Slashdotters Demand Access to Child Porn

Typical Linux Advocates Rationalize Need for Child Porn

Published on June 6, 2004 By messybuu In Websites

Once again, members of Slashdot.org have shown that they are complete idiots in their outrage over a company's decision to block websites that contain child pornography. What's funny is that they justify their outrage by pretending this will lead to a censorship of everything on the Internet. I guess I realize that there are many things that can be overdone, such as laws on public decency, laws concerning sexual relations, etc., yet they aren't, and if they are, they tend to have a short lifespan. Then again, it's just an excuse to justify their outcry of companies taking down what they desire most: child pornography. This simply proves my theory about liberal Linux advocates: they're paedophiles.

Comments (Page 2)

bakerstreet

on Jun 11, 2004

"If you cede control of what you are allowed to view to someone else, then you have no guarantee that they won't start controlling things outside of the original scope of the agreement. "

If you live in the US you have already ceded control of what you can view to the government, you can be jailed for it if you opt not to. Mistype a Url or search, and you can end up commiting a crime for which you would have to register as a sex offender. In my state a single image is all it takes, and the browser cache is not a safe zone, nor are deleted files forensically retrieved.

Right now, mainstream ISPs' news servers are serving child pornography to people that can be jailed for viewing it. It isn't like Napster, the material is on their servers, downloaded from their servers. The titles of the newsgroups plainly state that what kind of material is on the group.

The time is gonna come that these providers are gonna be called upon to explain why the ability exists to almost instantaneously access child pornography via their service. It would be far safer for them to block known sources of such material now, than explain why they didn't later.

Let the geeks bleat, but there aren't all that many people who see doing away with access to child pornography as a 'slippery slope', and many who do think it is a necessary evil.

messybuu

on Jun 11, 2004

Let the geeks bleat, but there aren't all that many people who see doing away with access to child pornography as a 'slippery slope', and many who do think it is a necessary evil.

That's how I feel. The line between child pornography and everything else is pretty clear cut it seems, especially the child pornography that's usually thought of: i.e. preteens in sexual situations.

greywar

on Jun 12, 2004

Yes i agree with this, it is not like these people are viewing pictures of girl who *might* be 18 or soemthing these are kids who are under 10 in sexually suggestive situations. I suppose the line becomes blurry when you try to figure out what doesn't make a situation sexual (what about the Ron, hermione, and harry sandwich int he most recent Potter film? hmmm) but I don't think it is a show stopper to figure it out.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!