not saying we can have true freedom in the physical world, in the physical world people get hurt when you have true freedom, but we are talking about the metaphysical world. The internet is not the physical world and should not be treated like the physical world. The internet is a world of expression and speech, a world where thoughts are shared. When you attempt to regulate mass conciousness which is the internet, it begins to go down the slippery slope, what next? when we create the brain to computer interface will thoughts be illegal?
I don't propose it'll stop child abuse entirely, but the fact is.. By getting these freaks off the streets, punishing them for their crimes, and then putting them on treatment for their illness while alerting those around them.. I'd bet my life that more children will be saved. This is called a pre-emptive strike against child abusers. This is the worst kind of crime and does not need any type of protecting. I know that one day if you do have children you'll understand.
Yes but the abuse happens in the physical world not on the internet. Why should we try to apply the offline physical rules to the internet when you know it cant work? You know we cant track down every person who ever views a kiddie porn picture, its impossible and its pointless to even try. The best we can do is prevent people from putting it on the net. I treat the net as a zone where there is no government, because this is how the net was intended to be when it was designed. It was not designed so a government can censor it, take it down or control it. Theres only really two options, you must choose one, you support government control of the internet, or you support anarchy on the net.
I support anarchy on the net. I think the way to stop people from sharing mp3s, or putting kiddie porn on the net, is to prevent people from uploading it to freenet or on the internet in the first place, have ISP's scan stuff for all I care, but its not possible or realistic to think you can sue people for possession of bits, 1s and 0s, its impossible and you know it.
I don't want to hide the world from anything, I want the pedophiles to get treatment so they don't commit atrocities against young children. Which in my opinion can be a fate worse than death, having to live with that garbage for the rest of your life. I also don't believe for one second that it's harder to catch them in the real world. You go ask a cop that's on a taskforce specifically made for combatting this sort of thing, they'll tell you the internet has made it HARDER to get these people since they can trade it so anonymously.
The internet is just a communications device. Restricting communication does not make it any easier or harder to capture criminals. If you take away bin ladens cellphone he will use something else and then we will have no way to even know h e exists.
Online we know pedophiles exist and to what degree they exist, we can watch them and at least attempt to figure out how their operations work so we can set up traps and sting operations.
Offline theres no way to catch them if they for example move into the deep forest or rural town and rape their daughter or cousins and trade the pictures, how are you supposed to catch them? Driving them underground does not make them easier to catch or stop.
. It's generally easier to follow local leads on this sort of thing, nail everyone you can and then flip them so you can find the sources and nail them harder. When you do it online it's hard to find the source. In any ca
I never said childporn was "speech" I said the pictures are speech.
When you take the physical pictures and abuse children this is not speech, when you put these pictures in the digital form it becomes speech.
1s and 0s are speech, binary is speech, source code is speech. Everything online is 1s and 0s.
Childporn is rape and abuse. Please note, viewing isn't the issue anymore than hearing is the issue with speech. Storing childporn ANYWHERE should be illegal because possession is illegal.
Yes but thats not a very realistic law for the online world. I can understand you saying possession of physical pictures is illegal, you can track them down and destroy them, the internet is not the same. You cant even stop people from storing mp3s, you can forget about trying to sue everyone who looks at kiddie porn. And yes anything you look at online you posess, so you can see already how fair the possesion law is.
If you think that's about freedom of expression, you're insane. You said yourself it isn't art. The government's job is to protect its citizens, especially the young ones who can't protect themselves, and quite frankly, I'd gladly accept censorship in order to ensure the safety and welfare of my future stepdaughter.
The protection in the real world I agree with, online is not the physical world, I do not believe online should have a government.
I will not accept any censorship on the net, I want absolute freedom of expression online, this is why I'm for P2P, this is why I support open source, and this is why I support freenet.
Child Porn is bad, but you must understand that if you are going to take the position that freedom of speech is right, and that censorship online is wrong, it must be absolute.
Despite what you say, binary IS speech. Its the number system, its written language. The speech should not be outlawed, the physical objects should be outlawed, meaning whoever took the pictures should be arrested and their pictures should be destroyed.
Voting against someone who can beat Bush is also voting for principle. If you dont like how Bush is doing you vote for whoever his competition is. You in theory are voting Bush out.
I mentally like to kind of think of this as common sense, which seems to be lacking by many these days. If you are trying to make the argument that the libertarian vote doesn't count, then you should perhaps consider not showing up to vote at all, and then let us see who's vote counted more. Your absent (non vote) or our actual real vote.
Or you can vote because you dont like Bush.
The libertarian party is a real party, we have real votes, and real people in office, folks that care about this country and the constitution. Now regarding the actual vote I cast, for Bush, Yeah, I did vote for Bush and I will explain why. Brown did not have a Vice President, this country needs to have both President, and Vice President, I didn't vote for Brown because it would have been wrong. I didn't vote for Gore because that would have be Waaaaaay Wrong.
Well now its time to vote for President and voting Libertarian means you arent voting for Bush's competition. This means you dont truely want a new president.
