[pp.int.general] EU block filter

[Boris Turovskiy]

On 31.03.2010 07:53, Reinier Bakels wrote:
> One argument is to question the legitimacy and legality of filter 
> measures, and the bove arguments are excellent. Introducing limited 
> censorship brings us on the slippery slope of more censorship. 
Well it's exactly this "slippery slope" argument which I don't buy, 
because if applied with enough creativity it can be used to question 
each and every sort of law and law enforcement. After all, arrest, 
imprisonment or search warrants are violations of some pretty basic 
human rights - so won't they lead to a rapid decline into totalitarism? 
The answer is no if certain rules are applied - and it's just those 
rules that constitute a cornerstone of legislative principles in a free 
society. For example, the searation of powers ("those passing laws 
aren't the same people who apply them"), the presumption of innocence, 
equylity before the law, the power to convict resting solely with courts 
which have to follow certain very strict procedures - and, basically, 
the idea of democracy itself which says that those who pass laws remain 
under control of those to whom the laws apply. If you look at almost 
everything we fight against, whether data retention, site blocking, ACTA 
or full-body scanners, you'll see that the basic problems is that they 
violate one or more of those rules. For example, the main problem with 
data retention is not that it happens by itself, but that it happens 1) 
to everybody, without there existing any suspicion or court order 
warranting this measure for a certain individual and 2) the access to 
data collected this way is not regulated and controlled enough making 
abuse possible.

> Another argument is that the emphasis on filtering distracs from the 
> real issue, as for instance has been pointed out e.g. by Bits Of 
> Freedom (https://www.bof.nl/over-ons/english/). Blocked child porn is 
> still not removed from the internet. And smart pedophiles will find 
> other ways to share porn.
This I completely agree with.

> I agree, but reluctantly. I think than pedophiles are more likely to 
> abuse *real* children if they don't have access to child porn. Which 
> should not abuse children if it is virtual. I guess, banning even 
> virtual child porn violates the human right of freedom of sexual 
> orientation. People don't choose to be pedophiles. Like homosexuality 
> it is not an illness - that can be cured.
I, too, have a problem with cartoons or novels depicting child porn 
being treated in basically the same way as pronography in which children 
are actually being abused, but again - let's hold that discussion back 
for the moment or at least out of this thread.

Best regards,
Boris