[pp.int.general] EU block filter

Reinier Bakels r.bakels at planet.nl
Wed Mar 31 07:53:08 CEST 2010

> On 31.03.2010 01:08, Richard Stallman wrote:
>> I made that argument in a panel discussion with people connected in
>> various ways with cinema, and they had no comeback.  I think it showed
>> them that there is no limit to what might be censored if we tolerate
>> censorship.
> I don't agree with you on that one, as any idea can be led ad absurdum (or 
> to terrible consequences) using such constructed arguments. One of the 
> main points that we brought up during the protests against the internet 
> censorship law in Germany last year was the fact that the blocking of 
> websites was to be based on closed lists compiled in an intransparent 
> procedure which would facilitate and invite any kind of abuse of the law. 
> Censorship which is conducted in such a way is quite different from 
> censorship subject to clear legislatory and judicative regulations and 
> open procedures, and while the second type is by no means harmless, it 
> should be open to discussion, unlike the first type which has to be 
> rejected without reservations.

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. For instance: should't all 
chemistry sites be blocked, because they can teach terrorists how to build 

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.

Fortunately, the newspapers I read, and the people they cite are rather 
negative about the filtering proposal.

>> We should also reject the automatic supposition that anyone who
>> watches child porn (even repeatedly) will try, or even wish, to have
>> sex with children.
> Now we should leave _this_ discussion out of the censorship topic - while 
> the discsussion itself is very serious and challenging, entwining the 
> topics of censorship and child pornography means automatically playing on 
> our enemy's field, as you like to say.
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. 

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list