[tomku]

So given that attitude, how do you deal with the problem of exit node operators possibly performing illegal activities themselves? Should running an exit node give you blanket protection from any kind of investigation due to traffic coming out of your network?

[AdmiralBeotch]

I am a TOR exit operator and I strictly follow the guidelines established by the EFF. I never connect to my exit nodes for any purpose other than routine maintenance and when I do, it's well documented: times, purpose, etc. By minimizing my access, I remove myself from suspicion for any activity done through my node.

[paweln82]

We either have freedom or speech: sending any data to anyone or we do not.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." -- Benjamin Franklin

I choose freedom.

[jrabone]

I believe the quote is "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.", and it's not clear what essential liberty is being compromised here.

[sneak]

From the Supreme Court ruling excerpted at https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity :

> Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

[jessedhillon]

In what democratic discourse are child porn traders engaged in? Protest over age-of-consent laws?

The idea that some particular speech is protected in the interests of democracy does not mean that all speech is in the democratic interest.

[e12e]

In what democratic discourse are child porn traders engaged in? Protest over age-of-consent laws?

I don't think that is as clear cut as you make it out to be.

But yes, child porn, hate speech and a few other things might not be "essential for democratic discourse". I'm still not convinced censorship is the best tool to help fight the underlying problems. And I do believe the underlying problems (hate, violence, in some cases mental disease) should be dealt with -- I'm unconvinced the media files actually do much harm on their own -- due to the nature of their contents in general.

Now we need laws to limit speech that attacks and harms people (such as being able to prevent people from (legally) distributing pictures and film on the Internet against our will) -- and it is natural that government does that on behalf of those that are not adult and/or have guardians that can do it for them.

But there is a difference between that, and a blanket ban on media based on the imagery contained within.

Child porn would at least be relevant as evidence in a trial, and possibly (with victims not recognizable) in media cover of such a trial.

[jlgreco]

Right, because facilitating that is the only reason someone might want to operate a Tor exit node....

The relationship between speech, particularly political speech if the distinction matters to you, and Tor should be plain.

[jessedhillon]

Child porn is not a legitimate exercise of the first amendment anymore than shooting sprees are a legitimate exercise of the second amendment. The government has a legitimate interest in stopping such speech, just as it has a legitimate interest in prevent sprees.

So far, the people on your side of the argument have only been able to draw lines in the sand and insist that ISPs and exit nodes are the same. They, and presumably you, claim without justification that "bad" speech cannot be pursued without chilling "good" speech. Your comment adds no real world understanding of this fact: people don't want child porn to be traded over the Internet. Your case that political speech cannot be free unless child porn is free, is uncompelling and lacks nuance.

[e12e]

Yes, as Franklin. But earlier under the alias Poor Richard, it went:

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

I've always found it oddly fascinating that that was originally published under an alias.

[ahelwer]

As is said on other parts of the Internet, SO BRAVE.

Absolutism on this issue is nothing more than intellectual cowardice. Turning the other cheek.

[DanBC]

You don't have freedom of speech. You don't have freedom of speech in the US and you certainly don't have it in Austria.

[jlgreco]

What does the reality of what freedoms we actually enjoy have to do with what freedoms we should expect others to demand?

I may not have freedom of speech in the US, but I sure as hell can demand it. I expect to be given that freedom, even though I do not expect that will ever happen.

[DanBC]

> What does the reality [...]

People have a choice. A person can demand freedoms while obeying existing laws, or they can ignore existing laws and demand freedoms while they're in jail.

Absolutist freedom of speech is not, even in the US, something that everyone wants. Most people are reasonably comfortable with governments restricting access to some items. The list of items and the amount of resistance varies, but restricting speech by preventing people distributing images of child sexual abuse is pretty much established.

[jlgreco]

I believe you are mischaracterizing the concerns people actually have. I am not particularly concerned about the absolute rights of pedophiles, but I am concerned by what I perceive to be the abridgement of the rights of innocents for the purpose of pursuing the distasteful elements of society. Law enforcement becomes much much easier when you are willing to inflict collateral damage. Uncompromising voices of opposition to that are a welcome foil to those who would see no end to the powers of authorities.