< previous paste - next paste>
From http://torrentfreak.com/the-copyright-lobby-absolutely-loves-child-pornography-110709/ TorrentFreak Home About Archives Categories News Bits Contact The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide Subscribe via RSS Subscribe via Email Tip Us Off! Search TorrentFreak Search The Copyright Lobby Absolutely Loves Child Pornography Rick Falkvinge 9/07/2011 163 copyright, opinion Print “Child pornography is great,” the man said enthusiastically. “Politicians do not understand file sharing, but they understand child pornography, and they want to filter that to score points with the public. Once we get them to filter child pornography, we can get them to extend the block to file sharing.” The date was May 27, 2007, and the man was Johan Schlüter, head of the Danish Anti-Piracy Group (Antipiratgruppen). He was speaking in front of an audience from which the press had been banned; it was assumed to be copyright industry insiders only. It wasn’t. Christian Engström, who’s now a Member of the European Parliament, Oscar Swartz, and I were also there. “My friends,” Schlüter said. “We must filter the Internet to win over online file sharing. But politicians don’t understand that file sharing is bad, and this is a problem for us. Therefore, we must associate file sharing with child pornography. Because that’s something the politicians understand, and something they want to filter off the Internet.” “We are developing a child pornography filter in cooperation with the IFPI and the MPA so we can show politicians that filtering works,” he said. “Child pornography is an issue they understand.” Schlüter grinned broadly. I couldn’t believe my ears as I heard this the first time. But the strategy has been set into motion worldwide. Schlüter’s plan worked like clockwork. Denmark was the first country to censor AllOfMP3.com, the (fully legal) Russian music store, and is now censoring The Pirate Bay off the internet. The copyright industry is succeeding in creating a fragmented Internet. This is why you see the copyright lobby bring up child pornography again and again and again. They are using it as a battering ram for censoring any culture outside of their own distribution channels. You can Google the term together with any copyright lobby organization and see them continuously coming back to it. In Sweden, the copyright industry lobbyist Per Strömbäck has publicly admitted it being one of his best arguments. Try Googling for the Swedish word for child pornography on the lobby site and see if you get any hits in any articles (over 40). The reasoning is simple and straightforward. Once you have established that someone who is in a position to censor other people’s communication has a responsibility to do so, the floodgates open and those middlemen can be politically charged with filtering anything that somebody objects to being distributed. It is not hard to see why the copyright lobby is pursuing this avenue so ferociously. It doesn’t really matter that filters at the DNS level are ridiculously easy to circumvent. The idea is to create a political environment where censorship of undesirable information is seen as something natural and positive. Once that principle has been established, the next step is to force a switch to more efficient censorship filters at the IP or even the content level. News reached us this week that Internet Service Providers in the United States have now entered an agreement with the copyright lobby to police the net. This arrangement, it turns out, also stems from the copyright industry’s love of child pornography. “We pointed out to [the governor] that there are overlaps between the child porn problem and piracy,” Mr. Sherman [The RIAA president] said, “because all kinds of files, legal and otherwise, are traded on peer-to-peer networks.” Sound familiar? It should. It’s a page right out of the 2007 scene where the Danish Mr. Schlüter talked about the copyright lobby’s policymaking strategy of associating non-monopolistic distribution of culture with the rape of small defenseless children. This association strategy has now worked in the United States, too. Just when you think the copyright lobby can’t sink any lower, they surprise you again. And it gets worse. Much worse. In Europe, the copyright lobby is now pushing Commissioner Malmström to create a similar censorship regime, despite clear setbacks from the European Court of Justice defending human rights and freedom to communicate. But taking one step back, would censorship of child pornography be acceptable in the first place? Is the copyright industry perhaps justified in this particular pursuit, beyond their real goal of blocking non-monopolistic distribution? There are two layers of answers to that. The first is the principal one, whether pre-trial censorship is ever correct. History tells us that it plainly isn’t, not under any circumstance. But more emotionally, we turn to a German group named Mogis. It is a support group for adult people who were abused as children, and is the only one of its kind. They are very outspoken and adamant on the issue of censoring child pornography. Censorship hides the problem and causes more children to be abused, they say. Don’t close your eyes, but see reality and act on it. As hard as it is to force oneself to be confronted emotionally with this statement, it is rationally understandable that a problem can’t be addressed by hiding it. One of their slogans is “Crimes should be punished and not hidden”. This puts the copyright industry’s efforts in perspective. In this context they don’t care in the slightest about children, only about their control over distribution channels. If you ever thought you knew cynical, this takes it to a whole new level. The conclusion is as unpleasant as it is inevitable. The copyright industry lobby is actively trying to hide egregious crimes against children, obviously not because they care about the children, but because the resulting censorship mechanism can be a benefit to their business if they manage to broaden the censorship in the next stage. All this in defense of their lucrative monopoly that starves the public of culture. It’s hard to comprehend that there are people who are so shameless that they would actually do this. But there are. Every time you think the copyright lobby has sunk as morally low as is humanly possible, they prove you wrong. — — — Rick Falkvinge is a regular columnist on TorrentFreak, sharing his thoughts every other week. He is the founder of the Swedish Pirate Party, a whisky aficionado, and a low-altitude motorcycle pilot. His blog at http://falkvinge.net focuses on information policy. Follow Rick Falkvinge on Twitter as @Falkvinge and on Facebook as /rickfalkvinge. Related Posts Ericsson: File-sharing Is a Symptom Not the Problem Paramount Cease and Desist Targets 3D Printer ‘Pirate’ Russia’s Sane Thoughts on Copyright and Internet Irish Minister: “Copyright Monopoly Is Bad For Our Businesses And Economy” Two Companies Claim the Right to Sue ‘Nude Nuns’ Pirates Previous Post Showing 163 comments Sort by Subscribe by email Subscribe by RSS hikaricore 1 day ago Well atleast now we have proof of what many of us have been thinking and saying for a long damn time. 55 people liked this. Like Reply Anonymous 1 day ago in reply to hikaricore The copyright industry lobby is actively trying to hide egregious crimes against children, obviously not because they care about the children How can you possibly claim to know what exactly every member of the copyright industry feels about child pornography? And regardless, who cares? The only question you need to ask is: Should child pornography be censored from the Internet? If your answer is yes, then the copyright lobby has a valid point: Internet censorship is not inherently bad or undesirable. 4 people liked this. Like Reply hikaricore 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous I personally think nothing should be censored on the internet. That's not to say that I condone kiddy porn in any way shape or form. 76 people liked this. Like Reply Anonymous 1 day ago in reply to hikaricore "That's not to say that I condone kiddy porn in any way shape or form. " Maybe not from your perspective. But it would be fair to argue that you care more about freedom of speech than you do about preventing the re-victimization of children as the pictures/videos of their abuse are spread online. When it comes to child abuse, most people do not share your "libertarian" perspective. Particularly not voters, a large percent of whom have had kids themselves. That is why child pornograpy blacklisting will always be considered appropriate, and guys like Rick will fail in their drive to label all censorship as evil. Like ANoiXioNA 1 day ago in reply to hikaricore @ Anonymous /\ You care more about censoring the internet................ than you do about protecting children.... Your agenda is clear for all to see...... Censoring the internet will do nothing to prevent or help victims of Child Abuse....... Using this issue... is a sick thing to do.... 69 people liked this. Like Anonymous 1 day ago in reply to hikaricore "You care more about censoring the internet................than you do about protecting children...." I'm sorry, ANoiXioNA, but it would not make any difference even if that was true. Child porn censorship is widely acceptable and always will be. Regardless of what Rick or any Pirate Party says, that will remain the case. This is a losing argument for piracy advocates. You will never convince governments or populaces that foreign child porn beyond the reach of local law enforcement should be freely accessible online. If you want to make an argument for piracy, the only reasonable way to do it is: "Censorship is acceptable for truly heinous crimes like child pornography, but it should not be done for less damaging crimes like piracy." The reason guys like Rick are so fired up is because the argument the EFF and others like himself have spent so much time making is: "All censorship is evil!" Now they are realizing that such an extreme argument is an anchor for their cause, not a lifeline. The world is rarely black and white. Trying to label censorship in such stark terms is futile. 3 people liked this. Like Guest 1 day ago in reply to hikaricore >That's not to say that I condone kiddy porn in any way shape or form. What about lolicon or shotacon? It's drawn, so there's no victim. 6 people liked this. Like hikaricore 1 day ago in reply to hikaricore First of all, drawing are not child pornography. I'm sure you were joking, but I see this stupid argument come up a lot online. No child is ever hurt because some perv like to look at fake little girls and boys. In all actuality, this content being available may drive down the demand for real kiddy porn or prevent molestation if a sick individual can vent their fucked up urges on it. Anyway much like the internet, I don't believe that art of any form should be censored (aside from clearly real photographs of children being abused but you know what I meant anyway).. 10 people liked this. Like Jay 1 day ago in reply to hikaricore @ignorant Anonymous fucktard Hey, idiot. I'm usually not this mean, but you are a special case of stupidity so I'm not even going to try to hold back. Here's the reasons you shouldn't be censoring the internet. 1) The abuse has happened and this knocks the wool over your eyes that there is no problem -> In other words, how can you know there is a problem if all you've done is censor everyone from talking about it? 2) The government's method of censorship reeks of McCarthyism and the Red Scare. Bonus points on making child porn as ignominious as being a Nazi supporter, but the problem again has NOT gone away! 3) The legal distribution channels of allofMP3.com along with piracy have not gone away by making a bunch of people pedophiles. You've just made the argument that selling music will actually lead to more pedophilia, you sick fuck. 4) YOU HAVE NOT ARRESTED THOSE THAT ARE ACTUALLY DOING THE ASSUALTS! THEY ARE FREE TO DO SO YET AGAIN! GET THEIR IP ADDRESS, TRACK THEM DOWN, TURN THEM INTO EUNUCHS AND LEAVE LEGAL DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS ALONE! This is the exact reason I hate politics. Disingenuous arguments to promote a non-issue on a position instead of actual debate to improve situations. 46 people liked this. Like PiRat 13 hours ago in reply to hikaricore @Anonymous As Winston Churchill put it... "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." And as censorship helps child abusers, and you encourage it, you're no better than them, along with all your supporters. 7 people liked this. Like Baphometa 2 hours ago in reply to hikaricore @Anon I think its more important to have freedom of speech and of any kind of freedom then any amount censorship for kiddy porn or anything else. Censoring kiddie porn isn't gonna stop the sickos who are doing it its just gonna prevent the ones who haven't done anything cause they can whack it to pictures go out and find a child... Like surrounded by morons 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous Your response is ignorant. I do not advocate child porn, nor do i advocate censorship in any form. The copywrong industry flat outs admits that they do not have 'a valid point', as they have openly admitted that the stopping of child pornography is not even a legitimate goal of theirs, schill. 11 people liked this. Like Reply Anonymous 1 day ago in reply to surrounded by morons I never said you have to be in favor of child pornography to be against black listing it. I said: "It would be fair to argue that you care more about freedom of speech than you do about preventing the re-victimization of children as the pictures/videos of their abuse are spread online." Do you think arguing against child pornography blacklisting, as Rick is trying to do here, will be a winning argument for most of society? Such an extreme position will never be mainstream. Most people are very much in favor of censorship when it is done to suit their values. 4 people liked this. Like Momo 1 day ago in reply to surrounded by morons @Shill Censorship is an extreme position. You are an extremist. 12 people liked this. Like merethan 19 hours ago in reply to surrounded by morons @Anonymous, [quote]Do you think arguing against child pornography blacklisting, as Rick is trying to do here, will be a winning argument for most of society?[/quote] Depends on how smart the society is. 4 people liked this. Like Anon 6 hours ago in reply to surrounded by morons @Anonymous low life, Why hurt freedom of speech with a measure that doesn't stop CP? It only stops you from accidentally running in to it... Have you ever accidentally run in to CP? It won't stop you if you are looking for it. It's also not an incentive for law enforcement to hunt them down and actually arrest them. And who's definition of CP are we using? The one from Australia where adults with an A-cup count as CP? Or Spain where 13 is the legal age? Censorship hurts free speech AND the victims of CP, as proven by the German CP victim support group Mogis. 4 people liked this. Like ANoiXioNA 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous ( hard-sell much ? ) NO child pornography AND MORE IMPORTANTLY .. Child Abuse should be wiped out completely IN REAL LIFE...... Censoring the internet will do FUK ALL to stop child abuse.... NOTHING DONT use this issue as a way to further an agenda... of Censoring the internet... or any other agenda...... Sick fucks using Child sex abuse to censor the internet for Financial gain..... SICK bastards..... 39 people liked this. Like Reply Anonymous 1 day ago in reply to ANoiXioNA "Child Abuse should be wiped out completely IN REAL LIFE......" That is impossible. Every law enforcement agency involved in pursuing child pornography will tell you it is impossible. British law enforcement has no power to go into the Ukraine and perform investigations to shut down child porn rings there. The only power they have is to blacklist those foreign operations and encourage the Ukrainians to get off their asses. So that is what they do. 2 people liked this. Like ANoiXioNA 1 day ago in reply to ANoiXioNA @Anonymous /\ """British law enforcement has no power to go into the Ukraine and perform investigations to shut down child porn rings there. """ Dont talk crap..... If there is will .....there is a way..... You know it.... ""It would be fair to argue that you ""..... Don't care if children are being sexually abused in the Ukraine.... All you care about is censoring the web..... You said as much as... It is a sick ,selfish mentality that uses horrors like these for personal gain...... 15 people liked this. Like Anonymous 1 day ago in reply to ANoiXioNA "Dont talk crap..... If there is will .....there is a way..... You know it...." No I don't. I know for a fact many commercial child porn operations have been run out of Eastern Europe with little to no law enforcement interest at all. The British police have no jurisdiction that would allow them to run an investigation in the Ukraine or Russia. "Don't care if children are being sexually abused in the Ukraine.... " Actually I do. I also care about the vast amount of child porn being traded on anonymization services like Tor and Freenet. And I care about what will happen once human trafficking starts taking place on Onion sites via BitCoin. It is one of the primary reasons why I personally believe none of these technologies should (or will) be allowed to reach truly mainstream levels. Whether you bring piracy into this or not, it is still a losing argument for your anti-censorship ideology. Even if there was no such thing as piracy, I, like most people, would still very strongly be in favor of blacklisting sites and services that promote the spread of child abuse. 5 people liked this. Like ANoiXioNA 1 day ago in reply to ANoiXioNA @Anonymous /\ if there is a will there IS a way.......... UK has worked with Russia and it's descendants before........ 1.. your logic..... censor cameras... don't allow them to take pictures of humans... censor phones , human interaction etc.... 2. Blacklisting sites...... achieves nothing.... I do not believe you can not understand that..... Blacklisting sites , is just a technological blip at best..... 3. Focus on the CP site owners , the peedos and slave traffickers .... and lock them up... take their sites , their money , their lives...... they deserve it.... finally.... Seriously... you obviously have ZERO idea of how the net works..... If you did you wouldn't even suggest it..... a node can appear - disappear in milliseconds...... no one can change that... without shutting down the net or filtering and logging every single bit of data in existence. I don't have an anti-censorship ideology..... Censorship has it's place in society... Eg.. there is stuff people don't want their children to see.... I do however have an reasonable reason to dislike the excuses for the attempt to censor the web..... It is being done .... not for the protection of vulnerable people... But for money........... Again...... Sick bastards USE child porn for their own gain..... You are using it to support a completely useless attempt to censor the web to stop people sharing files........ ( useless as in it wont stop cp ) Spend your time and effort , trying to save the vulnerable people from a lifetime of sexual slavery....... But I guess you really are just another troll sick fuck..... just using abused people. 7 people liked this. Like Trespass 1 day ago in reply to ANoiXioNA @ Anonymous "The British police have no jurisdiction that would allow them to run an investigation in the Ukraine or Russia. " The US does not seem to have a problem invading any country they like, setting the rules, telling people what is legal, why can't the British government do the same? We can teach them how to bully and harass others. Or pay them off. That works for us as well. Sarcasm..... 10 people liked this. Like merethan 19 hours ago in reply to ANoiXioNA @Anonymous /\, [quote]"It is one of the primary reasons why I personally believe none of these technologies should (or will) be allowed to reach truly mainstream levels."[/quote] And dvd/blueray burners should be equipped with special firmware to keep people from burning kiddiepr0n files. And not only should we watch television, the television should watch us too. I find you very creepy. 4 people liked this. Like myne 13 hours ago in reply to ANoiXioNA Not one single Ostrich since the dawn of time has ever saved itself from being eaten by sticking its head in the sand. Not one. In a similar way, not one single child will ever be saved, nor one single file of abuse be deleted permanently from the internet by blocking a few IP's. Child abuse is one of the few issues that unites every nation and their police forces. This means that any server, and any collector is accessible - anywhere in the world. We do not need to filter the internet, to stick our heads in the sand. We need to search for and destroy every copy and imprison every collector and producer everywhere. We need to liberate the victims and we need to cooperate internationally to do so. As one of the few truly internationally dispised crimes, unlike murder which can be justified, or theft which can be necessary, child abuse may in fact hold the key to international cooperation at a legal level. By burying our heads, we are robbing the victims of justice, the world of international coopration and ourselves of the very dignity we're trying to aspire to. Shame on anyone who thinks this is a good idea. Shame on the copyright lobby for stooping so low. What's their next whorish act? Are they going to defend child abusers on the basis that their copyright has been breached when they're arrested? That the materials discovered are not legally admissable in court unless a copyright fee is paid to the criminal? Sadly, it would not surprise me. With enough money, those leeches will promote any cause. 3 people liked this. Like Zzzz 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous You're actually defending this shit? Shame on you! 1 person liked this. Like Reply Momo 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous The question being asked here is Why is the copyright industry using child pornography to achieve its business goals? As you say, nobody cares how every member of the copyright industry feels about child pornography -- what matters is that they are exploiting that issue to make more money for themselves. You know who else is exploiting child pornography to make more money for themselves? Child pornographers. 21 people liked this. Like Reply Anonymous 1 day ago in reply to Momo "Why is the copyright industry using child pornography to achieve its business goals?" I don't see how you can blame the copyright industry for this. Groups like the Pirate Party and EFF have made it clear that they have based their pro-piracy ideology on the principle that "all censorship is bad". But the fact that most people are in favor of child porn censorship blows a massive hole in such arguments. If you want to blame anyone, blame guys like Rick for starting out with such weak arguments in the first place. They got themselves into this ideological bind all by themselves. Like Momo 1 day ago in reply to Momo @Shill "I don't see how you can blame the copyright industry for this." *facepalm* I don't see how you can not blame the people exploiting child porn for personal gain, for exploiting child porn for personal gain. There is no way to justify your position. You are either stupid, or simply that immoral. 12 people liked this. Like gae 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous It shouldn't need to be censored. Those who view this stuff should be caught and punished. It makes no difference to me if it is censored or not as I will never be attempting to view any. The only people affected by the censorship would be those involved and those people should be sent to jail, not have website blocks. 5 people liked this. Like Reply Ven 23 hours ago in reply to gae It gets censored (and will continue to do so in the USA, EU, and other places) because the children involved are minors and therefore not legally allowed to engage in release contracts. Child porn on the internet will forever be viewed as a violation of the child's privacy, regardless of who they are or where they are from, and it will be removed for those reasons. 1 person liked this. Like Willy 15 hours ago in reply to gae I have no interest in Bangkok Chickboys, and yet I had one flopping his knob all over my screen last week. Accidents happen. Without censorship everyone will at some point in their life find it which will dilute the seriousness of the behaviour (and creating the market for such material). Censoring CP forces true paedos to actively search for channels, which itself is an incriminating action. This makes sure that any who get caught stand a higher chance of getting prison like they deserve. Like Yesterday 5 hours ago in reply to gae @Willy My experience is different, I have never ran into CP on the web, ever. I have never looked for it of course. I have seen a lot of normal porn online, and even that has always been clean of CP. If you see CP, most likely you've been looking for it. Like Jay 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous I thought your arguments were bad, then I read all that you're promoted. You are a twisted sick individual, justifying the censorship of information for a small amount of minority. You've said absolutely nothing in regards to actually arresting the people that do this, but instead focus all of your time on this twisted idea of censoring what people can do for a political advantage. What the fuck is wrong with you? 7 people liked this. Like Reply Utah Jones 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous Anonymous, you obviously care about this issue very much. Your willingness to risk censorship of otherwise legal material in the pursuit of preventing the online distribution of child porn is both brave, and admirable. While I hate to burst your bubble of human decency, you have to understand that just because a curtain is put up in front of something doesn't mean that that 'something' isn't there. Given how much you care for the issue of child pornography, I'm sure you know that most cases of child pronography are first initiated at the behest of a Netizen or a group of Netizens which bring the distrobution to the attention of authorities. Likewise, I am sure you agree that a better use of resources- finite as they are- would be better spent tracking own the distributors of child pornography in real life rather than nerfing the courage of those like you to aid in the pursuit of distributors of child pornography. You wouldn't combat a child's cancer by simply simply blotting out the tumors on his catscans with black marker, would you? Likewise, Internet-based censorship of child pornography can't be combated by simply sweeping a few photographs under a rug. Either way, the children in those photos are still being exploited regardless of whether or not you or your friends see those photos. The real question you have to ask yourself is, Does censoring the Internet prevent children from being sexually exploited in the real world? If your answer is no, then the copyright lobby isn't acting in the best interest of sexually-exploited children. 