Bush is not a conservative, you are a Libertarian should want him out. Bush is what I call a national socialist, he gives welfare to the third world, but not to his own people.
Its not about the laws, thats local politics. When it comes to national politics as in whos President, I think we should all know by now, that Bush is not doing a good job.
Of course not! However, a knife serves multiple purposes, from the cook to the surgeon to the average household. Child porn really does not serve any purpose does it? To a psyche evaluating a pedophile perhaps, but obviously someone like that is different from the weirdos and would have an acceptable reason to view, to an extent at least. I never said we should go out and ban Freenet because people can use it to transfer porn, for the same reason I don't want gimp, xview, paint, or cameras to be banned. This is not an all or nothing situation, we as a society are generally capable of banning one thing without a million others. What I will give you though, is that politicians sometimes try to disguise other motives by saying please think of the children. We have to stop these kinds of politicians by not voting (or voting) for them, making their true motives known, and of course by mailing the hell out of them with complaints and signed petitions.
Freedom of speech is all or nothing. If you censor childporn you dont truely believe in freedom of speech.
You cannot have freedom with censorship. Its all or nothing.
Also there ARE people who like viewing dead bodies and who actually get sexually excited from it.
You have to understand, that you cannot protect all of humanity by banning something on freenet. In fact it will do nothing to stop kids from being abused, freenet is just a place where abusers will store their images.
Anyway I dont feel your censorship method is the way to stop child abuse. You can hide the world from the abusers, but abusers will trade photos and movies in the real world and you'll have an even harder time of catching them.
Ever hear of NAMBLA? I'm serious, just because you and I see it as an evil disgusting thing, it can seem very normal to a person who's screwed up in the head..
Yes but we shouldnt outlaw the knife just because a crazy person might get a hold of it. Theres so many useful things a knife can do in the hands of a sane person.
Perhaps I'm missing something in this debate though.. I'm just against both the provider and the viewer of this kind of trash.. I don't want Freenet to die or anything, I'm just arguing that one point.
The viewer is not always "BAD", the viewer might view it by mistake while looking at normal porn. You know how the net is, its too easy to accidently view stuff.
So the viewer is debateable, the producer however is not debateable, anyone who creates this stuff is evil.
But I cant really say the same for the viewer, I know people who view stuff at rotten.com and who might look at a snuff film if it were on freenet, but this person isnt creating it, they just look at it because its there.
So if you put something on freenet and people look at it, its like leaving a dead body in public, people are going to look at it, but if you think you can track down and arrest everyone who looks at it, you are wasting your time.
The only way to solve this is to prevent it from being created. In Japan for example, about 80 percent of the porn seem to be young girl/older guy type porn. While this porn is only anime and you cannot say any real harm is done, the viewers of this are not automatically evil, weird maybe, but not evil.
Kiddie porn will be viewed by weird people, but I dont think its wise to say every weird person is automatically "evil".
I think we both agree mostly, I just dont agree with ANY form of censorship. I think distribution on the net should be something no entity has control over, I believe if something is put online that no one should be able to remove it.
That includes me, if someone puts me online without my permission yes I want to sue them, but I'm not going to sue every single person who views or distributes it.
I just dont agree with the whole information ownership concept, and I dont agree with the copyright or censorship concept.
The question is, how does more people viewing the pictures encourage the picture takers to take more pictures? The picture takers dont take the pictures for YOU to view them, they take the pictures so THEY can either view them or sell them.
If they back them up on freenet, it doesnt matter if no one views it but them, or if everyone views it.
When people like your work? You consider taking pictures of nude children work? Its not art, its not work, its porn.
I dont think a distributor of porn, especially porn of this type can consider themself some kinda artist. This is a person who is selfish, rapists by nature are selfish, so its illogical for someone like this who doesnt give a damn about the child they exploit and rape, to suddenly care about all these viewers of their work, which by the way on freenet you never have any idea who or how many actually view your work.
It just doesnt make since, theres no logic. I mean sure its logical for someone like us to share, but murderers, rapists and thieves are selfish, they are doing these things because they only think about themselves, they want to get off and they dont care about you, me, the kids, or anything else but themselves.
Music is totally different, people who share music and who create music may not be selfish by nature, because music is art, music doesnt harm anyone, music brings joy to the world etc etc, everyone benefits from music and no ones hurt, so when someone shares music they can feel its morally right.
Kiddie porn is not the same. Neither is snuff films, rape films, or any other material.
But I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, if you can find some evidence proving that some pedophiles actually believe its not harmful to the children which they are abusing, then we can come back to this debate. The only way I can see someone sharing these kinds of files and feeling good about it, is if they are some kinda cult member, or something.
How does downloading the pics support the person who created them unless you paid money for the pics?
I dont believe the flow of data on the net should be restricted under any situation. I do believe we should restrict people from uploading certain data to the net in the first place.
The real pedophiles are the ones who are taking the pictures, just like in the situation with snuff films, the real murderers or rapists are the ones who make the films. The information isnt whats evil, its the person who created it thats evil.
