NationStates Jolt Archive

(poll comming)

(We can ignore for now the infeasibility of filtering or disabling these websites)
Should websites that promote illegal activities in one country be allowed to exist?
(I.E. Making bombs or how to strangle a person or something like that)

(Remember what is legal in one country is not always so in every country)

On The side
Should NAMBLA and other organizations that are “controversial” or borderline be allowed to have websites promoting their viewpoint?

These websites should stay open purely so we know what the person is doing and what messege their spreading

These websites should stay open purely so we know what the person is doing and what messege their spreading
I agree. I think this is primarily an issue today with violent Islamic terrorist recruiting sites. I think that they offer a method for society to keep watch over what they are doing.

I think the patently offensive has a place in society. It shouldn't be censored, and driven to the less visible periphery of our world. It should be shouted down, ridiculed. It should be in the public view so that detractors might easily find it, so that we might know who its defenders are, so that we might happen upon it and find it with merit.

The world should always be at least a little unsanitary and dangerous, otherwise it will fashion people who are careless and slow.

Except the F-bomb. That should be kept special. We need to have at least one invective that holds its power through time. Something that can be counted on to be impolite. But that's just good resource management more than it is censorship.

Websites are just another form of media by which people can spread their message. If someone stepped through a time-warp from the 50's, apart from the obvious technological advancement, they'd probably be appalled by the "profanity" that we live in now. For example music, women are wearing less and less, swearing, and violence are almost standard nowadays.

Although I'm pro-free speech, I'd say they should be banned as an example of what not to put on websites, but the boundaries of what can be banned are always going to be pushed to the limits and beyond.

But can we ban Websites? The very nature of the Net is that there are few regulations, and only normal Police to govern it. It is a temple, as it were, of free speech.

(poll comming)

(We can ignore for now the infeasibility of filtering or disabling these websites)
Should websites that promote illegal activities in one country be allowed to exist?
(I.E. Making bombs or how to strangle a person or something like that)

(Remember what is legal in one country is not always so in every country)

Yes.

On The side
Should NAMBLA and other organizations that are “controversial” or borderline be allowed to have websites promoting their viewpoint?
Yes. If they act on those viewpoints, shoot them(in particular NAMBLA and Butterfly Kisses), but let them speak of it.

Yes.

Yes. If they act on those viewpoints, shoot them(in particular NAMBLA and Butterfly Kisses), but let them speak of it.
I happen to agree that they don’t deserve any leeway as far as the law is concerned

There's no point making some websites illegal unless you actually intend to (at least attempt to) shut them down.

There's no point making some websites illegal unless you actually intend to (at least attempt to) shut them down.
They could theoredicaly impose manditory filtering by ISP's in the USA

I happen to agree that they don’t deserve any leeway as far as the law is concerned
Something I have wondered from time to time:
If you pay for someone to be murdered you are guilty of murder.
So, should people who purchase child pornography be considered abusers of children? I am aware that there are those who would abuse children irrelevant of profit, but surely said profit will also push them to more abuse and more extreme abuse.

I voted the freedom of speech trumps everything, but that's because the choice I need isn't really there.

There are a few things that are patently unprotected by the First Amendment here in the US. Child pornography, for instance. And interacting with a website is not always just reading. You may, for instance, gamble online. Gambling is not an activity protected by the First Amendment, unless you're just watching it and not betting.

Short of those categories, I'm all for letting the Internet remain unfiltered. Here in the US, if you surf to an overseas casino, or surf to an overseas child porn site, they'll know.

The UK is even more aggressive about this monitoring than the US.

After all, what would be defined as offensive?

If you paid someone to create a specific piece of child porn you would be guilty just as in the murder for hire case.

Something I have wondered from time to time:
If you pay for someone to be murdered you are guilty of murder.
So, should people who purchase child pornography be considered abusers of children? I am aware that there are those who would abuse children irrelevant of profit, but surely said profit will also push them to more abuse and more extreme abuse.
I don’t think they are guilty of murder … (at least not first degree) maybe conspiracy to commit murder? (I don’t remember the case law well enough if I am wrong correct me)

If you paid someone to create a specific piece of child porn you would be guilty just as in the murder for hire case.
That's definite, but would a more general position be reasonable? As in: if you pay for child porn, you are paying for a child to be abused.