23 people liked this. Like Reply Ven 22 hours ago in reply to Utah Jones Now ask if sexual exploitation is the only good reason these images are censored? The answer of course is no. As long as those images remain on the internet, they are violating the child's right to privacy. And the copyright industry as a business doesn't have an obligation to fight the good fight against CP. I would be willing to bet the individuals that make up the industry are as against child abuse as we are, but that doesn't mean they need to respect some imaginary boundary in their lobbying. They are using a crime (distribution of child pornography) to ILLUSTRATE how criminal activity is already censored on the net, and how it relates to what is currently considered another crime (illegal filesharing). Now you may not like the methods they wish to use to censor the online world, but if you have a problem with the law then don't complain about the companies that operate within the law. It's like whipping the driver so the horse will run faster. Like HASO 22 hours ago in reply to Utah Jones I dont understand why people ASSUME that once you censor child pornography, the pedophiles stop what they do. The only thing that stops pedophiles is prison cells, and the most effective way to catch them is vigilant policing, attentiveness of the parents, and care from the school staff. Having videos on the internet showing what they do is not going to inspire would-be pedophiles. Thats like saying watching enough movies involving murder will turn you into a murderer. This broken link that everyone can't see shows a deep flaw in their critical thinking capabilities. 7 people liked this. Like Guest123 16 hours ago in reply to Utah Jones "Having videos on the internet showing what they do is not going to inspire would-be pedophiles. Thats like saying watching enough movies involving murder will turn you into a murderer" No, it's not. Murder is means to an end. It works to help a criminal fulfill some other goal, even if that goal is simply the removal of a person they hate. It's a tool that criminals use, not a desired action (with some notable exceptions, like serial killers). Child molestation is an action that Pedophiles wish to take. Psychologically, that's a big difference. Giving potential pedophiles exposure to it does increase their tendency towards pedophilia. Like electric_worry 16 hours ago in reply to Utah Jones @ Ven I'll agree with most of what you said except for one thing. And it's not that I disagree but I just want to point something out. "...and how it relates to what is currently considered another crime (illegal filesharing)." The thing I'd like to clear up is just that file sharing is not necessarily a crime. It depends on where you live. Just like using drugs is perfectly legal in some places. It's all a matter of location. Also, while I do understand what they're doing. They're essentially trivializing CP to further their own agenda. Now don't misunderstand what I just said, but they're taking advantage of people's feelings on CP to get censorship to be considered and used by more countries. Then, I mean based off some of the quotes in the article, once they've got a foot in the door, they want to filter out anything they don't approve of. Which, while some say we don't know what people may or may not do, it is obvious that if they're allowed to further their own agenda, the way they are, through "filtering", others will see that as the "okay" to do the same. Which in the end hurts everyone. What does bug me too is this "see no evil, hear no evil" filtering of CP. As I said, they're trivializing the issue. "Let's just block it and that makes the problem go away." That's not the case. Instead of filtering it flat out, if they wanted to seem like good guys and like they actually care about the issue, they'd advocate a method of coming up with better methods to find child pornographers. Think about it, that would actually be more beneficial to them than just censoring. Doing that, they might be able to use said technology with more accuracy in tracking down actual infringers. In places where file sharing is illegal. Because they can't use that in places where it isn't. As it is, there have been numerous cases where they accuse someone of infringing when they haven't at all, or where they've said inanimate objects were doing the same (the Washington University's printers being a prime example). They could avoid problems like that and actually "catch" people if they had better data gathering methods. Preferably non-intrusive ones. Because violating people's privacy is a more serious crime than file sharing. You can't monitor everyone's actions... show more 2 people liked this. Like Momo 11 hours ago in reply to Utah Jones Ven, I'm pretty sure it's not just those children's privacy that was violated, and tbh I don't see what problem simply taking it offline will solve, since in all the years I've been using the net I've never come across any CP. If CP needs to be taken offline, it shouldn't happen through censorship, but by catching the pornographers and alerting the hosts to take the material offline. As for the rest of your post, you seem to be buying into the Anonymous shill's party line, specifically the big lie that hosts in Eastern European countries do not cooperate to fight child pornography. So let me get some facts out for you. Cecilia Malmström, EU Commissioner of Home Affairs and censorship advocate, was posed an official question through EU channels for examples that would back up her assertion that there are countries not willing to cooperate with authorities to remove CP. Some weeks later, she came up with an answer that fumbled its words and provided no such examples, indicating that she was full of shit. And here we get into how precisely the copyright lobbies are fighting CP. They are not simply pointing to CP as an existing system of censorship, they are lobbying through a highly ineffective and unjustified CP censorship system based on untruths, so they can later point to it and ask for more. In my book, that is a disgusting corruption of democratic processes, and the exploitation of CP in this way is highly immoral. Not only are the copyright lobbies trying to railroad through censorship, the way the go about doing that is also completely disgusting. Like Elvin Solano 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous SHILLL!!! 1 person liked this. Like Reply Matt Wright 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous No the question is, should the internet be censored? If your answer is yes, regardless of whatever issue you try to wrap it up with (child pornography and terrorism seem to work well!) then you inexorably start a cascade chilling effects on free speech, art and innovation. 7 people liked this. Like Reply Ven 22 hours ago in reply to Matt Wright I think there is an underlying question or two that need to be answered before the whole mess that is the internet can get straightened out: Is free speech violated when only one form of speech is censored (i.e. is censorship on the internet really violating human rights when it is the only platform on which free speech is violated)? Should freedom of speech on the internet protect against the censorship of images, audio, and video? Is copyright going away, staying forever, or staying somewhere in the middle? We can sit and complain about the MAFIAA and talk about TPB and everything else we do, but the real future comes down to the above questions governing the fundamental rights of internet users. And before anyone jumps in and says those questions have already been answered by governments, I don't believe it has been satisfactorily been done in the internet age. 1 person liked this. Like Friend of the People 16 hours ago in reply to Matt Wright Well Ven, I think I'm going to answer your question with another one. Is freedom of speech meant to cover anything that someone could possibly say? If I knew you in real life and wanted to slander you, could I do it? Could I post that on the internet, or put posters up all around town claiming as much? If not, haven't you violated my freedom of speech by not allowing me to do it? Freedom of speech is not meant to apply to absolutely anything. It's meant to cover art and political opinions, to ensure that nothing will ever be censored because it criticizes the government or an institution. It's not a blanket clause allowing people to do anything they want because they can classify it as speech. 1 person liked this. Like Anonymous 17 hours ago in reply to Anonymous or a better question which is not hiding kiddie porn but tracking the sickos are getting it so they can be arrested or blocking the kiddie porn hiding those sickos from procecution but also forcing to act out their desires by actually physically abusing kids. you can create loaded questions for any issue 1 person liked this. Like Reply Thomas van Amerongen 15 hours ago in reply to Anonymous Child Porn should be removed from its source, not by filtering. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Anon 15 hours ago in reply to Anonymous Durrrrr Hurrrrrr Your question is flawed. WHAT YOURE IMPLICATING IS TECHNICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, therefore it is not the only question one should ask himself. Like Reply Anonymous 6 hours ago in reply to Anonymous censorship of any kind IS inherently bad AND undesirable. in this particular point the use of the internet to distribute child pornography is in fact one of law enforcements most powerful tools in tracking down and punishing these offenders. Censorship has been proven historically to be the first step down a long and slippery slope. Each time it has been done, often with the best intentions to start with, it has inevitably become a tool of opression against any voice that dissents from the stats quo. We are everywhere. We are legion. We are coming. Expect us. 1 person liked this. Like Reply Waterll Allice 9 hours ago in reply to hikaricore Feminists LOVE censorship: http://goo.gl/f4pXo Like Reply hvis 1 day ago Very strong writing. This is the kind of argument that might do well, I think, even on a national TV. Like Reply ANoiXioNA 1 day ago Great article Rick. As I said on here before to a troll.... **edit** fuk me the trolls are back /\ Sick Bastard.. using the horror of child abuse to further their agenda And they love it being there... doesn't matter why.... Those sick bastards want CP to exist...... Truly a bunch of selfish cunts , without conscience or social morality. ( do they work for the... News Of The World ? ) 12 people liked this. Like Reply Elvin Solano 1 day ago in reply to ANoiXioNA Sounds like it! Like Reply Flying Dutchman 1 day ago Damn I wish some politicians would read this article and bitch slap those MAFIAA goons in the face. Child porn is evil, but these MAFIAA goons exploiting it for their own means is just F*cked up to say the least! They should lock them up in jail, together with some rapist looking for a girlfriend... 10 people liked this. Like Reply Elvin Solano 1 day ago in reply to Flying Dutchman All the Censorship does is protect the abusers of children... sounds fishy to me. 2 people liked this. Like Reply I_am_a_sausage_not_a_hotdog 1 day ago Feel free to censor child porn!! But most politicians lie and even download themselves. Seriously dude, get the real criminals off the streets and leave the rest of us alone. P2p will never die!! 7 people liked this. Like Reply Buglord 1 day ago I'm gonna say this ONCE and probably never care to say it again; use RAPE-related words as override terms, saying he's a "pedophile", when you mean rapist, is the same as saying "OMG that guy's a heterosexual" when he rapes women. and maybe you should start thinking a little about WHY they rape children, social problems, mental problems or whatever, don't bother, we all know about those things, what if it's just that they don't have any other way of seeing it, maybe, many of the child rapists wouldn't have been rapists if they could just have their porn.. and if you mean rape porn, don't call it child porn, FFS learn to use words and understand what they mean before you use them! damned schools don't teach what they should... they teach "DON'T use that word, it's bad" without giving any explanation WHY or WHAT it means in any way. and I'm not trying to defend rapists here, just trying to defend the words, use them right, or I and whoever might be like me won't understand WTH you are trying to tell them. 4 people liked this. Like Reply Guest 1 day ago in reply to Buglord "maybe, many of the child rapists wouldn't have been rapists if they could just have their porn.." No. That's a nice thought, but it's completely unrealistic. Having access to some of it will spawn a desire for more. To put it simply; you couldn't subsist off of porn, and neither will they. Like Reply Ven 22 hours ago in reply to Guest Agreed: rape statistics have not seen a sharp decrease since the internet brought porn to our homes. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Anon 1 day ago Most people agree very strongly child pornography should be censored from the Internet. The victimization of those children continues so long as those images and videos are shared and spread around the world. It is impossible for American or European police to force developing countries to spend more money on cyberpolice or to take more proactive measures against child pornography sites. Even in Russia, which is hardly 3rd world, child porn has flourished on the Internet almost unchecked by law enforcement. Should the rest of the world have to wait until Russia or the Ukraine gets their act together? Or should we shield our countries' citizens and Internet from foreign criminal enterprises? Answer that question and you will understand why most people are strongly in favor of child porn censorship. Most people agree: Censorship is not inherently bad. Like Reply Lothor The Evil 1 day ago in reply to Anon I understand what you are saying and I too believe child porn should be removed from the internet. But there is a whole world of culture not involving child porn that would be censored as well. It would be like saying since a major car manufacturer has a history of having unsafe vehicles and never improving them, all cars must be abolished instead of going after the 1 manufacturer and shutting them down. 1 person liked this. Like Reply Benjamin 1 day ago in reply to Anon "The victimization of those children continues so long as those images and videos are shared and spread around the world." The victimization of those children continues REGARDLESS of the spread of the video and images. It occurs in all countries, not just the old Soviet ones. Even if we completely eradicated CP from the internet, made it IMPOSSIBLE to access (which is probably not possible anyway) - molestation and rape of children will continue unabated. We had a case recently in our small town of a police officer using public WiFi networks to download thousands of CP media to his laptop in his squad car, while on duty. It could be argued that, in the absence of access to CP, this cop may well have gone and molested a few kids. But that is simply conjecture. What is not conjecture is the fact that the sexual exploitation of children has gone on probably since caveman days, and it will not stop just because the public can no longer access it on the internet. If anything, it will be driven further underground, into tightly-secretive circles that will be even more difficult for law enforcement to break into than they are now. Censorship only hides the problem. It does not solve it. 11 people liked this. Like Reply Guest123 1 day ago in reply to Benjamin "in the absence of access to CP, this cop may well have gone and molested a few kids. But that is simply conjecture." Yes, it is conjecture. Studies have actually found (although not demonstrated, for obvious reasons) that when people with a predeliction to child molestion are exposed to child pornography, it increases their chances of raping a child, not decreases it. "If anything, it will be driven further underground, into tightly-secretive circles that will be even more difficult for law enforcement to break into than they are now." It will be driven further underground, but fewer people will be involved with it. It will decrease the amount of people exposed to it, which will decrease child molestation. Besides, if we're going to go after the people who are molesting the children, we first need to find their pictures on the internet, and if we've found them, why not take them down? The very existence of the pictures is a moral crime in and of itself. Personally, I think it's worth spending money and manhours just to take it down. "Censorship only hides the problem." Your implicit assumption here is that when people censor the child porn, they stop there and don't go after the people committing it. That's a false assumption. Let me ask you this question; if we know where it is on the internet, why not take it down? Give me a good reason for leaving it up. 1 person liked this. Like Reply zenithmaster 1 day ago in reply to Guest123 Studies? What studies? How does one conduct a study like that? WTF 1 person liked this. Like Guest123 16 hours ago in reply to Guest123 "A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues Ryan C. W. Halland Richard C. W. Hall Mayo Clinic Proceedings April 2007 vol. 82 no. 4 457-471" I know that's not in good AMA format, but I don't think any of us care. "Child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. Seto, Michael C.; Cantor, James M.; Blanchard, Ray Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol 115(3), Aug 2006, 610-615. doi: " You study it after the fact, by studying know pedophiles. You probably thought about scientists actually trying to cause pedophilia, which for obvious reasons does not happen. Like Joska 14 hours ago in reply to Guest123 You should have put a link for these studies for easier check. But I found them easily with Google anyway and read them. Neither has a single word about the effects of CP. So please point out, exactly where was it proved that CP encourages child abuse! Until you do it I'm free to say it's a preconception and bullshit. Like Guest123 14 hours ago in reply to Guest123 Child pornography offenders were significantly more likely to show a pedophilic pattern of sexual arousal during phallometric testing than were comparison groups of offenders against adults or general sexology patients." Discussion section of the second article. Admittedly, they do acknowledge limitations, mostly relating to the forensic nature of the study, which could confound the results. That said, I would like someone to show me some research to the opposite; that having child pornography will decrease child molestation. Many people have made claims, but it looks to me like I'm the only one who produced research. How about some people in favor of allowing child pornography (or not censoring child pornography I should say) show some data. Like Joska 13 hours ago in reply to Guest123 Learn to read! The cited text correctly: "As a group, child pornography offenders showed greater sexual arousal to children than to adults and <bold>differed from groups of sex offenders against children</bold>, sex offenders against adults, and general sexology patients." And it concludes: The results suggest child pornography offending is a stronger diagnostic indicator of pedophilia than is sexually offending against child victims. So where does it prove that watching CP increases the risk of actually abuseing a child? CP offending means they found CP on those people's hard drives. And the research states nothing more than by this they really can be labeled as pedophiles. But, both study clearly states "pedophil" and "sexually abuser of children" are not interchangable. "Pedophil" only means one who is sexually attracted to children, wich doesn't mean they will ever victimize any child. Like Rick Falkvinge 8 hours ago in reply to Guest123 @Guest123: Child pornography offenders were significantly more likely to show a pedophilic pattern of sexual arousal during phallometric testing than were comparison groups of offenders against adults or general sexology patients." It is important to keep one's logic straight here. This passage claims that there is a positive correlation, probably less than one but greater than zero, between CP users and paedophiles. That is entirely logical. People who are paedophiles and download CP are likely to get aroused by it more than the average population. This is a "duuuhh" statement. What this passage does not say is that average people who are not paedophilic magically would become so by downloading CP, just like somebody who downloads gay porn doesn't magically become homosexual. Correlation does not imply causation. That is paramountally important when legislating, and I am in the business of legislation. Like Alunmorgan 1 day ago in reply to Anon Instead of censoring content we should block countries. If they cant get their act together then cut their entire internet. Like Reply Death 1 day ago in reply to Alunmorgan Why have people not yet tried this line of logic when it comes to CP: "If you don't want to see it, don't search for it, or click on it." While Shota and Loli could work, and could be considered an outlet for would-be rapists, some do not like the animated or manga look of them. So, what is left for those people? Hmm... the trouble here is (in terms of available logical paths) that child porn is assumed to be bad, thus equitable compromises that involve avoiding further exploitation of children, and giving an outlet for those who desire the porn to the point that they would consider going out and abusing children without said porn, impossible. 1 person liked this. Like Reply Guest123 1 day ago in reply to Death The problem there is that if you looked at the psychological research on the matter, you'd know that giving people the outlet actually INCREASES their likeliness to molest a child. "Why have people not yet tried this line of logic when it comes to CP:" Because people won't ignore things that are morally heinous. They wouldn't ignore footage of innocent people being murdered. They wouldn't turn their backs on footage of someone being raped. They want to stop it, not ignore it. 1 person liked this. Like Violated0 20 hours ago in reply to Death The problem there is that if you looked at the psychological research on the matter, you'd know that giving people the outlet actually INCREASES their likeliness to molest a child. This is true but people do not always act on their desires. Indeed more people have a desire for the younger age than you may realise but they simply do not act upon this desire knowing it is socially and morally wrong. One example is that the number one sexual fantasy for men in the United States in the school girl image. Because people won't ignore things that are morally heinous. Also true. Humans are born curious but that does not mean they wont be disturbed by what they see. They want to stop it, not ignore it. True again but that also means society can self-regulate without governmental interference. What most concerns me about this discussion is that people here have not put pedophilia or CP into a wider social context when I have seen myself the insides of dysfunctional families. A family that is full of arguments and large disrespect. Alcohol abuse and general violence. Drug abuse and neglect. I have seen children who flee home very VERY angry at their parent(s) and large disrespect for society as a whole. "I can hold a bottle longer than my mother has ever held me" some say. Another said how his father beat him with an iron bar. My point is that we as a species are far from perfect and bad parenting happens far too often. To put this subject into valid context then parents hugging and kissing their children is not such a bad thing even if it does go further than society prefers. This seems better to me than parents who get drunk and beat their children to an inch of their life. I once heard one woman say how when she was a young teen girl how her father tied her to a tree and beat her with his gorilla-like hands. You can say she grew up into a rather socially unacceptable person as well. Like Guest123 16 hours ago in reply to Death Interesting arguments Violated. I have only 1 major complaint "My point is that we as a species are far from perfect and bad parenting happens far too often. To put this subject into valid context then parents hugging and kissing their children is not such a bad thing even if it does go further than society prefers." If it were just hugging and kissing, that would be fine (well, that depends on how far the hugging goes). It's not though. It's sex. Not hugging, not kissing; sex. That's why we hate pedophiles... not sure what else to say there. You talk about kids being beaten, but don't you think that being molested harms them too? Mental and emotional wounds count just as much as physical ones. A child molester can harm his children just as much as a child beater. I've heard that the two behaviors are actually related, but I can't definitively say that. 1 person liked this. Like Disgusted 1 day ago in reply to Anon Most people agree: Censorship is inherently bad. There, fixed that for you. And by the way Troll, since when has the EFF been pro pirating? Only in your sick little twisted world where anything that interferes with your making money off the backs of others is evil. So censor child porn and push it underground where it can flourish, just so you and your sick kind can keep making money from the culture you stole. Unbelievably sick! 3 people liked this. Like Reply Liudvikas Teiserskis 22 hours ago in reply to Anon I do not agree. Any censorship is bad, no matter if we can agree that the censored information is bad. Effectively taking something off the internet is impossible and unless you filter every bit of information that is sent and ban any form of encryption and so on. Only draconian measures could censor something with success. So in that case it's better not to have dangerous precedents in our laws, it's slippery slope if someone decides something can be censored it's only a matter of time before something is censored that should not be. 1 person liked this. Like Reply Tshamica 20 hours ago in reply to Anon "The victimization of those children continues so long as those images and videos are shared and spread around the world. " Wrong, Vicky Aka Kylee Freeman went to court and tried to sue 2 ppl for the above and wanted $68K 4each person who shared her dad eating her out and her getting cum in her mouth and sucking dick. The judge threw the case out and said that after the act is comitted, there is no victimization no matter if 1 or 1000 people seen the video since she is not again making cp videos and eating cum. She then went pissed from the courtroom and went into hiding for a while be4 getting a job in real estate. 