US net firms to block child porn
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
Probably a good thing. Soon you will need to be drug tested to get on AOL.
Thanks 911 mentality. :angry3:
Thanks 911 mentality. :angry3:
It seems absurd to me that people would want to push this stuff underground. Leave it in the open and prosecute people for it. If you drive it underground then how will people be caught?
Maybe that's the idea? Let the pedophiles do whatever they want so long as no one can see them, who cares? Maybe the voting public will forget about the child victims?
Like the word $hit is offensive because it forces people to think of a bodily function they would rather not think of, uttering the word sh!t is in itself an act of violence, as child pornography is an act of violence against children.
Out of site out of mind is a terrible policy for real crimes with real victims IMO. Find the people and prosecute them.
I really can't help but suspect these children are being exploited again, like the victims of 9/11, as a reason to ram more draconian laws through. It really makes no sense to hide pedophile crimes; it makes more sense to prosecute people for it IMO.
Maybe that's the idea? Let the pedophiles do whatever they want so long as no one can see them, who cares? Maybe the voting public will forget about the child victims?
Like the word $hit is offensive because it forces people to think of a bodily function they would rather not think of, uttering the word sh!t is in itself an act of violence, as child pornography is an act of violence against children.
Out of site out of mind is a terrible policy for real crimes with real victims IMO. Find the people and prosecute them.
I really can't help but suspect these children are being exploited again, like the victims of 9/11, as a reason to ram more draconian laws through. It really makes no sense to hide pedophile crimes; it makes more sense to prosecute people for it IMO.
You're right. Poo Poo is more palatable. AOL, et al, are only blocking the sites and use group sites from their tender users. The people that find the mere existence of something they don't like or agree with a affront to their very moral fiber.
The sites and groups will go on. The police will still be able to use the same means they do now to stop these scum of the earth diddlers. They will just have to use a different internet connection than the ones that are censoring these sites.
You do make a good point though. Hiding it will not make it go away. Alas that seems to be the right wing answer to everything. "Ban it and it's gone" Duh. :-(
What am I missing here? What is the relationship between 9/11 victims and exploited children??
I think hiding it is tad amount to saying it's OK just as long as no one sees it. I mean this is the classic scenario of dad molesting the children and mother pretending it isn't happening. Do we really want to institutionalize that reaction? To say it's OK to look the other way? Isn't that, in reality, condoning the activity? Hiding from a crime and refusing to help fight it is very much the same as condoning it IMO.
I don't define crime as "that which is illegal" but rather as "that which violates peoples liberty and dignity." Clearly child pornography is a most heinous crime by that definition. I just don't see that it is only the police who are responsible for fighting it. Maybe that is the point? People would rather hide than do anything about it.
It's just another excuse for the government to implement more controls over the population in the name of protecting them. You know, like every fascist and commie power we've seen.
I just think using victims as a method for change is wrong. Go after and prosecute the perpetrators. If you try and protect victims you make them greater victims. It is the perpetrators that should be made victim.
I figure the guy wanking willie in front of a monitor is less danger than the one who actually messes with a kid. No matter how disgusting it is, an image is an image.
I think ISP's should publish the IP numbers, names and addresses of people that visit those sites. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet. ISP's could make it a matter of policy. If you want to publish pictures on Usenet, go ahead, but we'll publish your name and address. We will make you a victim.
Make the people who would victimize children the victims of social wrath.
Make the people who would victimize children the victims of social wrath.
Sorry, I don't follow your logic as to how protecting victims makes them greater victims...
Scott Free - I think this would just become one very slippery slope there'd be no recovery from.
We had a discussion going on elsewhere recently about vigilantism - I could see this becoming a nightmare for law enforcement, and those who would 'protect' victims would become criminals themselves when taking it upon themselves to do a better job of upholding the law than law enforcement agencies have been able to.
Apart from that, once the green light to publish private info occurs in one milieu where it may be easily recognized as 'potentially valid' to do so, it won't take long to see the same logic being applied elsewhere - your privacy and mine would soon be next on the block in this insane climate of fear-driven change.
Or at least make the IPs of the visitors and providers available to law enforcement. Helluva good idea. Unfortunately, that would prolly upset a lot of those human rights people and their idea of expectation of privacy. As far as I am concerned, though, if it concerns something society is against, there should be no expectation of privacy.
Sure pics are just pics, but the access of them has prompted people to take it a step further and go after kids, not just wank off in front of their monitor.
I'm all for putting them on a watch list. Looking is one thing. Loading is another. It's the latter who should be doing some explaining right away....
The problem, wolf, with looking is that it can lead to molestations, etc. The consequence is that it can incite perverts into action. There should be no difference whether looking or downloading.
I have no problem making victims of people that download child porn. I think it is better they are victims than the children. This is what I mean by making the victimizers the victims. They have violated a child's liberty and so have no claim to their own until they have made restitution.
There is no expectation of privacy on the internet. If you think what you do is private it only means you don't understand the internet very well. You should behave on the internet like you would in real life since in actuality there is no difference.
I think it is a terrible thing if someone knows of crimes against children but does not expose it. Why should the ISPs be treated any differently?
Also, just because someone might think their crime is hidden doesn't mean I should make it hidden. If an ISP knows who the person is they should expose them.
I'm thinking "limited resources". If some jerk's going to molest a kid, the very fact a kid walks past on the way to school is going to have the same effect. Someone uploading fresh stuff is either the picture taker - or damned close. Just priorities....