[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.

[jlgreco]

> 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.

[jessedhillon]

Well, you started off with such a contemptuous and condescending tone, but you missed a crucial distinction: nobody is saying that you don't support outlawing child porn, the question is whether or not you prioritize the preservation of hypothetical free speech (the case where speech is so constrained that Tor is the only/best avenue for free speech) over the enforcement of the laws which you feel compelled to declare support for.

So, less yelling, less sanctimonious wailing over how you're so misunderstood -- say how you think your priority of theoretical free speech isn't a de facto endorsement for transmission of child porn.

[jlgreco]

Endorsing it? What the hell?

I support the reasonable enforcement of the law. You accuse me of endorsing illegal activities for throwing in the word "reasonable"?

I am not defending myself further against your absurd and vile allegations.

[jessedhillon]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto

I'm not saying you support it, I'm saying your position has the effect of defending or perpetuating its mode of transmission.