Talk:Internet child pornography/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This was originally written as a writeup for Everything2. It received mixed reviews and was quickly nuked by the censors (gods). I rewrote the text and changed the writing a bit to fit the Wikipedia style better.

Please note that I do not advocate producing, selling, downloading or posessing child porn. But I believe that people should have free and unfettered access to all sorts of information and make informed personal choices afterwards.

Searching for child porn is legal in most countries. Downloading and posessing it is also legal in many. Providing information about ways to find it is legal practically everywhere, except, may be, for some islamic fundamentalist states. --Paranoid October 9, 2003

And was deleted there, too. --Morven 20:22, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Moved out

I have moved this out of the article namespace because I'm not certain about the legal status of the article, and also because I'm a little uncomfortable about leaving this lying around. -- Cyan 22:57, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The article has obviously been written by a paedophile and it has absolutely no place in an encyclopaedia. What wil be next - "The ten easiest ways to commit murder"? "How to buy class A drugs"? "Rape someone in 5 easy steps"?!

Saying "[child pornography] sometimes harms children" is about as ludicrous a statement as "Pol Pot made a few small mistakes as a national leader".

The whole thing is utterly sickening, and more to the point, wikipedia certainly shouldn't provide instruction on how to commit acts which are illegal in the vast majority of English-speaking countries (from where we can assume most of the readers of the english speaking version will be based. 80.255 23:11, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, here is a fragment of E2 chatterbox history:

<haze> What are you morons wanking about? That writeup doesn't even give URLS, let alone link to child porn. Or have you all been scared out of your wits by that bogeyman, Johnny Ashcrift? ... IWhoSawTheFace administers a severe beatdown on haze Oh don't be so goddammed liberal minded and read the thing for what it really is: a 'how-to' primer on downloading child porn without getting caught. ... <haze> I don't care if it's a "how-to" primer on detonating a small nuclear device in my fair city. It ain't no crime.

The qualifications of haze are as follows: "HAZEN does legal research and writes briefs. He writes for both this firm and other lawyers. He has participated in a wide variety of appeals: wrongful death and personal injury cases (for both plaintiffs and defendants) as well as cases involving civil rights, zoning, insurance, negotiable instruments and liquor licensing." [1]

Of course, what haze said in a Chatterbox was not qualified legal advice, but I think it is enough to at least presume that the text is ok and work from there.

The text is legal. The information provided there is legal. 100% legal. Yes, it can be interpreted as instructions to finding child porn, but this is not a crime. This is free speech, supposedly protected in some countries (I am not talking about whether E2 or Wikipedia have the right to censor it, but about the legal status of the text. It's 100% legal).

Even more, as I already wrote, the activities described there are legal in some countries. Downloading of child porn is not outlawed anywhere. The concept of downloading is too young for that. Posession of child porn is illegal in the US, UK and some other countries. But it is not illegal everywhere. But again, this is irrelevant, because even then the text itself is absolutely legal (how can I reiterate it stronger).

Yes, people are afraid, but as Benabik said in response to haze "How-to instructions on terrorism are probably not going to be looked kindly on by the law in this day and age." The US (and other countries) are supposedly free. People should not have to consider "what would the State think about my thoughts and writing". We do not live in 1984 yet. Government should not, could not and will not interfere with the publication of this text. But self-censorship is the worst of all, because people who are afraid to commit thinkcrimes will censor undesired speech even without formal censorship laws. Please, do not let this happen.

As for the second concern that the text is immoral, unethical and what not, well, everyone is entitled to think so. But this is mostly irrelevant. Satanic Verses is considered immoral and unethical by certain individuals and organisations. So what? Speech which was allowed by the censors is not free speech. The mere existence of censorship effectively makes all speech non-free, even the one which was allowed by the censors.

Paranoid 23:14, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

We can have topics about illegal things, says User:Kosebamse

However much you like to reiterate it, the point is not whether this is legal or not. The point is whether we think it is appropriate for Wikipedia. This text is a poorly disguised "download illegal child pornography" How-To. I don't want to speculate about the uploader's motives, but it looks like plain trollbait. I have no desire to feed trolls, but this can not stay. Wikipedia is not a criminal's toolshop. Kosebamse 23:31, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

title

Needs a title change: simply Internet child pornography. Such an article would certainly include a link to Operation Ore: a recent UK police operation. Can we move this to user:Cyan/Internet child pornography, or are there any objections? Martin 23:18, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)