[pp.int.general] EU block filter

Błażej Kaczorowski blazej.kaczorowski at gmail.com
Tue Mar 30 14:58:51 CEST 2010

When you defend freedom of speech and protest against antidemocratic
censorship you always protect pedofiles and other pranks ... thats why
defending civil rights is so hard job ... we need to point the main
ideas posted earlier - no webpage - no problem is a PROBLEM fe.


On 30 March 2010 14:51,  <bakel362 at planet.nl> wrote:
> The problem with filtering is that the PP should by all means avoid the
> impression not to be opposed against child porn! In NL, we had for some time
> the pedo-party (which was a failure), don't let anyone think that this PP is
> related to our PP!
> Dutch civil rights organisation Bits Of Freedom i.m.o. gave the proper
> argument: filtering distracts from the real issue (*). Smart pedophiles will
> find their own ways to share pictures (which makes them even hard to find
> for the police!). So filtering is only a burden to *stupid* pedophiles. And
> to lots of people who can't get access to their legitimate websites, e.g.
> for adult porn. And it brings us on the slippery slope that censorship can
> be legitimate under circumstances.
> The dutch constitution is explicit: checking info *in advance* (before
> publishing) is *never* allowed. (There is just one exception: commercial
> advertising.) Of course, *after* publication one might be exposed to
> criminal prosecution.
> reinier
> (*) Similar to the Christmas Detroit bomber. First "Pavlov" reaction of the
> authorities: we need more equipment, and we should forget ethical
> reservations about total body scans! While actually the authorities made the
> dreadful mistake to ignore the alarming phone calls that preceded this
> accident.
> ________________________________
> Van: pp.international.general-bounces at lists.pirateweb.net namens Nicolas
> Sahlqvist
> Verzonden: di 3/30/2010 10:52
> Aan: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk
> Onderwerp: Re: [pp.int.general] EU block filter
> I do agree that this is a censor filter that we do not want, but neither do
> we want to have ACTA, INDECT, IPRED etc. and we are actually having a PPI
> conference for the main purpose of voting for statutes and new candidates
> for the board of PPI so this will be the main topic. We could perhaps
> delegate it for discussion in the workgroups of our participants that are
> not delegates and come back to the feedback of there discussions during our
> social events in the evenings etc.
> - Nicolas
>   PPI member
> 2010/3/30 Błażej Kaczorowski <blazej.kaczorowski at gmail.com>
>> This is sick ... this should be main topic on Brussels PPI conference!
>> Blazej
>> PP Poland
>> On 27/03/2010, Nicolas Sahlqvist <nicco77 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The European commissioner for home affairs (Cecilia Malmström) seems to
>> > think that by putting Internet in Europe into a cage is a good way to
>> > fight
>> > child sex exploitation:
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/critics-chide-commission-plans-to-fight-sexual-exploitation/67493.aspx
>> >
>> > How about chasing the exploiters instead of censoring the Internet? This
>> > madness was stopped in Germany, now we have the chance to stop it on a
>> > higher level (EU etc.) so how should we go about it?
>> >
>> > For more information about how Internet is censored:
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship
>> >
>> >
>> > - Nicolas
>> >
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list