I don’t think they are guilty of murder … (at least not first degree) maybe conspiracy to commit murder? (I don’t remember the case law well enough if I am wrong correct me)
It's been a while since I did law, so I am not clear either.

That's definite, but would a more general position be reasonable? As in: if you pay for child porn, you are paying for a child to be abused.


It's been a while since I did law, so I am not clear either.
I’m not sure … with murder you are picking a specific target and directing an attack at them the other is closer to “contributing to the delinquency” then putting a hit out

I think that there are some things that need regulations over i.e porn and websites like the one where you can see Kenneth Bigley executed. For example, rape and murder are illegal in nearly every country, if not all countries, so why do we have websites with rape porn in them, or websites like the Kenneth Bigley one mentioned earlier.

The Internet is not going away, what we need is a global treaty to regulate what is and isn't acceptable and then start up a U.N commitee dedicated to looking at websites reported as illegal and closing them down. It could work.

I think that there are some things that need regulations over i.e porn and websites like the one where you can see Kenneth Bigley executed. For example, rape and murder are illegal in nearly every country, if not all countries, so why do we have websites with rape porn in them, or websites like the Kenneth Bigley one mentioned earlier.

The Internet is not going away, what we need is a global treaty to regulate what is and isn't acceptable and then start up a U.N commitee dedicated to looking at websites reported as illegal and closing them down. It could work.
What if the site is hosted from a country not in that union (and it will happen … a lot of the file sharing companies did that)

Do we have the right to filter intellectual rights based on our ethics ? (and murder may be illegal but viewing it is not ever)that I am aware of

What if the site is hosted from a country not in that union (and it will happen … a lot of the file sharing companies did that)

Do we have the right to filter intellectual rights based on our ethics ? (and murder may be illegal but viewing it is not ever)that I am aware of

I never said that it was the perfect solution, but at least it would be a baby-step in the right direction.

Can we filter intellectual rights? Yes. In Britain, the BNP were told that they couldn't broadcast an advert that suggested that blacks were rapists, or something like that. Stuff like that happens every day, and the only people who complain are the people who are restricted.

I never said that it was the perfect solution, but at least it would be a baby-step in the right direction.

Can we filter intellectual rights? Yes. In Britain, the BNP were told that they couldn't broadcast an advert that suggested that blacks were rapists, or something like that. Stuff like that happens every day, and the only people who complain are the people who are restricted.
And in Britain an OAP was told by her local council to remove a statue of a pig (she collected cute pigs) from her front windowsill because it would offend Muslims.

That's definite, but would a more general position be reasonable? As in: if you pay for child porn, you are paying for a child to be abused.

It's a different kind of cost on the system. Paying for/owning pornography already in place is more like an opportunity cost. It's real, but it's no where near as real the actually realized opportunity. What's interesting is how fast these crimes against virtual goods develope into philosophical discussions. And now that I'm clear on your meaning, it's obvious where you were going.

On one hand, child porn really is abhorrent, and there should be a fate worse than death available. But what about at the fringes? Traci Lords for most of her career made child porn. So anything before her 18th birthday is bad news in the US. But there is I believe one example of a 16 yearold playmate who Playboy went to court over, and won, so her pictures aren't child porn. There are probably other similar examples too. But there's this inconsistancy, and not just in the example, but in the cultural ideology. We want a hands off government (at least in the US) convinced that the market is better at handeling most frequently occuring problems, but in the fringe we also want every suspect case to be investigated, and rectified. Those two desires are at odds. I think in the US, there might be a potential for some of what some might consider child porn to even be a viable commercial property of sorts.