1 person liked this. Like Reply MAFIAAFire 1 day ago A wonderful write up Mr. Falkvinge! You were a huge inspiration to us when we created MAFIAAFire and for joining the Pirate Party, and we shall use this article to spread the word in our upcoming plugin as well. Have a very good day! MF 7 people liked this. Like Reply Rick Falkvinge 1 day ago in reply to MAFIAAFire You were a huge inspiration to us when we created MAFIAAFire This is an honor. Thank you. Cheers, Rick 1 person liked this. Like Reply MAFIAAFire 1 day ago in reply to Rick Falkvinge Most welcome, and if you look at the site we even mentioned it in the FAQ :) Keep up the good work, and keep in mind... your words are like a tree, you never know when down the line it's fruit helps passerbys like us on our journey... to bring down the MAFIAA! 1 person liked this. Like Reply Lothor The Evil 1 day ago Child pornography cannot be copyrighted and is illegal in most countries as far as I know. Therefore the copyright industries have no claim to censor child porn as it doesn't belong to them. 14 people liked this. Like Reply hikaricore 1 day ago in reply to Lothor The Evil I totally LOLed. 3 people liked this. Like Reply Herbie 20 hours ago in reply to Lothor The Evil nah its legal in most countries. google it Like Reply Friend of the People 16 hours ago in reply to Herbie It's illegal in most countries. 94 ban it (although 34 allow it in some circumstances), and of the other 93, many have bans on either pornography in general or bans on "child labor" that have been held in courts to ban child pornography. Like Reply Benjamin 1 day ago Very well-written article. Actually makes you think about what is the point of censorship, even something like CP, when the underlying problem continues unabated. Consider the idea that if they did not censor CP, they could easily track who is uploading and downloading the content, get warrants and actually take down these people. Instead they force them further underground and do nothing to actually stop children from being molested and raped, which is the real crime. Not saying there should be no censorship at all for CP (there will probably always be a market for the mentally-deranged), but just saying it seems that censorship has done little to solve the problem. Similarly with file sharing censorship - they only harm their own cause by driving the black market further underground, further away from public view, and through even more proxies and VPNs until they can't enforce any laws on the matter at all. The reason the industry doesn't care about these consequences is because they know it is bad PR to be locking up old ladies and laying down $1,000,000+ fines for supposed file sharing - and it is much more profitable to be pushing for censorship measures, so that they can fool their shareholders into thinking they are being proactive on the issue when in fact they are only making things worse. Really, when you look at these industry types and the seeming lunacy of their actions, you must understand that these are people who are ultimately stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have the difficult but well-paid job of being complete tools. Also, I might be mistaken but I'm pretty sure all the major torrent sites have protocols which remove CP as soon as it's added. I'm no expert, but I think it's more of a problem on Usenet (which is even more difficult to police). 2 people liked this. Like Reply Haxor 1 day ago in reply to Benjamin ya and in 11 years ive not seen one bit of child porn on any p2p system in fact in 15 years , being a hacker if i ever came across it id destroy the server OR failing that leave something there that virii's people Like Reply social commenter 23 hours ago in reply to Haxor I once downloaded a scooter video [ok so my taste in music might have been dodgy] and went to watch it and thought "hey, this isn't scooter" That turned out to be a 3 minute vid of some sick fuck in a bedroom...at first i thought it was just a normal porn flick ya know like you get those damn windows media player malware things that are all over these days. As soon as i realised what it actually was the thought went through my mind have i to call in the police as they can then check who had upped it to the site it came from etc etc but then i thought NO because cops automatically think you are the guilty party even when you are being helpful so i just destroyed the f*cking drive and bought a new one. But in the 7 years since then that has never happened since and i assume it was some twisted f*ck who just renamed the file to see the look on the faces of who ever had downloaded it. A quick message there to Anonymous.....it doesn't matter if you censor that shite as the people who watch it, download it and make it will still do it and distribute it just like they did before the internet or are you going to start making false claims that it only started once the internet gave them the way to do it ? I think the point at the end of the day is that if the people in the interview tar everyone with the same brush then it is easier for them to point a finger and shut anything they want down and nobody would stand up and disagree for fear of being cast out. Once it became law all they would have to say is that file X was found on such a site and whoosh the site is seized or blocked with no appeal. There are some things which i'm sure people here would agree need to be censored for obvious reasons but that wont get rid of the problem, only hunting down the sick fucks to start with will eradicate the problem but as has been said above it is easier to hide it than deal with it and by tarring normal files sharers with the same brush and in the same sentence they will get... show more Like Reply Violated0 19 hours ago in reply to social commenter i just destroyed the f*cking drive and bought a new one Nice overkill. Windows users can obtain a program called Shredder. It acts like your recycle bin but make sure any files dropped into it are completely erased from your HDD by overwriting where the file was stored several times. I helps to save buying new HDDs. You are not the only one. More than a few people reinstall their entire O/S due to a virus infection instead of simply removing the virus. Like Bob 9 hours ago in reply to Benjamin well after many usenet bust i find that most ppl quit or moved to more anonamous pastrures. Also most say usenet doesn't have on topic cp. its nothign or spam unless you want clothed child models Like Reply Guest 1 day ago Just kill the children. 7 people liked this. Like Reply Noah C. 1 day ago in reply to Guest That's a little harsh. 1 person liked this. Like Reply noko 1 day ago in reply to Noah C. I don't know. They want things all the time, they never shut the fuck up. They seem to be some kind of scapegoat for pro censorship. That said, I'm actually quite for killing children. 3 people liked this. Like Reply Noah C. 1 day ago in reply to noko I'd like to see your future earth, then. 1 person liked this. Like noko 1 day ago in reply to noko I'm misanthropic, man. Humans destroy everything they touch. A world without humans would be so much better. 3 people liked this. Like Violated0 19 hours ago in reply to noko Planet of the Apes here we come. I think humans deserve a chance. They are still a young species and learning quickly from their mistakes. We will have to see if protecting the planet or personal greed is most important. 2 people liked this. Like Rob8urcakes 16 hours ago in reply to Violated0 I think they do too V0, despite their penchant for aggression to the point of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Actually, how this puny Planet and its pathetic inhabitants have survived so far is not only a mystery but not worth a 2nd visit. Go crap in each others' mouth if you wish, but leave the rest of the Universe alone and uninfected with your persistently bad attitude to yourselves and anything else. 1 person liked this. Like Xult 1 day ago in reply to Guest Just do not copulate. No more children. Like Reply Linuxeomboy 1 day ago Trying to get a broader perspective, my say is that: To censor information in a world-wide medium that is a pool big enough for everyone to swimn, and it's principle lies in the very openness and versatility of communication, should be really down to a personal level of interest. *DON'T YOU DARE FUCK WITH MY INTERNET CONNECTION, DICKHEAD* Now, to censor someone's freedom of commiting a crime is also quite problematic... *SHOULD I WEAR HANDCUFFS JUST BECAUSE I CAN KILL SOMEONE WITH MY BARE HANDS?* The less I agree with censorship if you tell me it's for MY good and the wellbeing of MY family, when I have a brain and like using it. And also like inspiring others to do so. *WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW ABOUT ME, MR. PRESIDENT!?* So get the fuck away from me with this censor this is good censor that is bad bullshit. Censorship only implies a monopolistic kind of interest into other people's lives. 6 people liked this. Like Reply Haxor 1 day ago what we should do to really stop chi8ld pron, PAY HACKERS CASH to destroy every website hosting it. BANG prob solved no need to trample on majorities civil rights. Like Reply Crash 1 day ago in reply to Haxor I would rather pay a hitman cash to take care of the sickos in person. Having their websites taken down doesn't strike me as adequate punishment. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Guest123 1 day ago in reply to Haxor The police do actually do that. They fire hacker firms, the same firms that corporations hire to test their security systems. They do a pretty good job, but it's impossible to get rid of all of it. 1 person liked this. Like Reply meh 1 day ago in reply to Haxor the hackers should be doing this for free, and actively where ever encountered.or at least mapping out the network and who is involved... Like Reply Geeker 1 day ago The MPAA/RIAA et al have always and will always try to lump together this topic, as they continually do with drugs, prostitution, guns, organised crime etc etc, because they think it makes their bleating appear to be for a good cause, when in reality, we all know it's a complete bunch of hogwash to cover up their true motives, which is to try and keep their stranglehold on the complete and total conrtol of all media, rather than them providing the goods and services which the public want in the 21st Century. Just plain evil! The way they get away with this crap time and time again and the way they try to abuse the system using this lumping together manipulative tactic is reprehensible. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Jay 1 day ago I see many parallels between this anti-piracy strategy and a political strategy in the media. This strategy is used by both the Liberals in the mainstream media and anti-piracy outfits - after all, the MPAA and Liberals are one and the same. They will kamikaze a message into the minds of others and then bail from it the moment they're pressed/ questioned about it. This is what's called the "Drive-by media". If you don't know what drive-by media means - it's when someone will say the most politically damaging thing they can, whether it's true or not, then leave and let others debate about it, effectively letting others clean up their mess behind them. Sure, they may apologize for it or backpedal away from it later on, but the damage has already been done (and most likely the media will skip out on a followup debate once all the facts are in). This is what Liberals do to control the media, and to control the argument. It's not a fluke - it happens constantly and it's a well-known tactic of the Left. They have staff/ panel meetings to discuss exactly this strategy. It's only a matter of time before the "Child Pornography" attack is used against politicians as well. Let's say that a couple days before the presidential election, Liberals come out and accuse the GOP candidate of being a child molester. It doesn't matter if it's a giant lie - it will stick in a voter's head at the most crucial of moments, and when the smoke clears and the GOP loses, "Whoops, sorry I was mistaken". It's evil, and it happens all the time - as long as "the ends justify the means", as Liberals like to say. That is what anti-piracy groups are doing when they use this tactic - they're using child pornography as a tool to get others (politicians, the public) to react to a "moral imperative" before the public understand what they're doing. Just like some of the comments here, I've noticed - if you don't come out and say, right off the bat, that child pornography is detestable (which it obviously is) then automatically someone will fire off that you're a supporter of it. But whether this type of pornography is acceptable or not, that's NOT the issue here. The... show more 4 people liked this. Like Reply Guest 1 day ago The copyright lobby, the biggest troll of them all: 1) Pretend there is child pron everywhere 2) Provide technology to filter the internet 3) Block P2P 4) ??????? 5) Profit ! 7 people liked this. Like Reply Anonymous 1 day ago I also care about the vast amount of child porn being traded on anonymization services like Tor and Freenet. And I care about what will happen once human trafficking starts taking place on Onion sites via BitCoin. It is one of the primary reasons why I personally believe none of these technologies should (or will) be allowed to reach truly mainstream levels. Your logic is completely insane. You're basically arguing from the syllogism (1) Anonymity may facilitate the untraceable exchange of information; (2) Allowing widespread adoption of anonymity may facilitate exchange of child pornography; (3) Cutting child pornography at its source is impossible and all services enabling such anonymity must therefore be punishable. The problem with this argument is that it equates the act of physical abuse with pictures of the crime being spread. Just because child pornography encompasses depiction of an illegal act does not make the depiction of said crime independently punishable. Arguing from such a premise is ridiculous and should logically lead to the censorship of movies, cartoons and literature. The only legitimate interest in suppressing child pornography is the protection of the actual victims. Censoring CP just because people finds it offensive, or in order to control the thoughts of pedophiles is simply not a legitimate justification for censorship of mere depictions. Remember that the exploitation rationale breaks down when the images are not of real children but only computer generated animations or cartoons. What if pedophiles trade CP on FreeNet or Tor? It's only a problem insofar as the images are demonstrably linked to *actual* child abuse. Since you can't know if it's the real thing, the only remaining rationale for suppression is a desire to control the thoughts of the viewers. Second, your reasoning from physical abuse to informational abuse is a slippery slope necessating government snooping, data retention and bans on anonymity and privacy services and technologies. 6 people liked this. Like Reply Xult 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous This from someone who labels himself anonymous? 4 people liked this. Like Reply electric_worry 16 hours ago in reply to Xult Lol. You know, I'd been thinking about it, but til I just saw someone else say did it confirm my thoughts. Have you noticed how most of the "trolls" (not this guy I mean), but specifically the gung ho "you're all thieves" anti-piracy/pro-copyright types love insulting everyone on here and saying that "all of you are hiding behind your computers and think you're so clever using VPNs and proxies and whatnot, because you won't get caught cause it's anonymous" all happen to not notice that they're essentially doing the same thing by labeling themselves as Anon/Anonymous. If that isn't the definition of a hypocrite I don't know what is. And if there's one thing I can't stand, it's hypocrites. 1 person liked this. Like Reply Tuga 1 day ago The main problem is that, by censoring illegal content, you only encourage people to dig deeper and hide more effectively. It is foolish to believe that only filesharers use Tor, VPN, proxies, or any other means to hide their identity - sure, they may come up with new stuff, but soon enough all the REAL criminals will pick up those tools and make the job of law-enforcement agencies much, much harder. And we can thank the Copyright-Lobby for it. 4 people liked this. Like Reply meh 1 day ago censoring is useless, it harms everyone, and wont do anything to stop those that need be, in fact, it makes them more skilled and harder to detect, creating more of a problem. it should be the authorities that lock these sick fucks away, and the hackers that unleash hell and hand them over on a silver platter 4 people liked this. Like Reply person1234 1 day ago hypothetically speaking: what if the underage actors (13-17) were recording their sexual activities online and no "abuse" or "forcing" was done. 100% voluntary. what are your thoughts on said situation?? 5 people liked this. Like Reply Guest123 1 day ago in reply to person1234 Child porn is child porn. As far as I'm concerned, any child porn is bad child porn. I don't really care if two teenagers did it consensually; no pictures of that should be public. The pictures themselves are morally reprehensible. There shouldn't be any punishment given to anyone for it, but I'd say that if the pictures were online, they should be taken down. 1 person liked this. Like Reply Death 1 day ago in reply to Guest123 What are your thoughts on porn in general, define "public" in terms of ease of accessibility, and whose morality are you going off of? Morals can change and are a weak point of argument (like beliefs are to justifying actions). Like Reply Guest123 1 day ago in reply to Death There's no reason to restrict porn in general. I don't care about what consenting adults do, but we do recognize a difference between children and adults. Children are subject to restrictions until they've reached an age where we assign them full responsibility for their actions. By public, I mean that if two teenagers make pictures of themselves, then it doesn't matter. If they are in any location where anyone could gain access to them, then it's public. "Morals can change and are a weak point of argument" Perhaps, but what else do we have to go on? If we're going to just disregard morals, then why do we even care about pedophilia in the first place? It may harm the child, but why should we care? Even the basic point of disliking pedophiles It's not weak to argue based on morals. It's weak if you can't defend your morals. Finding a balance between competing morals (the desire to remove child porn and the desire to minimize censorship) is the important part. Like Guest123 1 day ago in reply to Death To clarify; If two teenagers make pictures and keep the pictures to themselves, that's fine. If it's made available to the general populace in any way, then it's child porn. I don't think I made that clear in the last post. BTW, is there any way to edit posts after-the-fact? 1 person liked this. Like BangIShotYou 10 hours ago in reply to Death @ Guest123 You can edit after you post by looking on the bottom right of the comment after it appears. It should say "Edit". Just click and make your edits. Also, you can go to Disqus.com (assuming you're using that) and edit directly from there. I'm saying you can edit, on the assumption that you're "Guest123" account is with Disqus. Not sure if it lets you edit if you're any of the other choices. Like Google, Yahoo, etc. Like Death 1 day ago in reply to person1234 I am fine with that scenario. Like Reply Anon 1 day ago They're so adamant about this because they own the rights to a vast majority of child porn. It would be bad for their business. 2 people liked this. Like Reply MC 1 day ago Hang on.......re-victimization? What sort of made up, straw man disingenuous pseudo-argument is that? I will counter argue here that people who are inclined towards sexual feelings for children may find their desires satiated enough from viewing child abuse images that they never feel the need to physically go out and commit such an act. I think this is quite likely to be true. So i see from the first few comments that paid industry lackeys have been keeping an eye on this blog after all, and now see fit to immediately try and denigrate good articles such as this in the comments lest a policy maker see sense for once! This is a good thing, it means they fear us and our arguments on some level, probably because they know we are right. So yes great article, but i fear that Rick missed a facet of this international chess game. He paints the governments involved in this as having a childlike intellect, puppets to these private rights holders interests, and that is to a large extent true, but they are not unaware of this and the are not unwilling either. The rights holders are correct, the mechanisms needed to hide CP from the internet (as opposed to yknow, arresting the producers) are also perfect for censoring copyright infringements........and they are also perfect for censoring 'undesirable' political material such as things that go against the party line, news of govt corruption, websites of opposition groups etc......and this is where the governments stake in all this comes from. They couldnt really give a toss about either child pornography OR copyright infringement, but through the whole debate they can see the way forward to finally gaining editorial control over the web, whilst doing it to thunderous applause from the populace because it is 'all for the children', as opposed to say, China where the people there are under no illusion as to why the censorship exists and the govt. doesnt really try to persuade them otherwise. Its worth noting here too that the ultimate power of the child abuse argument comes from the inability to counter it on the public stage, because it only takes one person to shoot back 'Why are you defending CP?' and then your credibility is shot to tatters, especially if you are a politician. This power stems from not only the industries undying love of CP, but the... show more 7 people liked this. Like Reply Friend of the People 1 day ago in reply to MC Your argument is rather interesting, although overall, I think you're too quick to dismiss realistic concerns that people have. I think we need to remember that we do allow and even desire some censorship. We don't allow slander, and we shouldn't allow this. Instead of calling for no censorship, call for complete transparency, where any site blocked has to be publically announced and defended. Any site owner who can prove that the government did otherwise would have the right to sue. That's probably a better direction to take it. Just remember this; just because something might be abused doesn't mean we can't use it. We have the police, but they could easily be used to abuse freedoms. The answer isn't completely avoiding something that could be abused; the answer is making all information public and making any attempt to hide or destroy any information a felony. You make a good argument, but I do have 1 huge complaint with what you're saying. "I will counter argue here that people who are inclined towards sexual feelings for children may find their desires satiated enough from viewing child abuse images that they never feel the need to physically go out and commit such an act. I think this is quite likely to be true." Nice thought, but let's work in the real world, where people don't have their desires sated by some small thing. It doesn't happen. Look at any psychological study relating to people getting access to taboo material, and you'll find that when people have some access (pornography), they're more inclined to go further than they otherwise might have (they're more likely to rape children). It doesn't sate their desires, it whets their appetite. 