You hate America, we have to give peace offerings to countries (buy them out) to stop terrorism? Bush and the Republicans are busy cleaning up the messes that clinton created.
What did Clinton create? We werent at war under Clinton, Saddam was not put in power by Clinton, Bin Laden was not trained to fight the soviets by Clinton.
Well, the reason to vote for Dean is because hes better than Bush. You know damn well voting Libertarian means you are voting for Bush.
We have to get Bush out, as a Libertarian you know Bush is no conservative. Just like I know Bush is no conservative, so Bush isnt the guy either of us want in office.
Dean may not be perfect, but hes better than who we currently have. Dean may spend money on healthcare but at least that money will be spent on us.
Dean has alot of very good ideas, he listens to the people, the people funded Dean. I consider him a Populist. Sure he has some socialist ideas, pure capitalism cannot work in the real world and you know it, even if you are libertarian you know this country is not ready for your libtertarian utopia just like socialists know this country is not ready for their socialist utopia.
We need a mixture of both because theres two types of people in this country, those who are fueled by individualism, and personal accomplishment, and those who are fueled by making a difference and improving society.
You can consider me a socialist, because I do not care about the money aspect of work. I do however understand that not everyone in this country is willing to live in a socialist utopia, greed prevents this, just like laziness prevents your libtertarian utopia.
Both of us should just vote for the best person for the job as President. Dean may be alittle bit of a socialist, but thats what this country needs, if we had a libertarian President this country would fall apart because like I said, people in this country dont all work for the same reasons, not everyone values individualism and money.
Explain to me how a man who thinks that it is the government's job to give everyone healthcare paid for by the government from my pocket and who is an avowed socialist is GOOD for the economy.
Please! Bush is more of a socialist. Bush has spent more than any president in HISTORY, we have the biggest deficit in HISTORY. Guess what Bush wants to give welfare to Iraq, the Iraqis are getting free healthcare, schools and food, Africa is getting 15 billion dollars for AIDs.
Please tell me you have enough common sense to see that both the democrats and republicans want big government? Its not about which side is socialist, its how socialist the given politician is.
Dean is less socialist than Bush, while Dean wants to give us universal healthcare, hes not trying to give the whole world universal healthcare, theres a big difference.
I never said I was going to vote for Dean, but Dean certainly is looking better than Bush right now.
I think the whole internet politics idea is genius. Its just a matter of getting the old out and putting the new in. Dean seems to be new blood, advocating a new political process. I'm going to watch his blogs carefully this week. Maybe I'll make a comment on it about this and see if he responds.
Thats not what I said. I never said musicians shouldnt be able to profit. I said they should profit. However I dont think they should profit in the CURRENT way of selling CDs. You can profit off your fans without selling "product", you can sell culture, the scene, the community, etc.
I never said i thought the idea of a subscription was terrible. In fact, I think with certain bands with a large hardcore audience it would be good. If you go back and look at my post i took issue your statements that that a) no one will buy mp3s b) that bands that sell less than 20,000 or 100,000 albums suck c) that enough of the fans of an indie act would subscribe to make it viable
I think you are locked into the current dying industry and ignoring the fact that things are evolving. The world where you can get away with sellinng CDs for $15 are gone. Musicians have to sell their community, and the scene and this is why subscriptions are an option.
Theres other ideas, we could just let the P2P users become the distributors, and give them a cut of the profits or credits for selling mp3s. So if you buy a CD you become a legal distributor and split the profit 50/50 with the creator, totally removing the record companies from the system.
This would make the file sharers into file sellers. Basically you buy your way into the system buy purchasing mp3s, then you earn credits which you can use to buy more mp3s when you sell them, or cash.
If you sell an mp3 for 50 cent you get 25 credits, the other 25 cent goes to the creator. When you get 50 cent you can then legally BUY a new song, which you will sell and so on.
This is an option of how Micropayments can work, I just dont see it working with the RIAA involved or with a middleman involved. We dont need them anymore and its as simple as that.
You can also allow musicians to profit in a napster style P2P with ad revenue, you can use taxes and give them stipends, you can do alot of stuff. The problem isnt musicians getting paid and when you seem to think I dont want musicians to be paid because I support file sharing, you miss the point. I support file sharing because I hate the RIAA, not because I hate the musicians. I know and you know that musicians and consumers would be better off without the RIAA in control, we as fans and musicians can get together and find a way for musicians to profit while consumers get better value.
Consumers want distribution rights, and they should have it, I mean why should the RIAA do it? Let the consumers take the RIAAs cut and suddenly music is trivially cheap if not free. Ad revenue for this system can also be added to give musicians extra money for being popular.Stipends can be given to musicians who are talented, like the eminems of the world, these stipends are given on a yearly basis and they produce music to fuel our culture.
