Re: NAMBLA embattled -- mirror sites?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2978d/2978d274d79d00458f068beca71fb4da8f4e6cd3" alt=""
Declan writes:
Folks on f-c and cypherpunks have mirrored holocaust revisionist web pages, banned books, and censored newspapers. Now I understand that NAMBLA is in danger of losing its home on the web. Anyone up for mirroring the (text-only) publications of perhaps the world's most controversial organization?
Nah, I'll pass on this one. If the membership list is included, I'd be glad to forward it to my local police, though... I'm not sure the right to free speech includes the right to endorse guys fucking little boys, whether they give it a moniker like "transgenerational love" or not. Any sex with a minor is rape, since they can't legally give consent. All Hillary Klinton's "It Takes A Village" bullshit aside, I can't see giving NAMBLA the same kind of protection as someone like Zundel. Ratbert
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2ba46/2ba46388b4d10feef7c7adac4464e52a37cdcfab" alt=""
On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, Ratbert wrote:
I'm not sure the right to free speech includes the right to endorse guys fucking little boys, whether they give it a moniker like "transgenerational love" or not. Any sex with a minor is rape, since they can't legally give consent.
There's a huge difference between people talking about fucking little boys, and people actually doing it. The latter is certainly rape, and perpetrators should certainly be jailed at the very least. However, for all that it may be offensive, data doesn't hurt children, except in that it records previous crimes, or foreshadows future ones. Even if we were to admit some of this information constitutes a thought crime there's still no shortage of far more important physical crimes against children for our protectors to deal with. Read some de Sade from your local library. For many liberal people, it can be challenging to reconcile a general belief in freedom of speech and thought with their revulsion at what he wrote. It's easy to believe in freedom in the abstract: you have to look at the boundary cases to decide what you really believe. -- Martin Pool
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2ebd2/2ebd2469d4304f0d6b9c73c83ea671766a6d1597" alt=""
Martin Pool <mbp@pharos.com.au> writes:
It's easy to believe in freedom in the abstract: you have to look at the boundary cases to decide what you really believe.
Very true. That comment is worthy of a .sig quote. It's the boundary cases that define the difference between `do you believe in unconditional free speech' or `do you believe in free speech as long as it doesn't offend you. I would also say that just because someone is saying something unpopular doesn't make me want to stick my neck out in mirroring it if it's dangerous to do so. Technological solutions are the answer, cf Tim's comments on Blacknet, and anonymous USENET posts. Adam -- Now officially an EAR violation... Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`
participants (3)
-
Adam Back
-
Martin Pool
-
nobody@REPLAY.COM