cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-07-30 - Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)

Header Data

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: James Love <love@cptech.org>
Message Hash: 56498a5449cfcf2b96aab9224c78708ab47d72c444e8c833fa7f5be803076156
Message ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970730115813.3330F-100000@well.com>
Reply To: <33DF81CF.1662D004@cptech.org>
UTC Datetime: 1997-07-30 19:31:14 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 03:31:14 +0800

Raw message

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 03:31:14 +0800
To: James Love <love@cptech.org>
Subject: Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)
In-Reply-To: <33DF81CF.1662D004@cptech.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970730115813.3330F-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jamie,

It generally is not morally wrong to take steps to prevent children from
having access to pornography, provided they're your children or you have a
custodial relationship. 

But, as you say, that generality does not excuse all actions done in the
name of protecting children. For instance, murdering the pornographers to
protect children is not morally justified. 

In other words, don't infringe on the rights of someone else.

As for your point about it being immoral not to protect children, your
statement is so vague as to be meaningless. Of COURSE we want to protect
children. But how? Protecting them from racism by banning Tom Sawyer or
prevening them from reading Huck Finn? Protecting them from "porn" by not
letting them look at nude sculpture?

This is a core "family values" issue. Let each parent protect their
children the best way they can. No government intervention is generally
needed.

-Declan



On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, James Love wrote:

> Paul Bradley wrote:
> > 
> > >    What is your strategy to avoid RSACi type systems?  To persuade
> > > parents that there is no need to censor kids from graphic images of
> > > sexual acts?  Good luck.
> > 
> > Persuation is not the point, it is not necessary to persuade people
> > that
> > censorship is morally wrong in order for it to be so.
> 
>      Well, if persuasion is "not necessary," then why do you care about
> anyone's views on this?
> 
>     On your other point, I really don't agree that is morally wrong to
> take steps to prevent children from having access to pornography. 
> People may propose ways of doing this which are objectionable, but the
> basic goal is hardly immoral.  Indeed, many think it is immoral not to
> protect children.
> 
>                 Jamie
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law
> P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030
> http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org
> 
>

Thread