1 person liked this. Like Reply zenithmaster 1 day ago in reply to Friend of the People Please provide links to the psychological studies of which you speak. I am not disputing your argument - I am just interested in seeing them. Like Reply Friend of the People 15 hours ago in reply to zenithmaster Look above. Someone posted the two I would have used in response to your earlier comment. I can give a few more, but they're from the 70s and before, so they aren't quite as relevant nowadays. Like Jordan Kratz 1 day ago This government and the mafiaa can both take turns sucking my dog's ass. 4 people liked this. Like Reply Anon 1 day ago Whenever the topic of child pornography is discussed a lot of misconceptions about internet censorship are revealed. Please read this carefully. By design of the internet infrastructure, censorship is a difficult thing to do. The solution commonly proposed/implemented by modern countries in recent years has been "DNS filtering" . This means, if you try to access a specific blocked URL, the server which resolves this request (the DNS server) won't give you the real IP address of this website. Instead, the request is either dropped or you are redirected to a government owned site which explains to you that this URL has been blocked on grounds of illegal content. This is, however, a completely meaningless block. First of all you can simply query a different DNS server which is not inside your country. Secondly, you can simply directly connect to the IP address if you know it. Thirdly, a DNS server isn't something which has to be supplied by the ISP. There are numerous completely uncensored DNS servers available even within the censoring country and they are usually protected by laws which are harder to circumvent. A different solution is IP blocking. Here, certain IPs which are not withing country borders are access restricted. This prevents the trivial circumventions mentioned above, but ultimately is just as meaningless. Even though the blocked IP cannot be accessed directly, the content on this website can still be forwarded to you via a proxy. Proxy servers are very easy to set up, and pop up / disappear all the time. Furthermore they are usually protected by the right of anonymity and do not host any illegal material directly. Note also that both of these solutions do not in any way prevent file sharing. And if you talk strictly about censorship, these are the only options you have. The next step up will have to involve surveillance. Data retention laws have been enforced in a few countries. These require ISPs to store any connections to any IP address a user has established, their duration and in some cases (such as in the directive of the EU from 2006) even the location of mobile devices for a period of up to a few years. This has been struck down as unconstitutional in countries such as Germany, Czech Republic and Serbia. With this data the State can identify when, how long and from where you have accessed... show more 5 people liked this. Like Reply Bob Obb 1 day ago Yall motherfuckers going to jail. Like Reply Thanh_pn 1 day ago I agree child pornography should be filtered however I fear this is opening a door to allow the government to restrict what we can or cannot see. For example; China is filters out all topics in which go against its own government. With this Child Porn filter who is say our own government wont abuse the system to control the information we can access like china. I agree child porn is wrong however as it clearly points out in this article child porn is just being used as an excuse to control if not take away our freedom to information on the internet. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Xult 1 day ago Instead of the kiddy porn brigade moralising. Lets get to the point. Rightsholders are using child porn as a wedge to drive into the copywrong issue. Disgusting. These are the tactics they employ.. Are any of these rightsholders defending their ownership of child porn. If they are? If they arn't? Question it. It just goes to show what type of uhtermench they are. The type of people who would willingly extract your gold teeth and shove you into a furnace. Only following orders. The type of people who have no morals as long as they get well paid! 2 people liked this. Like Reply Guest 14 hours ago in reply to Xult uhtermench? i guess you meant "untermensch" (subhuman) otherwise... well said sir. Like Reply Ok 1 day ago I'm going to be shouted at for this, but I don't think censoring child porn does any good at all. It doesn't protect children, and it doesn't address the problem - children are still being abused! Police and the FBI should go after the sick child molesters themselves, those who create CP; cut it off at the source. You can't "sweep" the issue under the rug; it plainly will not help. Besides, just like we eventually will, and already have in some cases, the paedophiles have taken to Tor and anonymous P2P networks. (I'm not saying child porn should be allowed, but censorship is censorship; censorship under the guise of "removing child porn" is still censorship). Fuck the MAFIAA. 5 people liked this. Like Reply Guest 14 hours ago in reply to Ok "I'm not saying child porn should be allowed" well.. there's the problem.. if you bring that "censorship is bad" argument against those pro-censoring f*ckers, they'll just try to convince people that those "censorship is bad" commenters are probably into child porn or something.. stupid knockout-argument from them.. and sadly, most "average-joe's" actually believe this bullshit :( Like Reply NoBigGovDuh 1 day ago MPAA & RIAA Are Helping Child Pornographers Avoid Being Discovered! 5 people liked this. Like Reply Quest The Guest 1 day ago What child porn is everyone talking about? A search on BitChe brings up a dozen results which don't all look valid anyway! Like Reply Chris Hansen 8 hours ago in reply to Quest The Guest *knock knock* 1 person liked this. Like Reply Anonymous 1 day ago its been said many times but i will say again.. censoring the internet will not stop pedofucks. How would it? it existed before the dawn of the internet and will thrive when you pull a blanket over it shouting move along shout nothing to see here Instead of useless passive filtering system to serve the agenda of the MPAA and the likes.. why not actively pursue those who make it and distribute it. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Guest 23 hours ago it is common knowledge that in the entertainment industry all the executives and most of the employees are either pederasts or some type of sexual perverts. Let's kill them all. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Guest 23 hours ago "The world is rarely black and white. Trying to label censorship in such stark terms is futile. " For the world yes but for the entertainment industry and for the banks they are all black. let's kill them all. 1 person liked this. Like Reply Warpchy 22 hours ago Sure we can censor for kiddy porn. Let the child advocacy groups handle this, not corporate entities. Cause this is a social issue not a business one. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Friend of the People 15 hours ago in reply to Warpchy Very well put. I don't think anyone will argue with that. 1 person liked this. Like Reply Guest 22 hours ago Child porn is child porn. As far as I'm concerned, any child porn is bad child porn. I don't really care if two teenagers did it consensually; no pictures of that should be public. The pictures themselves are morally reprehensible. There shouldn't be any punishment given to anyone for it, but I'd say that if the pictures were online, they should be taken down. Why? If there is no underlying crime, unlawful sex between a child and an adult, the ban is no longer logically defensible as protection against crime. If the underlying act is not illegal, and sexual intercourse between children aren't necessarily so, it's not the state's business to censor how people voluntarily portray their act. Another scenario is children taking pictures of themselves and publishing them when they grow up. If I had sex when I was 14-16, why should I not have the right to publish the pictures when I reach the age of consent. You are moving from the core and IMHO legitimate concerns of pedophilia to paternalistic censorship merely on the ground that you don't like children being depicted in sex acts. 4 people liked this. Like Reply DaX 22 hours ago I'm confused. If watching CP makes you a pedophile, or at least makes a latent pedophile to one actually acting on his urges. What about murder, according to this logic TV shows depicting serial murders and murders must be turning people into murders and mass murders? I mean thats logic right? So if we are censoring CP, why aren't we censoring CSI, and oder crime TV shows? ----------------- "Should child pornography be censored from the Internet?" No, nothing should be censored! But, audio visual recordings of actual child molestations should be removed at the source. Only content should be removed that violates privacy rights of actual human beings. Drawings, animations, etc... however no mater what they are showing should not be removed. 2 people liked this. Like Reply J-Horn 21 hours ago Since politicians do not understand file sharing we going to find a lot of child pornography on the their computers... than they understand! 4 people liked this. Like Reply Violated0 19 hours ago For once Rick has got it completely right and I am someone who usually points out his false logic. I should add that BT has put all this in a correct context. They have a child porn filter and now the copyright side want them to filter file sharing sites as well. BT said if it came to wider censorship they would rather remove their child porn filter. What most people do not realise is that child porn is largely hidden from the general internet on darknets and private servers. BT's web filter in the child porn context is therefore very minor and usually simply a single age questionable photo in the middle of hundreds of adult porn photos on an adult porn website. Society including the police and courts can already self-regulate making such ISP filters of little real use. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Haxor 19 hours ago arent the fbi being pulled off looking for kiddy porn so they can arrest them evil file sharers who really harm children LOL btw my nick is chronoss and this nut bar at some tracker named Fatal likes to think i hacked his website. A) i have 1100 days news group access what the hell do i need bit torrent for? B) i'm 40 not 4 and your lil friend Nimueh needs ot get a cock in her ass as every site shes involved in fails. C) until i get public apology this lil message is gonna start popping up all over the place. google my nick there are millions of hits....ya they all are me honest...ask this retard admin for proof and whats he do , nothing cause he has none. BOY wiht admins like that can ya start to see why hollywood keeps winning. Like Reply Guest 19 hours ago you just gave me new energy Rick 1. you have no clue what you're talking about (lots of money is being made through distribution of child abuse images alone and it in itself is an economic driver for those who produce the pictures. There are even ebay type of sites in use by these people) 2. stop using that silly circumvention is always possible argument. If that were true, why even bother to write this article in the first place? 3. start focusing on new business models in stead of whining about what happens to these old data pipelines 4. use your real name Like Reply electric_worry 16 hours ago in reply to Guest You lose all credibility in your "argument" or "points" or whatever they are by saying "4. use your real name", Guest. 3 people liked this. Like Reply Christopher Kidwell 17 hours ago Well, as I have said many times before.... the fact is that pedosexuality is being used as a 'boogie man' for society and so is child pornography. For goodness sakees, we have told children for nearly 100 years now (at least) that if someone tries to touch them on their genitalia (sometimes even WITH their permission), that it is wrong and that they should tell an authority figure or tell the person in question not to do that. Since there also is not a 'force-field' between adults and children's genitalia or something else to totally stop adults and children from having sex together.... kinda obvious that nature expected adults and children to be having sex together. If they are not doing that first thing above, there are only a few explanations: 1. They are curious about sex (which considering we are born with genitalia that are fully functional outside of reproduction, we are supposed to be interested in). 2. They like the things that are being done to them or are at most negative neutral towards them, as I was during chlidhood when I had many sexual encounters with adults that I liked and with other children/teenagers as a child. We had this same bullplop with homosexuality, heterosexuality outside of marriage, and non-whites having sex with whites.... it's time that it ended to be blunt. To Guest above? No, child pornography is NOT being told in the slightest. I have a cousin who works for the FBI in the division that takes care of child pornography, profit or not. He has said that they exceptionally rarely have the images being sold for profit because no reputable credit card, check, etc. processor will deal with someone who is involved in that. That is basically EVERYONE in the business. 3 people liked this. Like Reply Godshand 15 hours ago in reply to Christopher Kidwell "Athat they should tell an authority figure or tell the person in question not to do that." The problem with this is that the adults are usually authority figures, like parents, family, or family friends. How is a child supposed to say no when the person won't accept no as an answer? There's a reason we call it rape. "Since there also is not a 'force-field' between adults and children's genitalia or something else to totally stop adults and children from having sex together.... kinda obvious that nature expected adults and children to be having sex together.' There isn't any barrier between you and a pig either. Go fuck a pig. It's ok; nature wanted it. "We had this same bullplop with homosexuality, heterosexuality outside of marriage, and non-whites having sex with whites.... it's time that it ended to be blunt." Yeah, the thing is, none of those caused harm to anyone. Pedophilia harms the child. That's why we won't allow it. Wait, I'm feeding the troll. God damn it. 3 people liked this. Like Reply Anonymous 15 hours ago in reply to Christopher Kidwell "the images being sold for profit because no reputable credit card, check, etc. processor will deal with someone who is involved in that" LOL you're full of shit as is your imaginable FBI contact.. Ever heard of prepaid credit cards? How do you really think transactions are conducted? Why don't you think for a second you tool.. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Username1 15 hours ago Child porn is an industry standard , from MTV's Skins show , to the Miley Cyrus Annie Leibovitz photo shoot , to the type of movies and music they put out to kids and teens , to Child actress Dakota Fanning and her infamous rape scene. Toddlers and tiaras. My belief is they don't like the competition in child porn , why get it for free when you should be paying them. If I had taken those photos of Miley they probably would have put me on an offenders list or worst. But you do it under the disguise of entertainment and all is forgiven. You want to have a sex scene with a 12 year old ? Become an actor, Dakota Fanning would have done you. Dakota Fanning is still selling sex at 17 in a new perfume ad. Hey she was selling it at 12. On a side note there are also marketing agencies and products that sell children as sexy for their products. Like Abercrombie and Fitch and apparently the new perfume ad with Dakota. They have been selling sex to kids for as long as I can recall. And they will continue to. It's an issue of control of the market and the information across the net. Of course at the end of the day it doesn't mean a damn thing , they (the RIAA and MPAA and it's partner companies ) will continue to exploit children. 3 people liked this. Like Reply RIAAtarded 13 hours ago the actions that are being taken are deplorable in this case child porn is being used because no matter what your stand on piracy no one is going to be seen as being soft on the exploitation of child. However censoring the net does nothing to curb this and if they were serious about tackle this issue they would give law enforcement the ability to catch them. Proper treaties put in place to make sharing of info and charging them and bringing them to justice. This won't happen though because MPAA, RIAA and all the others aren't interested stopping this at all. They want the government to rule so the ISP will be forced to put the filter technology in place. Seems a cheap way to lose nothing out of their own pockets when they can have it legislated into being. Once the infrastructure in place what the hell lets start combing the logs for other things, or add something to the filter. There is an end game here for anyone looking at the truth of it and from where I stand using child porn with no regard for that issue or a resolution to it quite frankly is just another for of child exploitation. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Anon 13 hours ago How fascinating...the political mechanism that the author illustrates in this article is now playing itself out with disturbing clarity among so many of these comments. Notice how many of the foolish comment-posters have become suckered by this absurd suggestion that the argument for, or against, broad internet censorship is somehow analogously with a righteous crusade against child porn. Get swept up...or swept away! This is exactly what the copyright industry is banking on. The copyright industry is likely betting that enough stupid people will become so frightened and intimidated by the mere presence of the child porn issue that their view of the big picture will be hopelessly obscured. The manner in which the copyright industry is attempting to frame the broader issue of internet censorship resembles the way products are advertised to consumers--find an emotional entry-point (in this case children)...nullify reason/intellect...encourage impulse decision-making. How can one form a useful view of broad internet censorship if they have already been bullied into believing that to oppose it is to somehow automatically support the sexual abuse and exploitation of kids? How long will it be until the mass consensus becomes equated to the basic idea that anyone opposing broad internet censorship must be a pedophile? Are people still stupid enough to be herded like this...by those who herd people for a living? 3 people liked this. Like Reply BangIShotYou 12 hours ago in reply to Anon The answer to your last question is, yes. People are stupid enough to be herded like this. Just look at terrorism. People have gladly and without a thought had some of their rights and freedoms taken away in the effort to stop terrorism. Sure, it's something to worry about. But the chances of anything happening are remote. You stand a better chance of being in a car accident and dying from that, then you do of being the victim of a terrorist attack. You want another example, the anti-piracy crowd on here. There's a die hard few (probably 2 or 3, and chances are it might just be the same one guy under 3 different accounts) who have no problem with invasion of privacy (monitoring everyone's internet use), industries lobbying to have laws enacted that benefit them at the cost of individual's rights (again, invasion of privacy and censorship), etc. To them that's perfectly okay and they in fact encourage and applaud such actions. I bet if you asked them, they'd probably even say none of that is enough. Now we've touched on child pornography. And as you said, eventually it will become "you don't approve of censorship, so you support child pornography". Again, the War on Terror is a good example. If you don't support the war (note: not supporting a war is not the same as not supporting our government or not supporting our troops) then there are tons of people who automatically say "well if you're not supporting the war, you're un-American/hate our troops/support terrorism". Stupid thing to say and even believe, but there are plenty out there who do say and believe that. "You're not with us, so by default you're against us and support everything contrary to what we do." It's fear mongering. Scare people and they'll go along with anything you say. It works for governments, why wouldn't it work for the industries? And as is evidenced, people on here are actually more informed than the average person. So, imagine how regular Joe Sixpacks will react/think. Good f*cking luck. Censorship, here we come. 4 people liked this. Like Reply Haxor 9 hours ago in reply to Anon as one poster said 99.99999999999999999 % of it is already encrypted ( GEE what are kids response to the filtering and censorship OMG encryption so as cops have said it makes the job finding kiddy porn harder) this really goes to a point that the next round of laws will be use of encryption without isp or govt authorization or them holing a key to it will become illegal. I WANT them to know i file share SO SHOULD EVERYONE. DONT HIDE we hackers made that mistake in the 2001 after 9/11 we dont want to see you pirates do the same. Like Reply Guest 12 hours ago All the "child porn" entry you can find P2p network are actually fake implanted by the RIAA/MPAA and the entertainment industry companies. They are the pederasts. But all these corporate parasites mother fuckers are not going to go to jail because we are going to kill them all. Like Reply Jay 11 hours ago A side topic, how do you make words appear in bold? Like Reply Trelew 11 hours ago It doesn't surprise me the lengths that Big Business and their puppets in the government will do to justify their greedy actions. They will use any lie to justify their actions, condone any misdeed, destroy any person that gets in their way of attaining more money and power. It's a corporate world...and we just get screwed in it Like Reply Neotoasty 11 hours ago A country run by war mongering, aimless spending, careless, soul-less, heartless suits. This, to me, is only another thing added to that long list of what they represent, and nothing more. This is similar to how the government once stated that file sharing will make the terrorists win, a few years ago. When I think they're already won with even Osama dead because look how fucked up we are now. Like Reply Fukk You 8 hours ago Oh wait, thanks rick. Like Reply Jhjl 7 hours ago Ok so the APG is saying that piracy is drying out the film and music industry so that nothing will be produced if the development continues. If this is the case wouldn’t piracy then be the perfect weapon against the perves producing child porn? In other words, when allofmp3 and TPB is blocked the artists are being protected. But if the small fish perves are kept from sharing their shit with P2P, who gets protected???? Like Reply Foff 6 hours ago Here is the question I have. How do you censor kiddie porn? Everytime I download and check out something our of curiosity that claims to be underage in the title I usually get some ugly b i t c h with tiny t i t s in ponytails that is obviously not underage or something not even related to the title that is just low class promotional porn for some site. I doubt there is any serious kiddie porn on public torrent sites. If there were any it would be some mislabeled stuff that the pedos find out about on secret boards or groups and is most likely taken down pretty fast. Illegal kiddie porn sites are already illegal and should be taken down. Why is it that Ice has not taken over a single domain that advertises underage or kiddie porn? If all the domains were taken down there would be no need for censorship. No public torrent site that we all use is selling or promoting kiddie porn so why should they be censored? Even if you could censor nudity what program could tell the difference between a naked 14 year old and a naked 18 year old? My wife started doing it when she was 12, I met when she was 28 and from what I can tell it had no adverse affects on her. So who is to say how harmful underage sex is and what really constitutes underage. Certainly anyone who gets excited over small children is a sick pedo. To me most young teenagers don't look all that sexy, they look much better when they are mature and have all the womanly curves. So I am a little liberal on the subject. Up to a certain age it is disgusting and shocking and deserves a strong response but once puberty hits or gets close I am not so sure it is as serious. All humans are curious about sex and their genitals at a certain age which is slightly different for everyone and when this happens sexual encounters do not have as detrimental effect as when the person is not ready. Like Reply Nomad of Norad 6 hours ago Well, having waded through this whole discussion (and, WOW what a lively one it has been! :D ) One thing I haven't seen commented on so far is: the screening out of this stuff isn't 100% reliable even if it WAS appropriate to do: Inevitably, you WILL have too many false positives, and too many false negatives. (Actually ANY false positive and ANY false negative is one too many.) There is no such thing as a filtering system that is 100% reliable and 100% infallible. Also, what exactly constitutes CP? Bear in mind, in some countries, even cartoon or CG images of kids having sex is considered CP, in others, the age at which real life kids having sex is considered CP is lower or higher than in others. Also, some people mistakenly think pictures of kids merely being naked (but not doing anything remotely sexual) is CP, but the United States Supreme Court have repeatedly declared it isn't. Unfortunately, a number of people's lives have been ruined after they innocently brought pictures of their very young kids in the bathtub in to be developed and someone turned them in for "possible CP" and someone else then acted on the tip and said, "We'll, if that guy thinks its true, it must be!" For that reason, the fact that some of the government chairwarmers don't really even understand what CP is and isn't, I'd trust even less any filtering system they or any other chairwarmers might come up with, because there's a good chance they'll get the settings all wrong. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Josh 6 hours ago Censorship on the internet is wrong period. Let people decide what they do or do not want to see. The government has no right to choose what we should or should not see. Like Reply Josh 6 hours ago in reply to Josh Also look at GreenDam software to see how fucking shitty government censorship coding is. Even if a program like this is allowed to become a reality it will fucking suck. Like Reply Herbert 3 hours ago i am assuming, Rick, that you had/have ocumentedor taped proof of what was sais and by whom. so, my questions to you are, what did you and your colleagues at the meeting do with that proof? what are you doing with it now? you are in a better position than anyone else here to be listened to. Like Reply Tactical_blunder 5 minutes ago So I take it from the comments that people believe Child abuse and Child porn only started with the internet..... Censoring the Internet will not stop child porn, it will not help ONE abused child. Hell, the Catholic church has been playing coverup hardcore on some of its little mistakes of the past, lets censor them...that'll stop the problem..... Arrest the perpertators, treat the victims, and lets leave copyright and child porn seperate. If you want to sort out copyright, do it, but not with Child Porn as the launching platform. Maybe if you encouraged digital content growth, and didnt place stupid "regional" restrictions and price hikes cause you live outside of the US, you must pay 10X the price, people wouldnt pirate! Like Reply Real-time updating is paused. (Resume) Add New Comment Optional: Login below. Post as … Showing 163 comments Sort by Subscribe by email Subscribe by RSS hikaricore 1 day ago Well atleast now we have proof of what many of us have been thinking and saying for a long damn time. 55 people liked this. Like Reply Anonymous 1 day ago in reply to hikaricore The copyright industry lobby is actively trying to hide egregious crimes against children, obviously not because they care about the children How can you possibly claim to know what exactly every member of the copyright industry feels about child pornography? And regardless, who cares? The only question you need to ask is: Should child pornography be censored from the Internet? If your answer is yes, then the copyright lobby has a valid point: Internet censorship is not inherently bad or undesirable. 4 people liked this. Like Reply hikaricore 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous I personally think nothing should be censored on the internet. That's not to say that I condone kiddy porn in any way shape or form. 76 people liked this. Like Reply Anonymous 1 day ago in reply to hikaricore "That's not to say that I condone kiddy porn in any way shape or form. " Maybe not from your perspective. But it would be fair to argue that you care more about freedom of speech than you do about preventing the re-victimization of children as the pictures/videos of their abuse are spread online. When it comes to child abuse, most people do not share your "libertarian" perspective. Particularly not voters, a large percent of whom have had kids themselves. That is why child pornograpy blacklisting will always be considered appropriate, and guys like Rick will fail in their drive to label all censorship as evil. Like ANoiXioNA 1 day ago in reply to hikaricore @ Anonymous /\ You care more about censoring the internet................ than you do about protecting children.... Your agenda is clear for all to see...... Censoring the internet will do nothing to prevent or help victims of Child Abuse....... Using this issue... is a sick thing to do.... 69 people liked this. Like Anonymous 1 day ago in reply to hikaricore "You care more about censoring the internet................than you do about protecting children...." I'm sorry, ANoiXioNA, but it would not make any difference even if that was true. Child porn censorship is widely acceptable and always will be. Regardless of what Rick or any Pirate Party says, that will remain the case. This is a losing argument for piracy advocates. You will never convince governments or populaces that foreign child porn beyond the reach of local law enforcement should be freely accessible online. If you want to make an argument for piracy, the only reasonable way to do it is: "Censorship is acceptable for truly heinous crimes like child pornography, but it should not be done for less damaging crimes like piracy." The reason guys like Rick are so fired up is because the argument the EFF and others like himself have spent so much time making is: "All censorship is evil!" Now they are realizing that such an extreme argument is an anchor for their cause, not a lifeline. The world is rarely black and white. Trying to label censorship in such stark terms is futile. 3 people liked this. Like Guest 1 day ago in reply to hikaricore >That's not to say that I condone kiddy porn in any way shape or form. What about lolicon or shotacon? It's drawn, so there's no victim. 6 people liked this. Like hikaricore 1 day ago in reply to hikaricore First of all, drawing are not child pornography. I'm sure you were joking, but I see this stupid argument come up a lot online. No child is ever hurt because some perv like to look at fake little girls and boys. In all actuality, this content being available may drive down the demand for real kiddy porn or prevent molestation if a sick individual can vent their fucked up urges on it. Anyway much like the internet, I don't believe that art of any form should be censored (aside from clearly real photographs of children being abused but you know what I meant anyway).. 10 people liked this. Like Jay 1 day ago in reply to hikaricore @ignorant Anonymous fucktard Hey, idiot. I'm usually not this mean, but you are a special case of stupidity so I'm not even going to try to hold back. Here's the reasons you shouldn't be censoring the internet. 1) The abuse has happened and this knocks the wool over your eyes that there is no problem -> In other words, how can you know there is a problem if all you've done is censor everyone from talking about it? 2) The government's method of censorship reeks of McCarthyism and the Red Scare. Bonus points on making child porn as ignominious as being a Nazi supporter, but the problem again has NOT gone away! 3) The legal distribution channels of allofMP3.com along with piracy have not gone away by making a bunch of people pedophiles. You've just made the argument that selling music will actually lead to more pedophilia, you sick fuck. 4) YOU HAVE NOT ARRESTED THOSE THAT ARE ACTUALLY DOING THE ASSUALTS! THEY ARE FREE TO DO SO YET AGAIN! GET THEIR IP ADDRESS, TRACK THEM DOWN, TURN THEM INTO EUNUCHS AND LEAVE LEGAL DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS ALONE! This is the exact reason I hate politics. Disingenuous arguments to promote a non-issue on a position instead of actual debate to improve situations. 46 people liked this. Like PiRat 13 hours ago in reply to hikaricore @Anonymous As Winston Churchill put it... "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." And as censorship helps child abusers, and you encourage it, you're no better than them, along with all your supporters. 7 people liked this. Like Baphometa 2 hours ago in reply to hikaricore @Anon I think its more important to have freedom of speech and of any kind of freedom then any amount censorship for kiddy porn or anything else. Censoring kiddie porn isn't gonna stop the sickos who are doing it its just gonna prevent the ones who haven't done anything cause they can whack it to pictures go out and find a child... Like surrounded by morons 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous Your response is ignorant. I do not advocate child porn, nor do i advocate censorship in any form. The copywrong industry flat outs admits that they do not have 'a valid point', as they have openly admitted that the stopping of child pornography is not even a legitimate goal of theirs, schill. 11 people liked this. Like Reply Anonymous 1 day ago in reply to surrounded by morons I never said you have to be in favor of child pornography to be against black listing it. I said: "It would be fair to argue that you care more about freedom of speech than you do about preventing the re-victimization of children as the pictures/videos of their abuse are spread online." Do you think arguing against child pornography blacklisting, as Rick is trying to do here, will be a winning argument for most of society? Such an extreme position will never be mainstream. Most people are very much in favor of censorship when it is done to suit their values. 4 people liked this. Like Momo 1 day ago in reply to surrounded by morons @Shill Censorship is an extreme position. You are an extremist. 12 people liked this. Like merethan 19 hours ago in reply to surrounded by morons @Anonymous, [quote]Do you think arguing against child pornography blacklisting, as Rick is trying to do here, will be a winning argument for most of society?[/quote] Depends on how smart the society is. 4 people liked this. Like Anon 6 hours ago in reply to surrounded by morons @Anonymous low life, Why hurt freedom of speech with a measure that doesn't stop CP? It only stops you from accidentally running in to it... Have you ever accidentally run in to CP? It won't stop you if you are looking for it. It's also not an incentive for law enforcement to hunt them down and actually arrest them. And who's definition of CP are we using? The one from Australia where adults with an A-cup count as CP? Or Spain where 13 is the legal age? Censorship hurts free speech AND the victims of CP, as proven by the German CP victim support group Mogis. 4 people liked this. Like ANoiXioNA 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous ( hard-sell much ? ) NO child pornography AND MORE IMPORTANTLY .. Child Abuse should be wiped out completely IN REAL LIFE...... Censoring the internet will do FUK ALL to stop child abuse.... NOTHING DONT use this issue as a way to further an agenda... of Censoring the internet... or any other agenda...... Sick fucks using Child sex abuse to censor the internet for Financial gain..... SICK bastards..... 39 people liked this. Like Reply Anonymous 1 day ago in reply to ANoiXioNA "Child Abuse should be wiped out completely IN REAL LIFE......" That is impossible. Every law enforcement agency involved in pursuing child pornography will tell you it is impossible. British law enforcement has no power to go into the Ukraine and perform investigations to shut down child porn rings there. The only power they have is to blacklist those foreign operations and encourage the Ukrainians to get off their asses. So that is what they do. 2 people liked this. Like ANoiXioNA 1 day ago in reply to ANoiXioNA @Anonymous /\ """British law enforcement has no power to go into the Ukraine and perform investigations to shut down child porn rings there. """ Dont talk crap..... If there is will .....there is a way..... You know it.... ""It would be fair to argue that you ""..... Don't care if children are being sexually abused in the Ukraine.... All you care about is censoring the web..... You said as much as... It is a sick ,selfish mentality that uses horrors like these for personal gain...... 15 people liked this. Like Anonymous 1 day ago in reply to ANoiXioNA "Dont talk crap..... If there is will .....there is a way..... You know it...." No I don't. I know for a fact many commercial child porn operations have been run out of Eastern Europe with little to no law enforcement interest at all. The British police have no jurisdiction that would allow them to run an investigation in the Ukraine or Russia. "Don't care if children are being sexually abused in the Ukraine.... " Actually I do. I also care about the vast amount of child porn being traded on anonymization services like Tor and Freenet. And I care about what will happen once human trafficking starts taking place on Onion sites via BitCoin. It is one of the primary reasons why I personally believe none of these technologies should (or will) be allowed to reach truly mainstream levels. Whether you bring piracy into this or not, it is still a losing argument for your anti-censorship ideology. Even if there was no such thing as piracy, I, like most people, would still very strongly be in favor of blacklisting sites and services that promote the spread of child abuse. 5 people liked this. Like ANoiXioNA 1 day ago in reply to ANoiXioNA @Anonymous /\ if there is a will there IS a way.......... UK has worked with Russia and it's descendants before........ 1.. your logic..... censor cameras... don't allow them to take pictures of humans... censor phones , human interaction etc.... 2. Blacklisting sites...... achieves nothing.... I do not believe you can not understand that..... Blacklisting sites , is just a technological blip at best..... 3. Focus on the CP site owners , the peedos and slave traffickers .... and lock them up... take their sites , their money , their lives...... they deserve it.... finally.... Seriously... you obviously have ZERO idea of how the net works..... If you did you wouldn't even suggest it..... a node can appear - disappear in milliseconds...... no one can change that... without shutting down the net or filtering and logging every single bit of data in existence. I don't have an anti-censorship ideology..... Censorship has it's place in society... Eg.. there is stuff people don't want their children to see.... I do however have an reasonable reason to dislike the excuses for the attempt to censor the web..... It is being done .... not for the protection of vulnerable people... But for money........... Again...... Sick bastards USE child porn for their own gain..... You are using it to support a completely useless attempt to censor the web to stop people sharing files........ ( useless as in it wont stop cp ) Spend your time and effort , trying to save the vulnerable people from a lifetime of sexual slavery....... But I guess you really are just another troll sick fuck..... just using abused people. 7 people liked this. Like Trespass 1 day ago in reply to ANoiXioNA @ Anonymous "The British police have no jurisdiction that would allow them to run an investigation in the Ukraine or Russia. " The US does not seem to have a problem invading any country they like, setting the rules, telling people what is legal, why can't the British government do the same? We can teach them how to bully and harass others. Or pay them off. That works for us as well. Sarcasm..... 10 people liked this. Like merethan 19 hours ago in reply to ANoiXioNA @Anonymous /\, [quote]"It is one of the primary reasons why I personally believe none of these technologies should (or will) be allowed to reach truly mainstream levels."[/quote] And dvd/blueray burners should be equipped with special firmware to keep people from burning kiddiepr0n files. And not only should we watch television, the television should watch us too. I find you very creepy. 4 people liked this. Like myne 13 hours ago in reply to ANoiXioNA Not one single Ostrich since the dawn of time has ever saved itself from being eaten by sticking its head in the sand. Not one. In a similar way, not one single child will ever be saved, nor one single file of abuse be deleted permanently from the internet by blocking a few IP's. Child abuse is one of the few issues that unites every nation and their police forces. This means that any server, and any collector is accessible - anywhere in the world. We do not need to filter the internet, to stick our heads in the sand. We need to search for and destroy every copy and imprison every collector and producer everywhere. We need to liberate the victims and we need to cooperate internationally to do so. As one of the few truly internationally dispised crimes, unlike murder which can be justified, or theft which can be necessary, child abuse may in fact hold the key to international cooperation at a legal level. By burying our heads, we are robbing the victims of justice, the world of international coopration and ourselves of the very dignity we're trying to aspire to. Shame on anyone who thinks this is a good idea. Shame on the copyright lobby for stooping so low. What's their next whorish act? Are they going to defend child abusers on the basis that their copyright has been breached when they're arrested? That the materials discovered are not legally admissable in court unless a copyright fee is paid to the criminal? Sadly, it would not surprise me. With enough money, those leeches will promote any cause. 3 people liked this. Like Zzzz 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous You're actually defending this shit? Shame on you! 1 person liked this. Like Reply Momo 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous The question being asked here is Why is the copyright industry using child pornography to achieve its business goals? As you say, nobody cares how every member of the copyright industry feels about child pornography -- what matters is that they are exploiting that issue to make more money for themselves. You know who else is exploiting child pornography to make more money for themselves? Child pornographers. 21 people liked this. Like Reply Anonymous 1 day ago in reply to Momo "Why is the copyright industry using child pornography to achieve its business goals?" I don't see how you can blame the copyright industry for this. Groups like the Pirate Party and EFF have made it clear that they have based their pro-piracy ideology on the principle that "all censorship is bad". But the fact that most people are in favor of child porn censorship blows a massive hole in such arguments. If you want to blame anyone, blame guys like Rick for starting out with such weak arguments in the first place. They got themselves into this ideological bind all by themselves. Like Momo 1 day ago in reply to Momo @Shill "I don't see how you can blame the copyright industry for this." *facepalm* I don't see how you can not blame the people exploiting child porn for personal gain, for exploiting child porn for personal gain. There is no way to justify your position. You are either stupid, or simply that immoral. 12 people liked this. Like gae 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous It shouldn't need to be censored. Those who view this stuff should be caught and punished. It makes no difference to me if it is censored or not as I will never be attempting to view any. The only people affected by the censorship would be those involved and those people should be sent to jail, not have website blocks. 5 people liked this. Like Reply Ven 23 hours ago in reply to gae It gets censored (and will continue to do so in the USA, EU, and other places) because the children involved are minors and therefore not legally allowed to engage in release contracts. Child porn on the internet will forever be viewed as a violation of the child's privacy, regardless of who they are or where they are from, and it will be removed for those reasons. 1 person liked this. Like Willy 15 hours ago in reply to gae I have no interest in Bangkok Chickboys, and yet I had one flopping his knob all over my screen last week. Accidents happen. Without censorship everyone will at some point in their life find it which will dilute the seriousness of the behaviour (and creating the market for such material). Censoring CP forces true paedos to actively search for channels, which itself is an incriminating action. This makes sure that any who get caught stand a higher chance of getting prison like they deserve. Like Yesterday 5 hours ago in reply to gae @Willy My experience is different, I have never ran into CP on the web, ever. I have never looked for it of course. I have seen a lot of normal porn online, and even that has always been clean of CP. If you see CP, most likely you've been looking for it. Like Jay 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous I thought your arguments were bad, then I read all that you're promoted. You are a twisted sick individual, justifying the censorship of information for a small amount of minority. You've said absolutely nothing in regards to actually arresting the people that do this, but instead focus all of your time on this twisted idea of censoring what people can do for a political advantage. What the fuck is wrong with you? 7 people liked this. Like Reply Utah Jones 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous Anonymous, you obviously care about this issue very much. Your willingness to risk censorship of otherwise legal material in the pursuit of preventing the online distribution of child porn is both brave, and admirable. While I hate to burst your bubble of human decency, you have to understand that just because a curtain is put up in front of something doesn't mean that that 'something' isn't there. Given how much you care for the issue of child pornography, I'm sure you know that most cases of child pronography are first initiated at the behest of a Netizen or a group of Netizens which bring the distrobution to the attention of authorities. Likewise, I am sure you agree that a better use of resources- finite as they are- would be better spent tracking own the distributors of child pornography in real life rather than nerfing the courage of those like you to aid in the pursuit of distributors of child pornography. You wouldn't combat a child's cancer by simply simply blotting out the tumors on his catscans with black marker, would you? Likewise, Internet-based censorship of child pornography can't be combated by simply sweeping a few photographs under a rug. Either way, the children in those photos are still being exploited regardless of whether or not you or your friends see those photos. The real question you have to ask yourself is, Does censoring the Internet prevent children from being sexually exploited in the real world? If your answer is no, then the copyright lobby isn't acting in the best interest of sexually-exploited children. 23 people liked this. Like Reply Ven 22 hours ago in reply to Utah Jones Now ask if sexual exploitation is the only good reason these images are censored? The answer of course is no. As long as those images remain on the internet, they are violating the child's right to privacy. And the copyright industry as a business doesn't have an obligation to fight the good fight against CP. I would be willing to bet the individuals that make up the industry are as against child abuse as we are, but that doesn't mean they need to respect some imaginary boundary in their lobbying. They are using a crime (distribution of child pornography) to ILLUSTRATE how criminal activity is already censored on the net, and how it relates to what is currently considered another crime (illegal filesharing). Now you may not like the methods they wish to use to censor the online world, but if you have a problem with the law then don't complain about the companies that operate within the law. It's like whipping the driver so the horse will run faster. Like HASO 22 hours ago in reply to Utah Jones I dont understand why people ASSUME that once you censor child pornography, the pedophiles stop what they do. The only thing that stops pedophiles is prison cells, and the most effective way to catch them is vigilant policing, attentiveness of the parents, and care from the school staff. Having videos on the internet showing what they do is not going to inspire would-be pedophiles. Thats like saying watching enough movies involving murder will turn you into a murderer. This broken link that everyone can't see shows a deep flaw in their critical thinking capabilities. 