Centralized is the way to go
It can never work because the RIAA isnt allowing it to. You see the RIAA has declared war against the musician and the consumers. I'm a musician and a consumer, so you see the point of view I have. Napster was centralized, and before Napster was even given a chance to figure out how to profit, and then turn that revenue into something which could allow musicians to be paid, the RIAA sued it out of existance.
The industry is evolving and the RIAA wants to hold us back, its over and they know it. Because of their stupidity, now there is no centralization, even if you are right and this would be better its going to be hard to make everyone use one system again, the only way I see it happening is if the government itself sets up an official P2P system and makes it official in the same way the NASDAQ and other markets are "official".
The only thing holding them back from having a vast majority of the us/world catalog online is continued support from the labels which will be forthcoming if people are willing to pay and not pirate.
We no longer need labels, Musicians wont need labels
Lets suppose you were arrested for something simple, like possession of weed for example. You got thrown in jail for the night. That night, 3 huge dudes held you down and repeatedly raped you in the ass while degrading you with apropriate racial profanities. They also took pictures with one of those disposible cameras.
A couple weeks later, you found out that those pics were being sold on gay-prison-ass-rape.com.
You would be OK with that?
Freenet isnt about me. Freenet does not exist because of me, I'm not the center of the world or of the internet. Just like I dont have control over anyone off the net, I dont have any control over anyone on it. Anyone can decide to shoot me, or do anything to me and there isnt much I can do, just like people couldnt do anything about the evil sniper, terrorists and other people who want to attack us.
So if I were raped and it was put online, how is this new? I could have sex with a girl willingly, and she could sneak and record it and put it online. I could have random people taking pictures of me because I'm cute and then have that put online so gay guys can jack off to it.
Face it, we do not have any control over distribution of information and its pointless to waste resources trying to control it. Its like trying to control the weather!
Cameras keep getting smaller and smaller, pedophiles will be able to legally take revealing pictures of kids using spy cameras and put them on the net, or even do live feeds. There is absolutely nothing you or I can do, the camera was already invented.
So if people decide to take pictures of me and put it on the net, so be it, I cannot stop it. If a gay person is going to jack off to my picture they will find some way to do it.
I'm more worried about hate groups spreading through freenet, training snipers to kill us than I am about what some gay person does with my picture or pictures.
Now, you did have one key arguement which I am with you on, while I cannot stop a person from jacking off to free pictures on freenet, I SHOULD be able to attempt to prevent my image from being sold.
We CAN trace and track down sales of images, so by killing the economics involved we CAN attack the issue. While I cannot stop anyone from trading my picture around, I can and should be able to sue anyone selling it, and no I wouldnt want to put them in prison, I'd want them to pay a million dollars so I can use that million to set sting operations and catch people who try to pay for my pictures.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I haven't raped any women lately.. However, you could just ask my girlfriend and she'd probably tell you how much I hit on her and talk about sex. The thing here is, she's an adult woman capable of making informed decisions, and I'm rational, fairly mentally sound, and respectful of her so I know when to back off. My point was that people view what they want to to, as I'm sure a rapist would probably enjoy rape porn more than something I might like. Don't forget either, pedophiles are *sick* and are not capable of rational decision under circumstances when they might possibly have the chance to assert authority over children.
I'm all for punishing people who actually commit crimes, the ones who lack self control must be put in prison because they lack self control. Looking at pictures however doesnt prove they lack self control and in my opinion just viewing it shouldnt be a crime. Actions should be a crime. IF you put the pictures on the network this is an action, if you view it, thats not really an action.
I don't feel as if there is any good reason to protect these people in the name of free speech. No, the internet doesn't teach them to be pedophiles.. What I'm saying is it's like.. Cops pulling people over for a minor violation and finding out that the person is in a stolen vehicle or that the person has outstanding warrants. Even if you don't want to incarcerate someone for viewing child porn, do you not understand that getting a mental disturbed person help before they can harm anyone will do good?
We arent protecting pedophiles, you think pedophiles care about free speech? Pedophiles are going to rape and abuse children either way.
. Even if you don't want to incarcerate someone for viewing child porn, do you not understand that getting a mental disturbed person help before they can harm anyone will do good?
Yes but I'm not the one to judge someone as mentally disturbed just because they view pictures which I think are weird.
I think it takes more than just viewing the pictures to be labeled a pedophile, you need a history of ACTIONS toward children.
We can agree to disagree I suppose, I just can't imagine you being okay and excusing people's actions in the name of free speech instead of being for getting them help.. (if nothing else..)
Either you support free speech or you dont, just like the taliban and china are selective about which free speech they support, so are Americans I guess.
I think hate groups are as bad if not worse than kiddie porn, should they be banned from the net? Should people who view the websites be put in jail? whats your opinion on this?
Hate has done more harm to society than any other form of communication. Hate is the cause of all wars, millions of deaths, and could be responsible for humanities self destruction. Its responsible for 911, columbine, slavery/racism, etc.
Theres alot of things on the net right now which most people dont agree with but its legal. If you ban kiddie porn because its something you dont agree with, can I then ban hate speech because I dont agree with it?
