Man to Stand Trial for Child Pornography via Library Access

Fang-Face says:

bassackward response
Once again a private citizen who was minding his own business has been set upon by hostile political correctness and is being persecuted. What should be happening here is very clear: 1) sue the company that produced the filter for marketing a clearly flawed product; 2) impeach those members of congress who voted for this abortion, CIPA, for allowing themselves to be defrauded; 3) sue the woman who made the complaint for invasion of privacy and kick HER out of the library.

Fang-Face says:

Re:bassackward response
You raise an interesting point, but isn’t that the rationale behind the ongoing prosecutions of drug users? I remember a brief mention in the news from a couple of years back that the efforts to control the flow of drugs through Canada was only ten percent effective. Since our law enforcement is much the same as in the U.S., we can pretty much the same proportion for their. Despite those efforts, and despite the criminalization of users — addicts who need treatment, not a co-dependent relationship with big government — individual drug shipments through Canada continue to weigh in by the ton. If we get ten percent, and your side gets ten percent, then something like eighty percent is making it through to the streets. In the meantime, addicts are being imprisoned for asinine lengths of time at complete cost to the taxpayer, and which only serves to perpetuate the cycle of poverty and drug use. In light of all this, I can’t feel any confidence in a system that criminalizes the users of child pornography any more than one that criminalizes drug users.

As for the comment about the subculture not trusting moochers, I can’t give that statement a lot credence without knowing who said it. The whole anti-child porn movement appears very much to me to be based on a rumor-panic (commonly mislabelled as mass or public hysteria), and I tend to regard that movement with the same skepticism I have for Satanism conspiracy theory. Especially since the same people who were involved in that are exactly the kind who would take up the anti-child porn moral crusade.

Most “teen sex” pictures are of legal adults, but this covers another issue of obfuscation. Eighteen and nineteen year old legal adults are also still teenagers. When anti-child porn proponents spout off about “teen sex” pictures, they conveniently ignore the fact that these legal adults are fully permitted to appear in such pictures.

The upshot of it is: censorship, at bottom, is not about pornography; it’s about controlling the populace.