[clug] [OT] Broadband clangers

[Neill Cox]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Sam Couter <sam at couter.id.au> wrote:

> Neill Cox <neill.cox at ingenious.com.au> wrote:
> > I call strawman.
> >
> > Some of the items that are refused classification involve harm to others:
> >
> > - Bestiality: Harm to animals who cannot give informed consent
> > - Pedophilia: Harm to children
> > - Sexually violent material - some of which may involve consenting
> adults,
> > but there is certainly material involve where one of the parties is not
> > consenting.
>
> And I can't defend the production of any of that material. But not all
> material is so objectively easy to dismiss, eg. material that depicts
> simulations of any of the categories you mentioned.
>
> BTW, I'm going to split a hair here: Pedophilia doesn't harm children
> because it's a sexual preference or deviance or mental illness depending
> on your viewpoint but not an action. Acting on those urges and actually
> molesting children harms them whether you're taking pictures of it or not.
>
>
Just as well I didn't say Zoophilia then :)


> > Even as an adult your freedoms are restricted in many ways.  You cannot
> > legally travel at whatever speed you like.
>
> Not on a public road, but that's because of the increased risk of
> substantial harm posed to others. I can do so (and have) on a race track,
> for example.
>
>
> You cannot legally inflict harm on others.
>
> Now who's busting out the strawman? Reading a book or watching a movie
> doesn't harm others.
>

In your judgment, but there are others who will argue that watching such
material increases the possibility of harm coming to others.  People are not
harmed every time someone speeds on a public road either. Alternatively,
supporting the production of such material may cause harm to others.


> > Material you may want to view as an adult may have harmed others in its
> > production.
>
> And it's absolutely fine that people who harm others are prosecuted.
> That's not the problem.
>


I'm not sure I agree that there is a problem.  Excessive censorship would be
a problem,  possibly our current system qualifies as excessive. But I find
the argument that all censorship is evil completely unconvincing.

For the record - despite being a "nutcase cannibal blood drinking wannabe" I
am:

- Opposed to the internet filter (for both technical, philosophical and
moral reasons)
- In favour of tolerance towards other people's sexual
practices/proclivities so long as harm to others is not involved
- In favour of a harm minimisation approach to drug problems rather than a
law and order/moral panic approach
- Strongly in favour of allowing people to make their own moral decisions
- Completely uncaring about how much X-rated porn other adults choose to
watch.

Cheers,
Neill

--
> Sam Couter         |  mailto:sam at couter.id.au
> OpenPGP fingerprint:  A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05  5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkxkyi8ACgkQhTADrt6Jx1wRQwCfd01J9sAwnbIjfz6oIQsW/YcN
> hpsAoKnBrBaOE17jiD45Qo65JTk6JcNS
> =18uo
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> linux mailing list
> linux at lists.samba.org
> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux
>
>