7 people liked this. Like Guest123 16 hours ago in reply to Utah Jones "Having videos on the internet showing what they do is not going to inspire would-be pedophiles. Thats like saying watching enough movies involving murder will turn you into a murderer" No, it's not. Murder is means to an end. It works to help a criminal fulfill some other goal, even if that goal is simply the removal of a person they hate. It's a tool that criminals use, not a desired action (with some notable exceptions, like serial killers). Child molestation is an action that Pedophiles wish to take. Psychologically, that's a big difference. Giving potential pedophiles exposure to it does increase their tendency towards pedophilia. Like electric_worry 16 hours ago in reply to Utah Jones @ Ven I'll agree with most of what you said except for one thing. And it's not that I disagree but I just want to point something out. "...and how it relates to what is currently considered another crime (illegal filesharing)." The thing I'd like to clear up is just that file sharing is not necessarily a crime. It depends on where you live. Just like using drugs is perfectly legal in some places. It's all a matter of location. Also, while I do understand what they're doing. They're essentially trivializing CP to further their own agenda. Now don't misunderstand what I just said, but they're taking advantage of people's feelings on CP to get censorship to be considered and used by more countries. Then, I mean based off some of the quotes in the article, once they've got a foot in the door, they want to filter out anything they don't approve of. Which, while some say we don't know what people may or may not do, it is obvious that if they're allowed to further their own agenda, the way they are, through "filtering", others will see that as the "okay" to do the same. Which in the end hurts everyone. What does bug me too is this "see no evil, hear no evil" filtering of CP. As I said, they're trivializing the issue. "Let's just block it and that makes the problem go away." That's not the case. Instead of filtering it flat out, if they wanted to seem like good guys and like they actually care about the issue, they'd advocate a method of coming up with better methods to find child pornographers. Think about it, that would actually be more beneficial to them than just censoring. Doing that, they might be able to use said technology with more accuracy in tracking down actual infringers. In places where file sharing is illegal. Because they can't use that in places where it isn't. As it is, there have been numerous cases where they accuse someone of infringing when they haven't at all, or where they've said inanimate objects were doing the same (the Washington University's printers being a prime example). They could avoid problems like that and actually "catch" people if they had better data gathering methods. Preferably non-intrusive ones. Because violating people's privacy is a more serious crime than file sharing. You can't monitor everyone's actions... show more 2 people liked this. Like Momo 11 hours ago in reply to Utah Jones Ven, I'm pretty sure it's not just those children's privacy that was violated, and tbh I don't see what problem simply taking it offline will solve, since in all the years I've been using the net I've never come across any CP. If CP needs to be taken offline, it shouldn't happen through censorship, but by catching the pornographers and alerting the hosts to take the material offline. As for the rest of your post, you seem to be buying into the Anonymous shill's party line, specifically the big lie that hosts in Eastern European countries do not cooperate to fight child pornography. So let me get some facts out for you. Cecilia Malmström, EU Commissioner of Home Affairs and censorship advocate, was posed an official question through EU channels for examples that would back up her assertion that there are countries not willing to cooperate with authorities to remove CP. Some weeks later, she came up with an answer that fumbled its words and provided no such examples, indicating that she was full of shit. And here we get into how precisely the copyright lobbies are fighting CP. They are not simply pointing to CP as an existing system of censorship, they are lobbying through a highly ineffective and unjustified CP censorship system based on untruths, so they can later point to it and ask for more. In my book, that is a disgusting corruption of democratic processes, and the exploitation of CP in this way is highly immoral. Not only are the copyright lobbies trying to railroad through censorship, the way the go about doing that is also completely disgusting. Like Elvin Solano 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous SHILLL!!! 1 person liked this. Like Reply Matt Wright 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous No the question is, should the internet be censored? If your answer is yes, regardless of whatever issue you try to wrap it up with (child pornography and terrorism seem to work well!) then you inexorably start a cascade chilling effects on free speech, art and innovation. 7 people liked this. Like Reply Ven 22 hours ago in reply to Matt Wright I think there is an underlying question or two that need to be answered before the whole mess that is the internet can get straightened out: Is free speech violated when only one form of speech is censored (i.e. is censorship on the internet really violating human rights when it is the only platform on which free speech is violated)? Should freedom of speech on the internet protect against the censorship of images, audio, and video? Is copyright going away, staying forever, or staying somewhere in the middle? We can sit and complain about the MAFIAA and talk about TPB and everything else we do, but the real future comes down to the above questions governing the fundamental rights of internet users. And before anyone jumps in and says those questions have already been answered by governments, I don't believe it has been satisfactorily been done in the internet age. 1 person liked this. Like Friend of the People 16 hours ago in reply to Matt Wright Well Ven, I think I'm going to answer your question with another one. Is freedom of speech meant to cover anything that someone could possibly say? If I knew you in real life and wanted to slander you, could I do it? Could I post that on the internet, or put posters up all around town claiming as much? If not, haven't you violated my freedom of speech by not allowing me to do it? Freedom of speech is not meant to apply to absolutely anything. It's meant to cover art and political opinions, to ensure that nothing will ever be censored because it criticizes the government or an institution. It's not a blanket clause allowing people to do anything they want because they can classify it as speech. 1 person liked this. Like Anonymous 17 hours ago in reply to Anonymous or a better question which is not hiding kiddie porn but tracking the sickos are getting it so they can be arrested or blocking the kiddie porn hiding those sickos from procecution but also forcing to act out their desires by actually physically abusing kids. you can create loaded questions for any issue 1 person liked this. Like Reply Thomas van Amerongen 15 hours ago in reply to Anonymous Child Porn should be removed from its source, not by filtering. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Anon 15 hours ago in reply to Anonymous Durrrrr Hurrrrrr Your question is flawed. WHAT YOURE IMPLICATING IS TECHNICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, therefore it is not the only question one should ask himself. Like Reply Anonymous 6 hours ago in reply to Anonymous censorship of any kind IS inherently bad AND undesirable. in this particular point the use of the internet to distribute child pornography is in fact one of law enforcements most powerful tools in tracking down and punishing these offenders. Censorship has been proven historically to be the first step down a long and slippery slope. Each time it has been done, often with the best intentions to start with, it has inevitably become a tool of opression against any voice that dissents from the stats quo. We are everywhere. We are legion. We are coming. Expect us. 1 person liked this. Like Reply Waterll Allice 9 hours ago in reply to hikaricore Feminists LOVE censorship: http://goo.gl/f4pXo Like Reply hvis 1 day ago Very strong writing. This is the kind of argument that might do well, I think, even on a national TV. Like Reply ANoiXioNA 1 day ago Great article Rick. As I said on here before to a troll.... **edit** fuk me the trolls are back /\ Sick Bastard.. using the horror of child abuse to further their agenda And they love it being there... doesn't matter why.... Those sick bastards want CP to exist...... Truly a bunch of selfish cunts , without conscience or social morality. ( do they work for the... News Of The World ? ) 12 people liked this. Like Reply Elvin Solano 1 day ago in reply to ANoiXioNA Sounds like it! Like Reply Flying Dutchman 1 day ago Damn I wish some politicians would read this article and bitch slap those MAFIAA goons in the face. Child porn is evil, but these MAFIAA goons exploiting it for their own means is just F*cked up to say the least! They should lock them up in jail, together with some rapist looking for a girlfriend... 10 people liked this. Like Reply Elvin Solano 1 day ago in reply to Flying Dutchman All the Censorship does is protect the abusers of children... sounds fishy to me. 2 people liked this. Like Reply I_am_a_sausage_not_a_hotdog 1 day ago Feel free to censor child porn!! But most politicians lie and even download themselves. Seriously dude, get the real criminals off the streets and leave the rest of us alone. P2p will never die!! 7 people liked this. Like Reply Buglord 1 day ago I'm gonna say this ONCE and probably never care to say it again; use RAPE-related words as override terms, saying he's a "pedophile", when you mean rapist, is the same as saying "OMG that guy's a heterosexual" when he rapes women. and maybe you should start thinking a little about WHY they rape children, social problems, mental problems or whatever, don't bother, we all know about those things, what if it's just that they don't have any other way of seeing it, maybe, many of the child rapists wouldn't have been rapists if they could just have their porn.. and if you mean rape porn, don't call it child porn, FFS learn to use words and understand what they mean before you use them! damned schools don't teach what they should... they teach "DON'T use that word, it's bad" without giving any explanation WHY or WHAT it means in any way. and I'm not trying to defend rapists here, just trying to defend the words, use them right, or I and whoever might be like me won't understand WTH you are trying to tell them. 4 people liked this. Like Reply Guest 1 day ago in reply to Buglord "maybe, many of the child rapists wouldn't have been rapists if they could just have their porn.." No. That's a nice thought, but it's completely unrealistic. Having access to some of it will spawn a desire for more. To put it simply; you couldn't subsist off of porn, and neither will they. Like Reply Ven 22 hours ago in reply to Guest Agreed: rape statistics have not seen a sharp decrease since the internet brought porn to our homes. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Anon 1 day ago Most people agree very strongly child pornography should be censored from the Internet. The victimization of those children continues so long as those images and videos are shared and spread around the world. It is impossible for American or European police to force developing countries to spend more money on cyberpolice or to take more proactive measures against child pornography sites. Even in Russia, which is hardly 3rd world, child porn has flourished on the Internet almost unchecked by law enforcement. Should the rest of the world have to wait until Russia or the Ukraine gets their act together? Or should we shield our countries' citizens and Internet from foreign criminal enterprises? Answer that question and you will understand why most people are strongly in favor of child porn censorship. Most people agree: Censorship is not inherently bad. Like Reply Lothor The Evil 1 day ago in reply to Anon I understand what you are saying and I too believe child porn should be removed from the internet. But there is a whole world of culture not involving child porn that would be censored as well. It would be like saying since a major car manufacturer has a history of having unsafe vehicles and never improving them, all cars must be abolished instead of going after the 1 manufacturer and shutting them down. 1 person liked this. Like Reply Benjamin 1 day ago in reply to Anon "The victimization of those children continues so long as those images and videos are shared and spread around the world." The victimization of those children continues REGARDLESS of the spread of the video and images. It occurs in all countries, not just the old Soviet ones. Even if we completely eradicated CP from the internet, made it IMPOSSIBLE to access (which is probably not possible anyway) - molestation and rape of children will continue unabated. We had a case recently in our small town of a police officer using public WiFi networks to download thousands of CP media to his laptop in his squad car, while on duty. It could be argued that, in the absence of access to CP, this cop may well have gone and molested a few kids. But that is simply conjecture. What is not conjecture is the fact that the sexual exploitation of children has gone on probably since caveman days, and it will not stop just because the public can no longer access it on the internet. If anything, it will be driven further underground, into tightly-secretive circles that will be even more difficult for law enforcement to break into than they are now. Censorship only hides the problem. It does not solve it. 11 people liked this. Like Reply Guest123 1 day ago in reply to Benjamin "in the absence of access to CP, this cop may well have gone and molested a few kids. But that is simply conjecture." Yes, it is conjecture. Studies have actually found (although not demonstrated, for obvious reasons) that when people with a predeliction to child molestion are exposed to child pornography, it increases their chances of raping a child, not decreases it. "If anything, it will be driven further underground, into tightly-secretive circles that will be even more difficult for law enforcement to break into than they are now." It will be driven further underground, but fewer people will be involved with it. It will decrease the amount of people exposed to it, which will decrease child molestation. Besides, if we're going to go after the people who are molesting the children, we first need to find their pictures on the internet, and if we've found them, why not take them down? The very existence of the pictures is a moral crime in and of itself. Personally, I think it's worth spending money and manhours just to take it down. "Censorship only hides the problem." Your implicit assumption here is that when people censor the child porn, they stop there and don't go after the people committing it. That's a false assumption. Let me ask you this question; if we know where it is on the internet, why not take it down? Give me a good reason for leaving it up. 1 person liked this. Like Reply zenithmaster 1 day ago in reply to Guest123 Studies? What studies? How does one conduct a study like that? WTF 1 person liked this. Like Guest123 16 hours ago in reply to Guest123 "A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues Ryan C. W. Halland Richard C. W. Hall Mayo Clinic Proceedings April 2007 vol. 82 no. 4 457-471" I know that's not in good AMA format, but I don't think any of us care. "Child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. Seto, Michael C.; Cantor, James M.; Blanchard, Ray Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol 115(3), Aug 2006, 610-615. doi: " You study it after the fact, by studying know pedophiles. You probably thought about scientists actually trying to cause pedophilia, which for obvious reasons does not happen. Like Joska 14 hours ago in reply to Guest123 You should have put a link for these studies for easier check. But I found them easily with Google anyway and read them. Neither has a single word about the effects of CP. So please point out, exactly where was it proved that CP encourages child abuse! Until you do it I'm free to say it's a preconception and bullshit. Like Guest123 14 hours ago in reply to Guest123 Child pornography offenders were significantly more likely to show a pedophilic pattern of sexual arousal during phallometric testing than were comparison groups of offenders against adults or general sexology patients." Discussion section of the second article. Admittedly, they do acknowledge limitations, mostly relating to the forensic nature of the study, which could confound the results. That said, I would like someone to show me some research to the opposite; that having child pornography will decrease child molestation. Many people have made claims, but it looks to me like I'm the only one who produced research. How about some people in favor of allowing child pornography (or not censoring child pornography I should say) show some data. Like Joska 13 hours ago in reply to Guest123 Learn to read! The cited text correctly: "As a group, child pornography offenders showed greater sexual arousal to children than to adults and <bold>differed from groups of sex offenders against children</bold>, sex offenders against adults, and general sexology patients." And it concludes: The results suggest child pornography offending is a stronger diagnostic indicator of pedophilia than is sexually offending against child victims. So where does it prove that watching CP increases the risk of actually abuseing a child? CP offending means they found CP on those people's hard drives. And the research states nothing more than by this they really can be labeled as pedophiles. But, both study clearly states "pedophil" and "sexually abuser of children" are not interchangable. "Pedophil" only means one who is sexually attracted to children, wich doesn't mean they will ever victimize any child. Like Rick Falkvinge 8 hours ago in reply to Guest123 @Guest123: Child pornography offenders were significantly more likely to show a pedophilic pattern of sexual arousal during phallometric testing than were comparison groups of offenders against adults or general sexology patients." It is important to keep one's logic straight here. This passage claims that there is a positive correlation, probably less than one but greater than zero, between CP users and paedophiles. That is entirely logical. People who are paedophiles and download CP are likely to get aroused by it more than the average population. This is a "duuuhh" statement. What this passage does not say is that average people who are not paedophilic magically would become so by downloading CP, just like somebody who downloads gay porn doesn't magically become homosexual. Correlation does not imply causation. That is paramountally important when legislating, and I am in the business of legislation. Like Alunmorgan 1 day ago in reply to Anon Instead of censoring content we should block countries. If they cant get their act together then cut their entire internet. Like Reply Death 1 day ago in reply to Alunmorgan Why have people not yet tried this line of logic when it comes to CP: "If you don't want to see it, don't search for it, or click on it." While Shota and Loli could work, and could be considered an outlet for would-be rapists, some do not like the animated or manga look of them. So, what is left for those people? Hmm... the trouble here is (in terms of available logical paths) that child porn is assumed to be bad, thus equitable compromises that involve avoiding further exploitation of children, and giving an outlet for those who desire the porn to the point that they would consider going out and abusing children without said porn, impossible. 1 person liked this. Like Reply Guest123 1 day ago in reply to Death The problem there is that if you looked at the psychological research on the matter, you'd know that giving people the outlet actually INCREASES their likeliness to molest a child. "Why have people not yet tried this line of logic when it comes to CP:" Because people won't ignore things that are morally heinous. They wouldn't ignore footage of innocent people being murdered. They wouldn't turn their backs on footage of someone being raped. They want to stop it, not ignore it. 1 person liked this. Like Violated0 20 hours ago in reply to Death The problem there is that if you looked at the psychological research on the matter, you'd know that giving people the outlet actually INCREASES their likeliness to molest a child. This is true but people do not always act on their desires. Indeed more people have a desire for the younger age than you may realise but they simply do not act upon this desire knowing it is socially and morally wrong. One example is that the number one sexual fantasy for men in the United States in the school girl image. Because people won't ignore things that are morally heinous. Also true. Humans are born curious but that does not mean they wont be disturbed by what they see. They want to stop it, not ignore it. True again but that also means society can self-regulate without governmental interference. What most concerns me about this discussion is that people here have not put pedophilia or CP into a wider social context when I have seen myself the insides of dysfunctional families. A family that is full of arguments and large disrespect. Alcohol abuse and general violence. Drug abuse and neglect. I have seen children who flee home very VERY angry at their parent(s) and large disrespect for society as a whole. "I can hold a bottle longer than my mother has ever held me" some say. Another said how his father beat him with an iron bar. My point is that we as a species are far from perfect and bad parenting happens far too often. To put this subject into valid context then parents hugging and kissing their children is not such a bad thing even if it does go further than society prefers. This seems better to me than parents who get drunk and beat their children to an inch of their life. I once heard one woman say how when she was a young teen girl how her father tied her to a tree and beat her with his gorilla-like hands. You can say she grew up into a rather socially unacceptable person as well. Like Guest123 16 hours ago in reply to Death Interesting arguments Violated. I have only 1 major complaint "My point is that we as a species are far from perfect and bad parenting happens far too often. To put this subject into valid context then parents hugging and kissing their children is not such a bad thing even if it does go further than society prefers." If it were just hugging and kissing, that would be fine (well, that depends on how far the hugging goes). It's not though. It's sex. Not hugging, not kissing; sex. That's why we hate pedophiles... not sure what else to say there. You talk about kids being beaten, but don't you think that being molested harms them too? Mental and emotional wounds count just as much as physical ones. A child molester can harm his children just as much as a child beater. I've heard that the two behaviors are actually related, but I can't definitively say that. 1 person liked this. Like Disgusted 1 day ago in reply to Anon Most people agree: Censorship is inherently bad. There, fixed that for you. And by the way Troll, since when has the EFF been pro pirating? Only in your sick little twisted world where anything that interferes with your making money off the backs of others is evil. So censor child porn and push it underground where it can flourish, just so you and your sick kind can keep making money from the culture you stole. Unbelievably sick! 3 people liked this. Like Reply Liudvikas Teiserskis 22 hours ago in reply to Anon I do not agree. Any censorship is bad, no matter if we can agree that the censored information is bad. Effectively taking something off the internet is impossible and unless you filter every bit of information that is sent and ban any form of encryption and so on. Only draconian measures could censor something with success. So in that case it's better not to have dangerous precedents in our laws, it's slippery slope if someone decides something can be censored it's only a matter of time before something is censored that should not be. 1 person liked this. Like Reply Tshamica 20 hours ago in reply to Anon "The victimization of those children continues so long as those images and videos are shared and spread around the world. " Wrong, Vicky Aka Kylee Freeman went to court and tried to sue 2 ppl for the above and wanted $68K 4each person who shared her dad eating her out and her getting cum in her mouth and sucking dick. The judge threw the case out and said that after the act is comitted, there is no victimization no matter if 1 or 1000 people seen the video since she is not again making cp videos and eating cum. She then went pissed from the courtroom and went into hiding for a while be4 getting a job in real estate. 1 person liked this. Like Reply MAFIAAFire 1 day ago A wonderful write up Mr. Falkvinge! You were a huge inspiration to us when we created MAFIAAFire and for joining the Pirate Party, and we shall use this article to spread the word in our upcoming plugin as well. Have a very good day! MF 7 people liked this. Like Reply Rick Falkvinge 1 day ago in reply to MAFIAAFire You were a huge inspiration to us when we created MAFIAAFire This is an honor. Thank you. Cheers, Rick 1 person liked this. Like Reply MAFIAAFire 1 day ago in reply to Rick Falkvinge Most welcome, and if you look at the site we even mentioned it in the FAQ :) Keep up the good work, and keep in mind... your words are like a tree, you never know when down the line it's fruit helps passerbys like us on our journey... to bring down the MAFIAA! 1 person liked this. Like Reply Lothor The Evil 1 day ago Child pornography cannot be copyrighted and is illegal in most countries as far as I know. Therefore the copyright industries have no claim to censor child porn as it doesn't belong to them. 14 people liked this. Like Reply hikaricore 1 day ago in reply to Lothor The Evil I totally LOLed. 3 people liked this. Like Reply Herbie 20 hours ago in reply to Lothor The Evil nah its legal in most countries. google it Like Reply Friend of the People 16 hours ago in reply to Herbie It's illegal in most countries. 94 ban it (although 34 allow it in some circumstances), and of the other 93, many have bans on either pornography in general or bans on "child labor" that have been held in courts to ban child pornography. Like Reply Benjamin 1 day ago Very well-written article. Actually makes you think about what is the point of censorship, even something like CP, when the underlying problem continues unabated. Consider the idea that if they did not censor CP, they could easily track who is uploading and downloading the content, get warrants and actually take down these people. Instead they force them further underground and do nothing to actually stop children from being molested and raped, which is the real crime. Not saying there should be no censorship at all for CP (there will probably always be a market for the mentally-deranged), but just saying it seems that censorship has done little to solve the problem. Similarly with file sharing censorship - they only harm their own cause by driving the black market further underground, further away from public view, and through even more proxies and VPNs until they can't enforce any laws on the matter at all. The reason the industry doesn't care about these consequences is because they know it is bad PR to be locking up old ladies and laying down $1,000,000+ fines for supposed file sharing - and it is much more profitable to be pushing for censorship measures, so that they can fool their shareholders into thinking they are being proactive on the issue when in fact they are only making things worse. Really, when you look at these industry types and the seeming lunacy of their actions, you must understand that these are people who are ultimately stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have the difficult but well-paid job of being complete tools. Also, I might be mistaken but I'm pretty sure all the major torrent sites have protocols which remove CP as soon as it's added. I'm no expert, but I think it's more of a problem on Usenet (which is even more difficult to police). 