Straight people look at straight porn, gay people look at gay porn, and pedophiles look at child porn. A curious person may take a glance at something different once or twice, but it takes a lot more than a curiousity to view mass amounts of child pornography. You view it because you like it, it's MENTAL DISORDER.. We are not talking about sane, rational people.. The bridge from viewing to creating is not a big one!
Ok so your arguement is, vast amounts of childporn are bad? How much is vast amounts?
The bridge from viewing to creating is not a big one! I mean, I'm sure there's some model or actress.
This is debateable. You view straight porn, have you raped any women lately?
The difference between children and adults, adults can legally sign a contract to allow you to take these pictures, the pedophiles however are taking pictures of kids who cannot sign such contracts. These pedophiles are like the people who put cameras in bathrooms to spy on people, and who record rapes.
The pictures are wrong, but what gives you or anyone the right to try to control the internet just to stop some pictures from being viewed?
You have a good arguement here but once again no proof.
I keep telling you, you cannot have partial freedom. If this is what you want, you are no different than the chinese,the soviets, the iraqis, sure they had MOST of the freedoms we had, but not true freedom. The Iraqis cover their women up, they dont believe in taking pictures, and so on, people in other countries actually believe that by covering women up (censoring them), that it will prevent women from being abused or raped.
However
I'm not saying we can have true freedom in the physical world, in the physical world people get hurt when you have true freedom, but we are talking about the metaphysical world. The internet is not the physical world and should not be treated like the physical world. The internet is a world of expression and speech, a world where thoughts are shared. When you attempt to regulate mass conciousness which is the internet, it begins to go down the slippery slope, what next? when we create the brain to computer interface will thoughts be illegal?
I don't propose it'll stop child abuse entirely, but the fact is.. By getting these freaks off the streets, punishing them for their crimes, and then putting them on treatment for their illness while alerting those around them.. I'd bet my life that more children will be saved. This is called a pre-emptive strike against child abusers. This is the worst kind of crime and does not need any type of protecting. I know that one day if you do have children you'll understand.
Yes but the abuse happens in the physical world not on the internet. Why should we try to apply the offline physical rules to the internet when you know it cant work? You know we cant track down every person who ever views a kiddie porn picture, its impossible and its pointless to even try. The best we can do is prevent people from putting it on the net. I treat the net as a zone where there is no government, because this is how the net was intended to be when it was designed. It was not designed so a government can censor it, take it down or control it. Theres only really two options, you must choose one, you support government control of the internet, or you support anarchy on the net.
I support anarchy on the net. I think the way to stop people from sharing mp3s, or putting kiddie porn on the net, is to prevent people from uploading it to freenet or on the internet in the first place, have ISP's scan stuff for all I care, but its not possible or realistic to think you can sue people for possession of bits, 1s and 0s, its impossible and you know it.
I don't want to hide the world from anything, I want the pedophiles to get treatment so they don't commit atrocities against young children. Which in my opinion can be a fate worse than death, having to live with that garbage for the rest of your life. I also don't believe for one second that it's harder to catch them in the real world. You go ask a cop that's on a taskforce specifically made for combatting this sort of thing, they'll tell you the internet has made it HARDER to get these people since they can trade it so anonymously.
The internet is just a communications device. Restricting communication does not make it any easier or harder to capture criminals. If you take away bin ladens cellphone he will use something else and then we will have no way to even know h e exists.
Online we know pedophiles exist and to what degree they exist, we can watch them and at least attempt to figure out how their operations work so we can set up traps and sting operations.
Offline theres no way to catch them if they for example move into the deep forest or rural town and rape their daughter or cousins and trade the pictures, how are you supposed to catch them? Driving them underground does not make them easier to catch or stop.
. It's generally easier to follow local leads on this sort of thing, nail everyone you can and then flip them so you can find the sources and nail them harder. When you do it online it's hard to find the source. In any ca
I never said childporn was "speech" I said the pictures are speech.
When you take the physical pictures and abuse children this is not speech, when you put these pictures in the digital form it becomes speech.
1s and 0s are speech, binary is speech, source code is speech. Everything online is 1s and 0s.
Childporn is rape and abuse. Please note, viewing isn't the issue anymore than hearing is the issue with speech. Storing childporn ANYWHERE should be illegal because possession is illegal.
Yes but thats not a very realistic law for the online world. I can understand you saying possession of physical pictures is illegal, you can track them down and destroy them, the internet is not the same. You cant even stop people from storing mp3s, you can forget about trying to sue everyone who looks at kiddie porn. And yes anything you look at online you posess, so you can see already how fair the possesion law is.
If you think that's about freedom of expression, you're insane. You said yourself it isn't art. The government's job is to protect its citizens, especially the young ones who can't protect themselves, and quite frankly, I'd gladly accept censorship in order to ensure the safety and welfare of my future stepdaughter.
The protection in the real world I agree with, online is not the physical world, I do not believe online should have a government.
I will not accept any censorship on the net, I want absolute freedom of expression online, this is why I'm for P2P, this is why I support open source, and this is why I support freenet.