In my thought experiment, let's imagine a group of teenage girls of modest technical inclination. Without too much effort, they might well be able to form a corporation. Perhaps a parent is a privacy nut, perhaps one of them is all about the Junior Achievement, they love The Apprentice, whatever. In any case, the technical hurdles to making fairly professional porn aren't high. DV cam + Computer + Domain name + hosting service + Dvd burner (optional). They could make a significant sum of money pretty quick before they're hauled into court. With an ACLU attorney. Who's the prosecutor going to point to as the victims? They're the owners of their own exploitation. I think a jury would really need an actual disparity of power as opposed to an abstract concept to pin a punishment on.

But the nasty part comes later. If such a proof of concept survives a jury, and or legal rulings, it could be used to shield real exploitation. Companies would own companies, there'd be a complicated paper trail, pointing fingers, girls who say they were victims, but don't look like victims. "Whores versus Monsters."

Not to mention the dilemma of the product that's legal to make but illegal to consume.

What if the site is hosted from a country not in that union (and it will happen … a lot of the file sharing companies did that)

Had a bit of a think on that point. Here's an idea: take 1 Korean and 1 citizen of the USA. Put them in a room together. You will find that they would most likely disagree on nearly everything, from George Bush to what the best type of rice is. But they would most likely agree that child porn is disgusting. If there was one thing that every country in the world would sign up to, it's banning child porn.

<snip>
When I think of child porn, I think of prepubescent children engaged in sexual acts with adults. I actually didn't think of 16 year olds etc.

The thought experiment you describe is quite believable and is something that needs to be addressed. It's the problem of shifting lines (a theory of mine which I won't bore you with) the legal right of the guardian to be the guardian was blurred with the best of intentions (we'll assume) by allowing the under 18's to consent to abortions, purchase birth control etc. However if they can consent to elective medical procedures then they can consent to sex (it's their body after all). If they can consent to sex they can consent to sex for money.
The only solution to this that I can think of is either to accept the current trend and redefine the concept of a child, or go back to the guardian as a guardian, that is the child must have their guardian's consent. I think that the '18' mark for adults was established not because of any particular change that occurs when you become eighteen but that post eighteen the vast majority would be equipped (emotionally and psychologically) for what being an adult entails. The question thus is are the vast majority now capable at an earlier age? If so then that line should be redrawn, if not then that should be recognised and the guardian's rights and responsibilities reenforced.
Unless someone else has a better idea?

Had a bit of a think on that point. Here's an idea: take 1 Korean and 1 citizen of the USA. Put them in a room together. You will find that they would most likely disagree on nearly everything, from George Bush to what the best type of rice is. But they would most likely agree that child porn is disgusting. If there was one thing that every country in the world would sign up to, it's banning child porn.
Maybe but not necessarily some people just like not agreeing just to piss off the group of countries to be “independent” and not have to be ruled by others laws

Its very likely that at least 1 country would not sign the agreement and even if they all did governments are being overthrown all the time (and the agreements of one government does not necessarily carry over to the next)

I never said that it was the perfect solution, but at least it would be a baby-step in the right direction.

Can we filter intellectual rights? Yes. In Britain, the BNP were told that they couldn't broadcast an advert that suggested that blacks were rapists, or something like that. Stuff like that happens every day, and the only people who complain are the people who are restricted.
The difference is those are public airwaves not necessarily a private subscription service

(poll comming)

(We can ignore for now the infeasibility of filtering or disabling these websites)
Should websites that promote illegal activities in one country be allowed to exist?
(I.E. Making bombs or how to strangle a person or something like that)

(Remember what is legal in one country is not always so in every country)

On The side
Should NAMBLA and other organizations that are “controversial” or borderline be allowed to have websites promoting their viewpoint?
This actually happened to me yesterday - only it was a figure of speach, not an actual illigal activity.

http://www.livejournal.com/community/niagararegion/243443.html?style=mine

I am Wee_Little_Me
Ive posted in a community for others' opinions.

This actually happened to me yesterday - only it was a figure of speach, not an actual illigal activity.

http://www.livejournal.com/community/niagararegion/243443.html?style=mine

I am Wee_Little_Me
Ive posted in a community for others' opinions.
While I do not think that you deserved what you got

Freedom of speech != freedom of consequences

I don’t think the consequences were quite just in your case but school is not a law making body so they are not really held to the same standards as we do our state and federal government

Sorry bout the suspension though