2 people liked this. Like Reply Haxor 1 day ago in reply to Benjamin ya and in 11 years ive not seen one bit of child porn on any p2p system in fact in 15 years , being a hacker if i ever came across it id destroy the server OR failing that leave something there that virii's people Like Reply social commenter 23 hours ago in reply to Haxor I once downloaded a scooter video [ok so my taste in music might have been dodgy] and went to watch it and thought "hey, this isn't scooter" That turned out to be a 3 minute vid of some sick fuck in a bedroom...at first i thought it was just a normal porn flick ya know like you get those damn windows media player malware things that are all over these days. As soon as i realised what it actually was the thought went through my mind have i to call in the police as they can then check who had upped it to the site it came from etc etc but then i thought NO because cops automatically think you are the guilty party even when you are being helpful so i just destroyed the f*cking drive and bought a new one. But in the 7 years since then that has never happened since and i assume it was some twisted f*ck who just renamed the file to see the look on the faces of who ever had downloaded it. A quick message there to Anonymous.....it doesn't matter if you censor that shite as the people who watch it, download it and make it will still do it and distribute it just like they did before the internet or are you going to start making false claims that it only started once the internet gave them the way to do it ? I think the point at the end of the day is that if the people in the interview tar everyone with the same brush then it is easier for them to point a finger and shut anything they want down and nobody would stand up and disagree for fear of being cast out. Once it became law all they would have to say is that file X was found on such a site and whoosh the site is seized or blocked with no appeal. There are some things which i'm sure people here would agree need to be censored for obvious reasons but that wont get rid of the problem, only hunting down the sick fucks to start with will eradicate the problem but as has been said above it is easier to hide it than deal with it and by tarring normal files sharers with the same brush and in the same sentence they will get... show more Like Reply Violated0 19 hours ago in reply to social commenter i just destroyed the f*cking drive and bought a new one Nice overkill. Windows users can obtain a program called Shredder. It acts like your recycle bin but make sure any files dropped into it are completely erased from your HDD by overwriting where the file was stored several times. I helps to save buying new HDDs. You are not the only one. More than a few people reinstall their entire O/S due to a virus infection instead of simply removing the virus. Like Bob 9 hours ago in reply to Benjamin well after many usenet bust i find that most ppl quit or moved to more anonamous pastrures. Also most say usenet doesn't have on topic cp. its nothign or spam unless you want clothed child models Like Reply Guest 1 day ago Just kill the children. 7 people liked this. Like Reply Noah C. 1 day ago in reply to Guest That's a little harsh. 1 person liked this. Like Reply noko 1 day ago in reply to Noah C. I don't know. They want things all the time, they never shut the fuck up. They seem to be some kind of scapegoat for pro censorship. That said, I'm actually quite for killing children. 3 people liked this. Like Reply Noah C. 1 day ago in reply to noko I'd like to see your future earth, then. 1 person liked this. Like noko 1 day ago in reply to noko I'm misanthropic, man. Humans destroy everything they touch. A world without humans would be so much better. 3 people liked this. Like Violated0 19 hours ago in reply to noko Planet of the Apes here we come. I think humans deserve a chance. They are still a young species and learning quickly from their mistakes. We will have to see if protecting the planet or personal greed is most important. 2 people liked this. Like Rob8urcakes 16 hours ago in reply to Violated0 I think they do too V0, despite their penchant for aggression to the point of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Actually, how this puny Planet and its pathetic inhabitants have survived so far is not only a mystery but not worth a 2nd visit. Go crap in each others' mouth if you wish, but leave the rest of the Universe alone and uninfected with your persistently bad attitude to yourselves and anything else. 1 person liked this. Like Xult 1 day ago in reply to Guest Just do not copulate. No more children. Like Reply Linuxeomboy 1 day ago Trying to get a broader perspective, my say is that: To censor information in a world-wide medium that is a pool big enough for everyone to swimn, and it's principle lies in the very openness and versatility of communication, should be really down to a personal level of interest. *DON'T YOU DARE FUCK WITH MY INTERNET CONNECTION, DICKHEAD* Now, to censor someone's freedom of commiting a crime is also quite problematic... *SHOULD I WEAR HANDCUFFS JUST BECAUSE I CAN KILL SOMEONE WITH MY BARE HANDS?* The less I agree with censorship if you tell me it's for MY good and the wellbeing of MY family, when I have a brain and like using it. And also like inspiring others to do so. *WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW ABOUT ME, MR. PRESIDENT!?* So get the fuck away from me with this censor this is good censor that is bad bullshit. Censorship only implies a monopolistic kind of interest into other people's lives. 6 people liked this. Like Reply Haxor 1 day ago what we should do to really stop chi8ld pron, PAY HACKERS CASH to destroy every website hosting it. BANG prob solved no need to trample on majorities civil rights. Like Reply Crash 1 day ago in reply to Haxor I would rather pay a hitman cash to take care of the sickos in person. Having their websites taken down doesn't strike me as adequate punishment. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Guest123 1 day ago in reply to Haxor The police do actually do that. They fire hacker firms, the same firms that corporations hire to test their security systems. They do a pretty good job, but it's impossible to get rid of all of it. 1 person liked this. Like Reply meh 1 day ago in reply to Haxor the hackers should be doing this for free, and actively where ever encountered.or at least mapping out the network and who is involved... Like Reply Geeker 1 day ago The MPAA/RIAA et al have always and will always try to lump together this topic, as they continually do with drugs, prostitution, guns, organised crime etc etc, because they think it makes their bleating appear to be for a good cause, when in reality, we all know it's a complete bunch of hogwash to cover up their true motives, which is to try and keep their stranglehold on the complete and total conrtol of all media, rather than them providing the goods and services which the public want in the 21st Century. Just plain evil! The way they get away with this crap time and time again and the way they try to abuse the system using this lumping together manipulative tactic is reprehensible. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Jay 1 day ago I see many parallels between this anti-piracy strategy and a political strategy in the media. This strategy is used by both the Liberals in the mainstream media and anti-piracy outfits - after all, the MPAA and Liberals are one and the same. They will kamikaze a message into the minds of others and then bail from it the moment they're pressed/ questioned about it. This is what's called the "Drive-by media". If you don't know what drive-by media means - it's when someone will say the most politically damaging thing they can, whether it's true or not, then leave and let others debate about it, effectively letting others clean up their mess behind them. Sure, they may apologize for it or backpedal away from it later on, but the damage has already been done (and most likely the media will skip out on a followup debate once all the facts are in). This is what Liberals do to control the media, and to control the argument. It's not a fluke - it happens constantly and it's a well-known tactic of the Left. They have staff/ panel meetings to discuss exactly this strategy. It's only a matter of time before the "Child Pornography" attack is used against politicians as well. Let's say that a couple days before the presidential election, Liberals come out and accuse the GOP candidate of being a child molester. It doesn't matter if it's a giant lie - it will stick in a voter's head at the most crucial of moments, and when the smoke clears and the GOP loses, "Whoops, sorry I was mistaken". It's evil, and it happens all the time - as long as "the ends justify the means", as Liberals like to say. That is what anti-piracy groups are doing when they use this tactic - they're using child pornography as a tool to get others (politicians, the public) to react to a "moral imperative" before the public understand what they're doing. Just like some of the comments here, I've noticed - if you don't come out and say, right off the bat, that child pornography is detestable (which it obviously is) then automatically someone will fire off that you're a supporter of it. But whether this type of pornography is acceptable or not, that's NOT the issue here. The... show more 4 people liked this. Like Reply Guest 1 day ago The copyright lobby, the biggest troll of them all: 1) Pretend there is child pron everywhere 2) Provide technology to filter the internet 3) Block P2P 4) ??????? 5) Profit ! 7 people liked this. Like Reply Anonymous 1 day ago I also care about the vast amount of child porn being traded on anonymization services like Tor and Freenet. And I care about what will happen once human trafficking starts taking place on Onion sites via BitCoin. It is one of the primary reasons why I personally believe none of these technologies should (or will) be allowed to reach truly mainstream levels. Your logic is completely insane. You're basically arguing from the syllogism (1) Anonymity may facilitate the untraceable exchange of information; (2) Allowing widespread adoption of anonymity may facilitate exchange of child pornography; (3) Cutting child pornography at its source is impossible and all services enabling such anonymity must therefore be punishable. The problem with this argument is that it equates the act of physical abuse with pictures of the crime being spread. Just because child pornography encompasses depiction of an illegal act does not make the depiction of said crime independently punishable. Arguing from such a premise is ridiculous and should logically lead to the censorship of movies, cartoons and literature. The only legitimate interest in suppressing child pornography is the protection of the actual victims. Censoring CP just because people finds it offensive, or in order to control the thoughts of pedophiles is simply not a legitimate justification for censorship of mere depictions. Remember that the exploitation rationale breaks down when the images are not of real children but only computer generated animations or cartoons. What if pedophiles trade CP on FreeNet or Tor? It's only a problem insofar as the images are demonstrably linked to *actual* child abuse. Since you can't know if it's the real thing, the only remaining rationale for suppression is a desire to control the thoughts of the viewers. Second, your reasoning from physical abuse to informational abuse is a slippery slope necessating government snooping, data retention and bans on anonymity and privacy services and technologies. 6 people liked this. Like Reply Xult 1 day ago in reply to Anonymous This from someone who labels himself anonymous? 4 people liked this. Like Reply electric_worry 16 hours ago in reply to Xult Lol. You know, I'd been thinking about it, but til I just saw someone else say did it confirm my thoughts. Have you noticed how most of the "trolls" (not this guy I mean), but specifically the gung ho "you're all thieves" anti-piracy/pro-copyright types love insulting everyone on here and saying that "all of you are hiding behind your computers and think you're so clever using VPNs and proxies and whatnot, because you won't get caught cause it's anonymous" all happen to not notice that they're essentially doing the same thing by labeling themselves as Anon/Anonymous. If that isn't the definition of a hypocrite I don't know what is. And if there's one thing I can't stand, it's hypocrites. 1 person liked this. Like Reply Tuga 1 day ago The main problem is that, by censoring illegal content, you only encourage people to dig deeper and hide more effectively. It is foolish to believe that only filesharers use Tor, VPN, proxies, or any other means to hide their identity - sure, they may come up with new stuff, but soon enough all the REAL criminals will pick up those tools and make the job of law-enforcement agencies much, much harder. And we can thank the Copyright-Lobby for it. 4 people liked this. Like Reply meh 1 day ago censoring is useless, it harms everyone, and wont do anything to stop those that need be, in fact, it makes them more skilled and harder to detect, creating more of a problem. it should be the authorities that lock these sick fucks away, and the hackers that unleash hell and hand them over on a silver platter 4 people liked this. Like Reply person1234 1 day ago hypothetically speaking: what if the underage actors (13-17) were recording their sexual activities online and no "abuse" or "forcing" was done. 100% voluntary. what are your thoughts on said situation?? 5 people liked this. Like Reply Guest123 1 day ago in reply to person1234 Child porn is child porn. As far as I'm concerned, any child porn is bad child porn. I don't really care if two teenagers did it consensually; no pictures of that should be public. The pictures themselves are morally reprehensible. There shouldn't be any punishment given to anyone for it, but I'd say that if the pictures were online, they should be taken down. 1 person liked this. Like Reply Death 1 day ago in reply to Guest123 What are your thoughts on porn in general, define "public" in terms of ease of accessibility, and whose morality are you going off of? Morals can change and are a weak point of argument (like beliefs are to justifying actions). Like Reply Guest123 1 day ago in reply to Death There's no reason to restrict porn in general. I don't care about what consenting adults do, but we do recognize a difference between children and adults. Children are subject to restrictions until they've reached an age where we assign them full responsibility for their actions. By public, I mean that if two teenagers make pictures of themselves, then it doesn't matter. If they are in any location where anyone could gain access to them, then it's public. "Morals can change and are a weak point of argument" Perhaps, but what else do we have to go on? If we're going to just disregard morals, then why do we even care about pedophilia in the first place? It may harm the child, but why should we care? Even the basic point of disliking pedophiles It's not weak to argue based on morals. It's weak if you can't defend your morals. Finding a balance between competing morals (the desire to remove child porn and the desire to minimize censorship) is the important part. Like Guest123 1 day ago in reply to Death To clarify; If two teenagers make pictures and keep the pictures to themselves, that's fine. If it's made available to the general populace in any way, then it's child porn. I don't think I made that clear in the last post. BTW, is there any way to edit posts after-the-fact? 1 person liked this. Like BangIShotYou 10 hours ago in reply to Death @ Guest123 You can edit after you post by looking on the bottom right of the comment after it appears. It should say "Edit". Just click and make your edits. Also, you can go to Disqus.com (assuming you're using that) and edit directly from there. I'm saying you can edit, on the assumption that you're "Guest123" account is with Disqus. Not sure if it lets you edit if you're any of the other choices. Like Google, Yahoo, etc. Like Death 1 day ago in reply to person1234 I am fine with that scenario. Like Reply Anon 1 day ago They're so adamant about this because they own the rights to a vast majority of child porn. It would be bad for their business. 2 people liked this. Like Reply MC 1 day ago Hang on.......re-victimization? What sort of made up, straw man disingenuous pseudo-argument is that? I will counter argue here that people who are inclined towards sexual feelings for children may find their desires satiated enough from viewing child abuse images that they never feel the need to physically go out and commit such an act. I think this is quite likely to be true. So i see from the first few comments that paid industry lackeys have been keeping an eye on this blog after all, and now see fit to immediately try and denigrate good articles such as this in the comments lest a policy maker see sense for once! This is a good thing, it means they fear us and our arguments on some level, probably because they know we are right. So yes great article, but i fear that Rick missed a facet of this international chess game. He paints the governments involved in this as having a childlike intellect, puppets to these private rights holders interests, and that is to a large extent true, but they are not unaware of this and the are not unwilling either. The rights holders are correct, the mechanisms needed to hide CP from the internet (as opposed to yknow, arresting the producers) are also perfect for censoring copyright infringements........and they are also perfect for censoring 'undesirable' political material such as things that go against the party line, news of govt corruption, websites of opposition groups etc......and this is where the governments stake in all this comes from. They couldnt really give a toss about either child pornography OR copyright infringement, but through the whole debate they can see the way forward to finally gaining editorial control over the web, whilst doing it to thunderous applause from the populace because it is 'all for the children', as opposed to say, China where the people there are under no illusion as to why the censorship exists and the govt. doesnt really try to persuade them otherwise. Its worth noting here too that the ultimate power of the child abuse argument comes from the inability to counter it on the public stage, because it only takes one person to shoot back 'Why are you defending CP?' and then your credibility is shot to tatters, especially if you are a politician. This power stems from not only the industries undying love of CP, but the... show more 7 people liked this. Like Reply Friend of the People 1 day ago in reply to MC Your argument is rather interesting, although overall, I think you're too quick to dismiss realistic concerns that people have. I think we need to remember that we do allow and even desire some censorship. We don't allow slander, and we shouldn't allow this. Instead of calling for no censorship, call for complete transparency, where any site blocked has to be publically announced and defended. Any site owner who can prove that the government did otherwise would have the right to sue. That's probably a better direction to take it. Just remember this; just because something might be abused doesn't mean we can't use it. We have the police, but they could easily be used to abuse freedoms. The answer isn't completely avoiding something that could be abused; the answer is making all information public and making any attempt to hide or destroy any information a felony. You make a good argument, but I do have 1 huge complaint with what you're saying. "I will counter argue here that people who are inclined towards sexual feelings for children may find their desires satiated enough from viewing child abuse images that they never feel the need to physically go out and commit such an act. I think this is quite likely to be true." Nice thought, but let's work in the real world, where people don't have their desires sated by some small thing. It doesn't happen. Look at any psychological study relating to people getting access to taboo material, and you'll find that when people have some access (pornography), they're more inclined to go further than they otherwise might have (they're more likely to rape children). It doesn't sate their desires, it whets their appetite. 1 person liked this. Like Reply zenithmaster 1 day ago in reply to Friend of the People Please provide links to the psychological studies of which you speak. I am not disputing your argument - I am just interested in seeing them. Like Reply Friend of the People 15 hours ago in reply to zenithmaster Look above. Someone posted the two I would have used in response to your earlier comment. I can give a few more, but they're from the 70s and before, so they aren't quite as relevant nowadays. Like Jordan Kratz 1 day ago This government and the mafiaa can both take turns sucking my dog's ass. 4 people liked this. Like Reply Anon 1 day ago Whenever the topic of child pornography is discussed a lot of misconceptions about internet censorship are revealed. Please read this carefully. By design of the internet infrastructure, censorship is a difficult thing to do. The solution commonly proposed/implemented by modern countries in recent years has been "DNS filtering" . This means, if you try to access a specific blocked URL, the server which resolves this request (the DNS server) won't give you the real IP address of this website. Instead, the request is either dropped or you are redirected to a government owned site which explains to you that this URL has been blocked on grounds of illegal content. This is, however, a completely meaningless block. First of all you can simply query a different DNS server which is not inside your country. Secondly, you can simply directly connect to the IP address if you know it. Thirdly, a DNS server isn't something which has to be supplied by the ISP. There are numerous completely uncensored DNS servers available even within the censoring country and they are usually protected by laws which are harder to circumvent. A different solution is IP blocking. Here, certain IPs which are not withing country borders are access restricted. This prevents the trivial circumventions mentioned above, but ultimately is just as meaningless. Even though the blocked IP cannot be accessed directly, the content on this website can still be forwarded to you via a proxy. Proxy servers are very easy to set up, and pop up / disappear all the time. Furthermore they are usually protected by the right of anonymity and do not host any illegal material directly. Note also that both of these solutions do not in any way prevent file sharing. And if you talk strictly about censorship, these are the only options you have. The next step up will have to involve surveillance. Data retention laws have been enforced in a few countries. These require ISPs to store any connections to any IP address a user has established, their duration and in some cases (such as in the directive of the EU from 2006) even the location of mobile devices for a period of up to a few years. This has been struck down as unconstitutional in countries such as Germany, Czech Republic and Serbia. With this data the State can identify when, how long and from where you have accessed... show more 5 people liked this. Like Reply Bob Obb 1 day ago Yall motherfuckers going to jail. Like Reply Thanh_pn 1 day ago I agree child pornography should be filtered however I fear this is opening a door to allow the government to restrict what we can or cannot see. For example; China is filters out all topics in which go against its own government. With this Child Porn filter who is say our own government wont abuse the system to control the information we can access like china. I agree child porn is wrong however as it clearly points out in this article child porn is just being used as an excuse to control if not take away our freedom to information on the internet. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Xult 1 day ago Instead of the kiddy porn brigade moralising. Lets get to the point. Rightsholders are using child porn as a wedge to drive into the copywrong issue. Disgusting. These are the tactics they employ.. Are any of these rightsholders defending their ownership of child porn. If they are? If they arn't? Question it. It just goes to show what type of uhtermench they are. The type of people who would willingly extract your gold teeth and shove you into a furnace. Only following orders. The type of people who have no morals as long as they get well paid! 2 people liked this. Like Reply Guest 14 hours ago in reply to Xult uhtermench? i guess you meant "untermensch" (subhuman) otherwise... well said sir. Like Reply Ok 1 day ago I'm going to be shouted at for this, but I don't think censoring child porn does any good at all. It doesn't protect children, and it doesn't address the problem - children are still being abused! Police and the FBI should go after the sick child molesters themselves, those who create CP; cut it off at the source. You can't "sweep" the issue under the rug; it plainly will not help. Besides, just like we eventually will, and already have in some cases, the paedophiles have taken to Tor and anonymous P2P networks. (I'm not saying child porn should be allowed, but censorship is censorship; censorship under the guise of "removing child porn" is still censorship). Fuck the MAFIAA. 