Child Porn is bad, but you must understand that if you are going to take the position that freedom of speech is right, and that censorship online is wrong, it must be absolute.
Despite what you say, binary IS speech. Its the number system, its written language. The speech should not be outlawed, the physical objects should be outlawed, meaning whoever took the pictures should be arrested and their pictures should be destroyed.
Voting against someone who can beat Bush is also voting for principle. If you dont like how Bush is doing you vote for whoever his competition is. You in theory are voting Bush out.
I mentally like to kind of think of this as common sense, which seems to be lacking by many these days. If you are trying to make the argument that the libertarian vote doesn't count, then you should perhaps consider not showing up to vote at all, and then let us see who's vote counted more. Your absent (non vote) or our actual real vote.
Or you can vote because you dont like Bush.
The libertarian party is a real party, we have real votes, and real people in office, folks that care about this country and the constitution.
Now regarding the actual vote I cast, for Bush, Yeah, I did vote for Bush and I will explain why. Brown did not have a Vice President, this country needs to have both President, and Vice President, I didn't vote for Brown because it would have been wrong. I didn't vote for Gore because that would have be Waaaaaay Wrong.
Well now its time to vote for President and voting Libertarian means you arent voting for Bush's competition. This means you dont truely want a new president.
Bush is not a conservative, you are a Libertarian should want him out. Bush is what I call a national socialist, he gives welfare to the third world, but not to his own people.
Its not about the laws, thats local politics. When it comes to national politics as in whos President, I think we should all know by now, that Bush is not doing a good job.
Of course not! However, a knife serves multiple purposes, from the cook to the surgeon to the average household. Child porn really does not serve any purpose does it? To a psyche evaluating a pedophile perhaps, but obviously someone like that is different from the weirdos and would have an acceptable reason to view, to an extent at least. I never said we should go out and ban Freenet because people can use it to transfer porn, for the same reason I don't want gimp, xview, paint, or cameras to be banned. This is not an all or nothing situation, we as a society are generally capable of banning one thing without a million others. What I will give you though, is that politicians sometimes try to disguise other motives by saying please think of the children. We have to stop these kinds of politicians by not voting (or voting) for them, making their true motives known, and of course by mailing the hell out of them with complaints and signed petitions.
Freedom of speech is all or nothing. If you censor childporn you dont truely believe in freedom of speech.
You cannot have freedom with censorship. Its all or nothing.
Also there ARE people who like viewing dead bodies and who actually get sexually excited from it.
You have to understand, that you cannot protect all of humanity by banning something on freenet. In fact it will do nothing to stop kids from being abused, freenet is just a place where abusers will store their images.
Anyway I dont feel your censorship method is the way to stop child abuse. You can hide the world from the abusers, but abusers will trade photos and movies in the real world and you'll have an even harder time of catching them.
Ever hear of NAMBLA? I'm serious, just because you and I see it as an evil disgusting thing, it can seem very normal to a person who's screwed up in the head..
Yes but we shouldnt outlaw the knife just because a crazy person might get a hold of it. Theres so many useful things a knife can do in the hands of a sane person.
Perhaps I'm missing something in this debate though.. I'm just against both the provider and the viewer of this kind of trash.. I don't want Freenet to die or anything, I'm just arguing that one point.
The viewer is not always "BAD", the viewer might view it by mistake while looking at normal porn. You know how the net is, its too easy to accidently view stuff.
So the viewer is debateable, the producer however is not debateable, anyone who creates this stuff is evil.
But I cant really say the same for the viewer, I know people who view stuff at rotten.com and who might look at a snuff film if it were on freenet, but this person isnt creating it, they just look at it because its there.
So if you put something on freenet and people look at it, its like leaving a dead body in public, people are going to look at it, but if you think you can track down and arrest everyone who looks at it, you are wasting your time.
The only way to solve this is to prevent it from being created. In Japan for example, about 80 percent of the porn seem to be young girl/older guy type porn. While this porn is only anime and you cannot say any real harm is done, the viewers of this are not automatically evil, weird maybe, but not evil.
Kiddie porn will be viewed by weird people, but I dont think its wise to say every weird person is automatically "evil".
I think we both agree mostly, I just dont agree with ANY form of censorship. I think distribution on the net should be something no entity has control over, I believe if something is put online that no one should be able to remove it.
That includes me, if someone puts me online without my permission yes I want to sue them, but I'm not going to sue every single person who views or distributes it.
I just dont agree with the whole information ownership concept, and I dont agree with the copyright or censorship concept.
How? The market already existed. We know that.
The question is, how does more people viewing the pictures encourage the picture takers to take more pictures? The picture takers dont take the pictures for YOU to view them, they take the pictures so THEY can either view them or sell them.
If they back them up on freenet, it doesnt matter if no one views it but them, or if everyone views it.
When people like your work? You consider taking pictures of nude children work? Its not art, its not work, its porn.
