Online business Toolkit
Story: Wind up the Internet Watch Foundation
More ignorance
All I am saying as this case does not open any real debate into censorship and a "free" society.
I think its entirely reasonable that the state prevents children from watching certain films. The state has also decided that its reasonable to prevent adults from viewing certain things. I think everyone except peodophiles probably agrees with where the line has been drawn. The only debate should be over its implementation.
It really annoys me that people invoke the free society ideal. I don't think that the people who use that phrase have any idea about what it means. Does a free society have laws? Can a free society have liable? To pragmatists the answer is yes, censorship is fine, a free society is one that does not contain slaves. Censoring child pornography has nothing to do with a practicle implementation of a free society. Infact allowing child pornography to be viewed and become profitable is the real threat to a free society, becuase the children involved have not made a free choice to participate.
Using this story as evidence for why censorship is questionable is morally wrong. The real agenda behind this article is an anti-DRM and an anti-patent ideology. This article does nothing but hurt that argument (which I am for). I am asking the freedom for information to consider there choices for battlegrounds more carefully.
Full Talkback thread