5 people liked this. Like Reply Guest 14 hours ago in reply to Ok "I'm not saying child porn should be allowed" well.. there's the problem.. if you bring that "censorship is bad" argument against those pro-censoring f*ckers, they'll just try to convince people that those "censorship is bad" commenters are probably into child porn or something.. stupid knockout-argument from them.. and sadly, most "average-joe's" actually believe this bullshit :( Like Reply NoBigGovDuh 1 day ago MPAA & RIAA Are Helping Child Pornographers Avoid Being Discovered! 5 people liked this. Like Reply Quest The Guest 1 day ago What child porn is everyone talking about? A search on BitChe brings up a dozen results which don't all look valid anyway! Like Reply Chris Hansen 8 hours ago in reply to Quest The Guest *knock knock* 1 person liked this. Like Reply Anonymous 1 day ago its been said many times but i will say again.. censoring the internet will not stop pedofucks. How would it? it existed before the dawn of the internet and will thrive when you pull a blanket over it shouting move along shout nothing to see here Instead of useless passive filtering system to serve the agenda of the MPAA and the likes.. why not actively pursue those who make it and distribute it. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Guest 23 hours ago it is common knowledge that in the entertainment industry all the executives and most of the employees are either pederasts or some type of sexual perverts. Let's kill them all. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Guest 23 hours ago "The world is rarely black and white. Trying to label censorship in such stark terms is futile. " For the world yes but for the entertainment industry and for the banks they are all black. let's kill them all. 1 person liked this. Like Reply Warpchy 22 hours ago Sure we can censor for kiddy porn. Let the child advocacy groups handle this, not corporate entities. Cause this is a social issue not a business one. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Friend of the People 15 hours ago in reply to Warpchy Very well put. I don't think anyone will argue with that. 1 person liked this. Like Reply Guest 22 hours ago Child porn is child porn. As far as I'm concerned, any child porn is bad child porn. I don't really care if two teenagers did it consensually; no pictures of that should be public. The pictures themselves are morally reprehensible. There shouldn't be any punishment given to anyone for it, but I'd say that if the pictures were online, they should be taken down. Why? If there is no underlying crime, unlawful sex between a child and an adult, the ban is no longer logically defensible as protection against crime. If the underlying act is not illegal, and sexual intercourse between children aren't necessarily so, it's not the state's business to censor how people voluntarily portray their act. Another scenario is children taking pictures of themselves and publishing them when they grow up. If I had sex when I was 14-16, why should I not have the right to publish the pictures when I reach the age of consent. You are moving from the core and IMHO legitimate concerns of pedophilia to paternalistic censorship merely on the ground that you don't like children being depicted in sex acts. 4 people liked this. Like Reply DaX 22 hours ago I'm confused. If watching CP makes you a pedophile, or at least makes a latent pedophile to one actually acting on his urges. What about murder, according to this logic TV shows depicting serial murders and murders must be turning people into murders and mass murders? I mean thats logic right? So if we are censoring CP, why aren't we censoring CSI, and oder crime TV shows? ----------------- "Should child pornography be censored from the Internet?" No, nothing should be censored! But, audio visual recordings of actual child molestations should be removed at the source. Only content should be removed that violates privacy rights of actual human beings. Drawings, animations, etc... however no mater what they are showing should not be removed. 2 people liked this. Like Reply J-Horn 21 hours ago Since politicians do not understand file sharing we going to find a lot of child pornography on the their computers... than they understand! 4 people liked this. Like Reply Violated0 19 hours ago For once Rick has got it completely right and I am someone who usually points out his false logic. I should add that BT has put all this in a correct context. They have a child porn filter and now the copyright side want them to filter file sharing sites as well. BT said if it came to wider censorship they would rather remove their child porn filter. What most people do not realise is that child porn is largely hidden from the general internet on darknets and private servers. BT's web filter in the child porn context is therefore very minor and usually simply a single age questionable photo in the middle of hundreds of adult porn photos on an adult porn website. Society including the police and courts can already self-regulate making such ISP filters of little real use. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Haxor 19 hours ago arent the fbi being pulled off looking for kiddy porn so they can arrest them evil file sharers who really harm children LOL btw my nick is chronoss and this nut bar at some tracker named Fatal likes to think i hacked his website. A) i have 1100 days news group access what the hell do i need bit torrent for? B) i'm 40 not 4 and your lil friend Nimueh needs ot get a cock in her ass as every site shes involved in fails. C) until i get public apology this lil message is gonna start popping up all over the place. google my nick there are millions of hits....ya they all are me honest...ask this retard admin for proof and whats he do , nothing cause he has none. BOY wiht admins like that can ya start to see why hollywood keeps winning. Like Reply Guest 19 hours ago you just gave me new energy Rick 1. you have no clue what you're talking about (lots of money is being made through distribution of child abuse images alone and it in itself is an economic driver for those who produce the pictures. There are even ebay type of sites in use by these people) 2. stop using that silly circumvention is always possible argument. If that were true, why even bother to write this article in the first place? 3. start focusing on new business models in stead of whining about what happens to these old data pipelines 4. use your real name Like Reply electric_worry 16 hours ago in reply to Guest You lose all credibility in your "argument" or "points" or whatever they are by saying "4. use your real name", Guest. 3 people liked this. Like Reply Christopher Kidwell 17 hours ago Well, as I have said many times before.... the fact is that pedosexuality is being used as a 'boogie man' for society and so is child pornography. For goodness sakees, we have told children for nearly 100 years now (at least) that if someone tries to touch them on their genitalia (sometimes even WITH their permission), that it is wrong and that they should tell an authority figure or tell the person in question not to do that. Since there also is not a 'force-field' between adults and children's genitalia or something else to totally stop adults and children from having sex together.... kinda obvious that nature expected adults and children to be having sex together. If they are not doing that first thing above, there are only a few explanations: 1. They are curious about sex (which considering we are born with genitalia that are fully functional outside of reproduction, we are supposed to be interested in). 2. They like the things that are being done to them or are at most negative neutral towards them, as I was during chlidhood when I had many sexual encounters with adults that I liked and with other children/teenagers as a child. We had this same bullplop with homosexuality, heterosexuality outside of marriage, and non-whites having sex with whites.... it's time that it ended to be blunt. To Guest above? No, child pornography is NOT being told in the slightest. I have a cousin who works for the FBI in the division that takes care of child pornography, profit or not. He has said that they exceptionally rarely have the images being sold for profit because no reputable credit card, check, etc. processor will deal with someone who is involved in that. That is basically EVERYONE in the business. 3 people liked this. Like Reply Godshand 15 hours ago in reply to Christopher Kidwell "Athat they should tell an authority figure or tell the person in question not to do that." The problem with this is that the adults are usually authority figures, like parents, family, or family friends. How is a child supposed to say no when the person won't accept no as an answer? There's a reason we call it rape. "Since there also is not a 'force-field' between adults and children's genitalia or something else to totally stop adults and children from having sex together.... kinda obvious that nature expected adults and children to be having sex together.' There isn't any barrier between you and a pig either. Go fuck a pig. It's ok; nature wanted it. "We had this same bullplop with homosexuality, heterosexuality outside of marriage, and non-whites having sex with whites.... it's time that it ended to be blunt." Yeah, the thing is, none of those caused harm to anyone. Pedophilia harms the child. That's why we won't allow it. Wait, I'm feeding the troll. God damn it. 3 people liked this. Like Reply Anonymous 15 hours ago in reply to Christopher Kidwell "the images being sold for profit because no reputable credit card, check, etc. processor will deal with someone who is involved in that" LOL you're full of shit as is your imaginable FBI contact.. Ever heard of prepaid credit cards? How do you really think transactions are conducted? Why don't you think for a second you tool.. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Username1 15 hours ago Child porn is an industry standard , from MTV's Skins show , to the Miley Cyrus Annie Leibovitz photo shoot , to the type of movies and music they put out to kids and teens , to Child actress Dakota Fanning and her infamous rape scene. Toddlers and tiaras. My belief is they don't like the competition in child porn , why get it for free when you should be paying them. If I had taken those photos of Miley they probably would have put me on an offenders list or worst. But you do it under the disguise of entertainment and all is forgiven. You want to have a sex scene with a 12 year old ? Become an actor, Dakota Fanning would have done you. Dakota Fanning is still selling sex at 17 in a new perfume ad. Hey she was selling it at 12. On a side note there are also marketing agencies and products that sell children as sexy for their products. Like Abercrombie and Fitch and apparently the new perfume ad with Dakota. They have been selling sex to kids for as long as I can recall. And they will continue to. It's an issue of control of the market and the information across the net. Of course at the end of the day it doesn't mean a damn thing , they (the RIAA and MPAA and it's partner companies ) will continue to exploit children. 3 people liked this. Like Reply RIAAtarded 13 hours ago the actions that are being taken are deplorable in this case child porn is being used because no matter what your stand on piracy no one is going to be seen as being soft on the exploitation of child. However censoring the net does nothing to curb this and if they were serious about tackle this issue they would give law enforcement the ability to catch them. Proper treaties put in place to make sharing of info and charging them and bringing them to justice. This won't happen though because MPAA, RIAA and all the others aren't interested stopping this at all. They want the government to rule so the ISP will be forced to put the filter technology in place. Seems a cheap way to lose nothing out of their own pockets when they can have it legislated into being. Once the infrastructure in place what the hell lets start combing the logs for other things, or add something to the filter. There is an end game here for anyone looking at the truth of it and from where I stand using child porn with no regard for that issue or a resolution to it quite frankly is just another for of child exploitation. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Anon 13 hours ago How fascinating...the political mechanism that the author illustrates in this article is now playing itself out with disturbing clarity among so many of these comments. Notice how many of the foolish comment-posters have become suckered by this absurd suggestion that the argument for, or against, broad internet censorship is somehow analogously with a righteous crusade against child porn. Get swept up...or swept away! This is exactly what the copyright industry is banking on. The copyright industry is likely betting that enough stupid people will become so frightened and intimidated by the mere presence of the child porn issue that their view of the big picture will be hopelessly obscured. The manner in which the copyright industry is attempting to frame the broader issue of internet censorship resembles the way products are advertised to consumers--find an emotional entry-point (in this case children)...nullify reason/intellect...encourage impulse decision-making. How can one form a useful view of broad internet censorship if they have already been bullied into believing that to oppose it is to somehow automatically support the sexual abuse and exploitation of kids? How long will it be until the mass consensus becomes equated to the basic idea that anyone opposing broad internet censorship must be a pedophile? Are people still stupid enough to be herded like this...by those who herd people for a living? 3 people liked this. Like Reply BangIShotYou 12 hours ago in reply to Anon The answer to your last question is, yes. People are stupid enough to be herded like this. Just look at terrorism. People have gladly and without a thought had some of their rights and freedoms taken away in the effort to stop terrorism. Sure, it's something to worry about. But the chances of anything happening are remote. You stand a better chance of being in a car accident and dying from that, then you do of being the victim of a terrorist attack. You want another example, the anti-piracy crowd on here. There's a die hard few (probably 2 or 3, and chances are it might just be the same one guy under 3 different accounts) who have no problem with invasion of privacy (monitoring everyone's internet use), industries lobbying to have laws enacted that benefit them at the cost of individual's rights (again, invasion of privacy and censorship), etc. To them that's perfectly okay and they in fact encourage and applaud such actions. I bet if you asked them, they'd probably even say none of that is enough. Now we've touched on child pornography. And as you said, eventually it will become "you don't approve of censorship, so you support child pornography". Again, the War on Terror is a good example. If you don't support the war (note: not supporting a war is not the same as not supporting our government or not supporting our troops) then there are tons of people who automatically say "well if you're not supporting the war, you're un-American/hate our troops/support terrorism". Stupid thing to say and even believe, but there are plenty out there who do say and believe that. "You're not with us, so by default you're against us and support everything contrary to what we do." It's fear mongering. Scare people and they'll go along with anything you say. It works for governments, why wouldn't it work for the industries? And as is evidenced, people on here are actually more informed than the average person. So, imagine how regular Joe Sixpacks will react/think. Good f*cking luck. Censorship, here we come. 4 people liked this. Like Reply Haxor 9 hours ago in reply to Anon as one poster said 99.99999999999999999 % of it is already encrypted ( GEE what are kids response to the filtering and censorship OMG encryption so as cops have said it makes the job finding kiddy porn harder) this really goes to a point that the next round of laws will be use of encryption without isp or govt authorization or them holing a key to it will become illegal. I WANT them to know i file share SO SHOULD EVERYONE. DONT HIDE we hackers made that mistake in the 2001 after 9/11 we dont want to see you pirates do the same. Like Reply Guest 12 hours ago All the "child porn" entry you can find P2p network are actually fake implanted by the RIAA/MPAA and the entertainment industry companies. They are the pederasts. But all these corporate parasites mother fuckers are not going to go to jail because we are going to kill them all. Like Reply Jay 11 hours ago A side topic, how do you make words appear in bold? Like Reply Trelew 11 hours ago It doesn't surprise me the lengths that Big Business and their puppets in the government will do to justify their greedy actions. They will use any lie to justify their actions, condone any misdeed, destroy any person that gets in their way of attaining more money and power. It's a corporate world...and we just get screwed in it Like Reply Neotoasty 11 hours ago A country run by war mongering, aimless spending, careless, soul-less, heartless suits. This, to me, is only another thing added to that long list of what they represent, and nothing more. This is similar to how the government once stated that file sharing will make the terrorists win, a few years ago. When I think they're already won with even Osama dead because look how fucked up we are now. Like Reply Fukk You 8 hours ago Oh wait, thanks rick. Like Reply Jhjl 7 hours ago Ok so the APG is saying that piracy is drying out the film and music industry so that nothing will be produced if the development continues. If this is the case wouldn’t piracy then be the perfect weapon against the perves producing child porn? In other words, when allofmp3 and TPB is blocked the artists are being protected. But if the small fish perves are kept from sharing their shit with P2P, who gets protected???? Like Reply Foff 6 hours ago Here is the question I have. How do you censor kiddie porn? Everytime I download and check out something our of curiosity that claims to be underage in the title I usually get some ugly b i t c h with tiny t i t s in ponytails that is obviously not underage or something not even related to the title that is just low class promotional porn for some site. I doubt there is any serious kiddie porn on public torrent sites. If there were any it would be some mislabeled stuff that the pedos find out about on secret boards or groups and is most likely taken down pretty fast. Illegal kiddie porn sites are already illegal and should be taken down. Why is it that Ice has not taken over a single domain that advertises underage or kiddie porn? If all the domains were taken down there would be no need for censorship. No public torrent site that we all use is selling or promoting kiddie porn so why should they be censored? Even if you could censor nudity what program could tell the difference between a naked 14 year old and a naked 18 year old? My wife started doing it when she was 12, I met when she was 28 and from what I can tell it had no adverse affects on her. So who is to say how harmful underage sex is and what really constitutes underage. Certainly anyone who gets excited over small children is a sick pedo. To me most young teenagers don't look all that sexy, they look much better when they are mature and have all the womanly curves. So I am a little liberal on the subject. Up to a certain age it is disgusting and shocking and deserves a strong response but once puberty hits or gets close I am not so sure it is as serious. All humans are curious about sex and their genitals at a certain age which is slightly different for everyone and when this happens sexual encounters do not have as detrimental effect as when the person is not ready. Like Reply Nomad of Norad 6 hours ago Well, having waded through this whole discussion (and, WOW what a lively one it has been! :D ) One thing I haven't seen commented on so far is: the screening out of this stuff isn't 100% reliable even if it WAS appropriate to do: Inevitably, you WILL have too many false positives, and too many false negatives. (Actually ANY false positive and ANY false negative is one too many.) There is no such thing as a filtering system that is 100% reliable and 100% infallible. Also, what exactly constitutes CP? Bear in mind, in some countries, even cartoon or CG images of kids having sex is considered CP, in others, the age at which real life kids having sex is considered CP is lower or higher than in others. Also, some people mistakenly think pictures of kids merely being naked (but not doing anything remotely sexual) is CP, but the United States Supreme Court have repeatedly declared it isn't. Unfortunately, a number of people's lives have been ruined after they innocently brought pictures of their very young kids in the bathtub in to be developed and someone turned them in for "possible CP" and someone else then acted on the tip and said, "We'll, if that guy thinks its true, it must be!" For that reason, the fact that some of the government chairwarmers don't really even understand what CP is and isn't, I'd trust even less any filtering system they or any other chairwarmers might come up with, because there's a good chance they'll get the settings all wrong. 2 people liked this. Like Reply Josh 6 hours ago Censorship on the internet is wrong period. Let people decide what they do or do not want to see. The government has no right to choose what we should or should not see. Like Reply Josh 6 hours ago in reply to Josh Also look at GreenDam software to see how fucking shitty government censorship coding is. Even if a program like this is allowed to become a reality it will fucking suck. Like Reply Herbert 3 hours ago i am assuming, Rick, that you had/have ocumentedor taped proof of what was sais and by whom. so, my questions to you are, what did you and your colleagues at the meeting do with that proof? what are you doing with it now? you are in a better position than anyone else here to be listened to. Like Reply Tactical_blunder 5 minutes ago So I take it from the comments that people believe Child abuse and Child porn only started with the internet..... Censoring the Internet will not stop child porn, it will not help ONE abused child. Hell, the Catholic church has been playing coverup hardcore on some of its little mistakes of the past, lets censor them...that'll stop the problem..... Arrest the perpertators, treat the victims, and lets leave copyright and child porn seperate. If you want to sort out copyright, do it, but not with Child Porn as the launching platform. Maybe if you encouraged digital content growth, and didnt place stupid "regional" restrictions and price hikes cause you live outside of the US, you must pay 10X the price, people wouldnt pirate! Like Reply Real-time updating is paused. (Resume) Add New Comment Optional: Login below. Post as … NewsBits The latest news from around the web, not covered on the frontpage 90 Law Professors Oppose U.S. Anti-Piracy Bill This week a group of 90 professors wrote a letter opposing the upcoming PROTECT IP Act.... How The RIAA Screws Artists With Creative Accounting Yesterday we posted an article about the Swiss IFPI boss who quit following fraud allegations. In... Anti-Piracy Group Issues Veiled Threats To ISPs Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has launched a campaign to try and bring Aussie Internet... ACS:Law Boss Is Internet Villain of the Year Every year the UK’s Internet Services Providers’ Association (ISPA) has an awards ceremony to pay tribute... Oh No! Pirates Steal Your Bandwidth! Today the RIAA, MPAA and all major U.S. Internet providers launched a new plan to curb... MostDiscussed Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like. The Pirate Bay Is Down For Maintenance Comment Icon 548 MPAA, RIAA, Major ISPs Preparing ‘Graduated Response’ To Piracy Comment Icon 262 Hotfile Battles MPAA Over Private User Data Disclosure Comment Icon 232 TVShack Admin Fights Extradition To U.S. On Movie Piracy Charges Comment Icon 186 uTorrent / BitTorrent Sued For Patent Infringement Comment Icon 182 CopyQuote Left Quote We decided to go all out with BitTorrent and spend our time making FrostWire the best BitTorrent client out there, and not fighting the endless spam battle. FrostWire Team Left Quote RecommendedArticles A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives. Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2011 As has become a tradition over the years, we present a list of the most visited... ACS:Law Anti-Piracy Law Firm Torn Apart By Leaked Emails Earlier this week, anti-piracy lawyers ACS:Law had their website taken down by a 4chan DDoS attack.... 5 Ways To Download Torrents Anonymously With anti-piracy outfits and dubious law-firms policing BitTorrent swarms at an increasing rate, many Bittorrent users... BTGuard Review: How Does it Work? With the entertainment industries lobbying for increased powers to spy on BitTorrent users, many downloaders are... Optimize Your BitTorrent Download Speed BitTorrent can be fun, as long as you get decent speeds. Not satisfied with your current... Follow us online: Digg Facebook Twitter Design by RyanDownie TF is CC BY 3.0. Random Links BT-Chat ExtraTorrent isoHunt KickassTorrents LimeTorrents RLSLOG.net Torrent Downloads Torrent Finder Torrent Proxy / VPN Torrent Reactor TorrentHound Torrentreactor Torrents Torrentz.com YouTorrent
Go to most recent paste.
(c) Copyright 2005-2011 Thomas Damgaard Nielsen.