I dont think a distributor of porn, especially porn of this type can consider themself some kinda artist. This is a person who is selfish, rapists by nature are selfish, so its illogical for someone like this who doesnt give a damn about the child they exploit and rape, to suddenly care about all these viewers of their work, which by the way on freenet you never have any idea who or how many actually view your work.
It just doesnt make since, theres no logic. I mean sure its logical for someone like us to share, but murderers, rapists and thieves are selfish, they are doing these things because they only think about themselves, they want to get off and they dont care about you, me, the kids, or anything else but themselves.
Music is totally different, people who share music and who create music may not be selfish by nature, because music is art, music doesnt harm anyone, music brings joy to the world etc etc, everyone benefits from music and no ones hurt, so when someone shares music they can feel its morally right.
Kiddie porn is not the same. Neither is snuff films, rape films, or any other material.
But I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, if you can find some evidence proving that some pedophiles actually believe its not harmful to the children which they are abusing, then we can come back to this debate. The only way I can see someone sharing these kinds of files and feeling good about it, is if they are some kinda cult member, or something.
They lose more money chasing these pirates than they lose from the piracy itself.
Whats the point of thousands of lawsuits
How does downloading the pics support the person who created them unless you paid money for the pics?
I dont believe the flow of data on the net should be restricted under any situation. I do believe we should restrict people from uploading certain data to the net in the first place.
The real pedophiles are the ones who are taking the pictures, just like in the situation with snuff films, the real murderers or rapists are the ones who make the films. The information isnt whats evil, its the person who created it thats evil.
You actually believe the RIAA has a right to exist?
I guess you dont believe in capitalism.
You hate America, we have to give peace offerings to countries (buy them out) to stop terrorism?
Bush and the Republicans are busy cleaning up the messes that clinton created.
What did Clinton create? We werent at war under Clinton, Saddam was not put in power by Clinton, Bin Laden was not trained to fight the soviets by Clinton.
Well, the reason to vote for Dean is because hes better than Bush. You know damn well voting Libertarian means you are voting for Bush.
We have to get Bush out, as a Libertarian you know Bush is no conservative. Just like I know Bush is no conservative, so Bush isnt the guy either of us want in office.
Dean may not be perfect, but hes better than who we currently have. Dean may spend money on healthcare but at least that money will be spent on us.
Dean has alot of very good ideas, he listens to the people, the people funded Dean. I consider him a Populist. Sure he has some socialist ideas, pure capitalism cannot work in the real world and you know it, even if you are libertarian you know this country is not ready for your libtertarian utopia just like socialists know this country is not ready for their socialist utopia.
We need a mixture of both because theres two types of people in this country, those who are fueled by individualism, and personal accomplishment, and those who are fueled by making a difference and improving society.
You can consider me a socialist, because I do not care about the money aspect of work. I do however understand that not everyone in this country is willing to live in a socialist utopia, greed prevents this, just like laziness prevents your libtertarian utopia.
Both of us should just vote for the best person for the job as President. Dean may be alittle bit of a socialist, but thats what this country needs, if we had a libertarian President this country would fall apart because like I said, people in this country dont all work for the same reasons, not everyone values individualism and money.
Explain to me how a man who thinks that it is the government's job to give everyone healthcare paid for by the government from my pocket and who is an avowed socialist is GOOD for the economy.
Please! Bush is more of a socialist. Bush has spent more than any president in HISTORY, we have the biggest deficit in HISTORY. Guess what Bush wants to give welfare to Iraq, the Iraqis are getting free healthcare, schools and food, Africa is getting 15 billion dollars for AIDs.
Please tell me you have enough common sense to see that both the democrats and republicans want big government? Its not about which side is socialist, its how socialist the given politician is.
Dean is less socialist than Bush, while Dean wants to give us universal healthcare, hes not trying to give the whole world universal healthcare, theres a big difference.
I never said I was going to vote for Dean, but Dean certainly is looking better than Bush right now.
Thats why I have the url in my sig
Currently we have special interest groups funding government.
This is one of the reasons I might be voting for Howard Dean. At least he listens to what the people have to say http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/ http://dean2004.blogspot.com
I think the whole internet politics idea is genius.
Its just a matter of getting the old out and putting the new in. Dean seems to be new blood, advocating a new political process.
I'm going to watch his blogs carefully this week. Maybe I'll make a comment on it about this and see if he responds.
Thats not what I said. I never said musicians shouldnt be able to profit. I said they should profit. However I dont think they should profit in the CURRENT way of selling CDs.
You can profit off your fans without selling "product", you can sell culture, the scene, the community, etc.
I never said i thought the idea of a subscription was terrible. In fact, I think with certain bands with a large hardcore audience it would be good. If you go back and look at my post i took issue your statements that that a) no one will buy mp3s b) that bands that sell less than 20,000 or 100,000 albums suck c) that enough of the fans of an indie act would subscribe to make it viable
I think you are locked into the current dying industry and ignoring the fact that things are evolving. The world where you can get away with sellinng CDs for $15 are gone. Musicians have to sell their community, and the scene and this is why subscriptions are an option.
