From: Martin Pool <mbp@pharos.com.au>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:43:09 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: NAMBLA embattled -- mirror sites?
In-Reply-To: <199710262317.AAA26327@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971027101530.4515D-100000@buffalo.pharos.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, Ratbert wrote:

> I'm not sure the right to free speech includes the right to endorse guys
> fucking little boys, whether they give it a moniker like "transgenerational
> love" or not. Any sex with a minor is rape, since they can't legally give
> consent. 

There's a huge difference between people talking about fucking little
boys, and people actually doing it.  The latter is certainly rape, and
perpetrators should certainly be jailed at the very least.  However, for
all that it may be offensive, data doesn't hurt children, except in that
it records previous crimes, or foreshadows future ones.  

Even if we were to admit some of this information constitutes a thought
crime there's still no shortage of far more important physical crimes
against children for our protectors to deal with. 

Read some de Sade from your local library.  For many liberal people, it
can be challenging to reconcile a general belief in freedom of speech and
thought with their revulsion at what he wrote.  It's easy to believe in
freedom in the abstract: you have to look at the boundary cases to decide
what you really believe.

--
Martin Pool