No, this thread is an exercise in poor taste. |
Exactly. So?
When a subject is repeatedly proffered by someone, it is evident that they are captivated by it in some way. It dwells in their thoughts. It is part of their daily ruminations. John, guns. Me, capitalism and wealth building. You, computer geek stuff and pedo. Richard, latent homosexuality. Joy, running, cooking. Brede, logic and AI. The jews, jew stuff. See how it works?
Yes, and I've had "legalize kiddy porn" threads on other forums as well, but what fraction of my posts are concerned with that issue? Less than 1%, I am sure. And it is probably the most important issue that the pigs will use to end Internet freedom as we know it! Without Internet freedom nothing else is possible.
[...] So, no. I don't trust that your interests wouldn't spill over into reality. |
Well, you should give me a benefit of doubt, in as much as I don't assume John Shaw is a serial killer just because gun rights are important to him. The fact that I use my real name here is your first hint. Real pedos (or Obama abductors / torturers) don't do that.
You're full of shit.
I understand the argument perfectly well. You, apparently, don't. This is not, nor will it ever be, a Libertopia. There will always be a segment of the moral majority who seeks to enact censorship legislation regarding certain aspects of the human behavior spectrum. The question is not whether those lines will be drawn, because they already are, but
where they will be drawn. Its a moving target, and the solution is not to remove the target or gun, but to use some intellect in the market and the courts.
What you propose is the wholesale absolution of all media regardless of content, looking right at photographed proof of heinous and amoral behavior, and shrugging it off from a legal perspective. I could make legitimate money as a business owner and be impervious to legal action. In a modern and civilized society, this is not the proper avenue for commerce. There are things people should not do, and as such, these are often the same things that should not be legitimized.
I am an avid proponent that you cannot legislate morality. But at the same time, there are a few flaws and imperfections that should not be justified. Certain things will always happen. And in my world, when those things happen, and the perpetrators are stupid enough to be found, I have no qualms about taking appropriate action to prevent the continuation of those people behaving outside of - what I consider to be - a very wide and free margin.
Its not a censorship issue, its an AOC issue. And the foundation of your argument is, there is no AOC. And that is simply untrue. Theres no reason that science and law cannot align to draw a proverbial line, and hear the arguments when the line is not so clearly defined. Its not for me to draw the line, but only an asshole would say there is no appropriate line at all, and use that flawed logic to waive any sort of reasonable oversight.