Theres other ideas, we could just let the P2P users become the distributors, and give them a cut of the profits or credits for selling mp3s. So if you buy a CD you become a legal distributor and split the profit 50/50 with the creator, totally removing the record companies from the system.
This would make the file sharers into file sellers. Basically you buy your way into the system buy purchasing mp3s, then you earn credits which you can use to buy more mp3s when you sell them, or cash.
If you sell an mp3 for 50 cent you get 25 credits, the other 25 cent goes to the creator. When you get 50 cent you can then legally BUY a new song, which you will sell and so on.
This is an option of how Micropayments can work, I just dont see it working with the RIAA involved or with a middleman involved. We dont need them anymore and its as simple as that.
You can also allow musicians to profit in a napster style P2P with ad revenue, you can use taxes and give them stipends, you can do alot of stuff. The problem isnt musicians getting paid and when you seem to think I dont want musicians to be paid because I support file sharing, you miss the point. I support file sharing because I hate the RIAA, not because I hate the musicians. I know and you know that musicians and consumers would be better off without the RIAA in control, we as fans and musicians can get together and find a way for musicians to profit while consumers get better value.
Consumers want distribution rights, and they should have it, I mean why should the RIAA do it? Let the consumers take the RIAAs cut and suddenly music is trivially cheap if not free. Ad revenue for this system can also be added to give musicians extra money for being popular.Stipends can be given to musicians who are talented, like the eminems of the world, these stipends are given on a yearly basis and they produce music to fuel our culture.
Centralized is the way to go
It can never work because the RIAA isnt allowing it to. You see the RIAA has declared war against the musician and the consumers. I'm a musician and a consumer, so you see the point of view I have. Napster was centralized, and before Napster was even given a chance to figure out how to profit, and then turn that revenue into something which could allow musicians to be paid, the RIAA sued it out of existance.
The industry is evolving and the RIAA wants to hold us back, its over and they know it. Because of their stupidity, now there is no centralization, even if you are right and this would be better its going to be hard to make everyone use one system again, the only way I see it happening is if the government itself sets up an official P2P system and makes it official in the same way the NASDAQ and other markets are "official".
The only thing holding them back from having a vast majority of the us/world catalog online is continued support from the labels which will be forthcoming if people are willing to pay and not pirate.
We no longer need labels, Musicians wont need labels
Thats why you dont sell your music you sell the community, you sell the scene, you sell the culture.
What? You pay AOL? Dont you know AOL has nazi chatrooms?
I guess you wont be working for the government.
You cant sell if no one hears your music for free. You have to pass music around for free before you can sell it. Its just marketing.
Alot of people are surviving and making money doing it.
If people werent, no one would consider being a musician.
Most musicians make money from the scene, not CD sales.
Why? You are a consumer get better value if for the price of a CD a year you get everything you want or need.
We shouldnt pay more because currently CDs are well over priced, in fact the price should get cheaper as the musician gets more popular.
I think $12-15 is a good range.
Use the free P2P distribution systems and abandon the RIAA.
Lets suppose you were arrested for something simple, like possession of weed for example. You got thrown in jail for the night. That night, 3 huge dudes held you down and repeatedly raped you in the ass while degrading you with apropriate racial profanities. They also took pictures with one of those disposible cameras.
A couple weeks later, you found out that those pics were being sold on gay-prison-ass-rape.com.
You would be OK with that?
Freenet isnt about me. Freenet does not exist because of me, I'm not the center of the world or of the internet. Just like I dont have control over anyone off the net, I dont have any control over anyone on it. Anyone can decide to shoot me, or do anything to me and there isnt much I can do, just like people couldnt do anything about the evil sniper, terrorists and other people who want to attack us.
So if I were raped and it was put online, how is this new? I could have sex with a girl willingly, and she could sneak and record it and put it online. I could have random people taking pictures of me because I'm cute and then have that put online so gay guys can jack off to it.
Face it, we do not have any control over distribution of information and its pointless to waste resources trying to control it. Its like trying to control the weather!
Cameras keep getting smaller and smaller, pedophiles will be able to legally take revealing pictures of kids using spy cameras and put them on the net, or even do live feeds. There is absolutely nothing you or I can do, the camera was already invented.
So if people decide to take pictures of me and put it on the net, so be it, I cannot stop it. If a gay person is going to jack off to my picture they will find some way to do it.
I'm more worried about hate groups spreading through freenet, training snipers to kill us than I am about what some gay person does with my picture or pictures.
Now, you did have one key arguement which I am with you on, while I cannot stop a person from jacking off to free pictures on freenet, I SHOULD be able to attempt to prevent my image from being sold.
We CAN trace and track down sales of images, so by killing the economics involved we CAN attack the issue. While I cannot stop anyone from trading my picture around, I can and should be able to sue anyone selling it, and no I wouldnt want to put them in prison, I'd want them to pay a million dollars so I can use that million to set sting operations and catch people who try to pay for my pictures.