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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> Child porn is not a legitimate exercise of the first amendment
>They, and presumably you, claim without justification that "bad" speech cannot be pursued without chilling "good" speech.
> Your case that political speech cannot be free unless child porn is free,
Sigh. Yet another senseless, dangerous, and borderline libellous misrepresentation.
Allow me to strongly state this in no ambiguous terms: I do not oppose laws banning the production, distribution, or possession of child pornography. People who participate in any of those acts should be arrested and given a fair trial by a jury of their peers. I support these laws. I am not, IN ANY WAY, saying, suggesting, or attempting to appear as though I am suggesting, that I think child pornography is protected speech.
Is this clear now?
What I am arguing [snip]
Edit: You know what? Forget it. I am not participating in this discussion at the risk of being so thoroughly misunderstood. Not with this topic. It is not worth it.
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.
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.
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.