Nothing is wrong with discussion. We can sit here and talk about how bad child sex abuse is. No problem with that and nothing illegal.
But should we start swapping pics and videos of this activity then we have now moved into the area that is beyond discussion.
Should we then go further and request material... and we are promoting and encouraging the activity.

Clearly some things have to be banned to protect others from abuse or mistreatment.
If we let this activity pass...then you can practically promote anything on lj.rossia.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

> But should we start swapping pics and videos

Do you fail to se a huge gap between "should do [something]" and "ban [something]".
I don't know what you (or anybody) should do, one can use one's own judgement on
what's acceptable for a him or her.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

On that basis...should anything be banned?

If left to an individuals personal judgement, then anything goes.

There would be no crime...as everything is legal. Except that those among us who wield most muscle/power would soon enough impose a 'law' on us.

We have lived through that stage of human development. These days we try to have a consensus as to what is acceptable behaviour. These ideas become law.

The law prevents me from attacking my neighbour with a hammer (and likewise him attacking me). Violent assaults are 'banned'. This is a good thing for everyone obviously. So we must agree that there should be laws and 'bans' for some things.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

> If left to an individuals personal judgement, then anything goes.

That depends on an individual.

> There would be no crime...as everything is legal. Except that
> those among us who wield most muscle/power would soon enough
> impose a 'law' on us.

That's a popular superstition.
Why don't you (personally you) don't steal? Because of fear of being
caught, because of fictional man lining in the sky, or because
your personal cumulative life experience rejects the idea?

> The law prevents me from attacking my neighbour with a hammer <...>

So, how watching some image is like violently attacking anybody?
You are mixing violent and victimless crimes.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Not victimless. The victims are clearly the animals in this situation.

You seem to believe that freedom of speech is more important than that.
I disagree.

Your argument suggests that we should be allowed to swap pics and links on anything (child abuse/rape/snuff) because the right of the individual overrides the promotion of this material.

My points about stealing or violent crime are examples of what can happen in a society with no rules. You are ignoring the victims in this case. You care more for individual freedoms than you do for the victims right not to be abused.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

The "rights" of animals are by several orders of magnitude
less important than freedom of speech. Also, it's questionable
if animals have any rights at all. For instance, nobody
would object to killing cockroaches or bacilli,
and there is no legal or philosophical difference between
cats (which I love, personally) and cockroaches, which
most people find disgusting. The difference between
bacillae, cockroaches and cats is a matter of personal
taste, and to ascribe some basic rights to bacteria
would be ridiculous.

All the best
Misha

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

> Not victimless. The victims are clearly the animals in this situation.

Again, you either fail to see obvious things or pretend to fail to se them.

Animals of this situation are victims of one who hurt them, not some dude
who sees the picture of them being hurt. Banning pictures is a practice that is
dumb iin many ways. Most importantly:

1. it is fighting effect rather than the cause.
2. it violates personal freedom of individual without any redeeming value whatsoever,
its whole point is creating the illusion of triumph of morale and justifying existence
(and paychecks) of people that are incapable of doing anything useful.
3. it creates a precedent of substituting logic with a slogan and rational thought
with kneejerk reaction.
4. It is completely withoit logic: you can freely watch any Mel Gibson's movies where
entire nations are being wiped out or some guy is being nailed to a piece of wood,
but you cannot see a dog die. Well, you will probably claim that the difference is
that in the latter case the dog dies for real. If that's it is all about,
go after the root of difference, that is whoever killed the dog.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Nothing should be banned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

"If you trump on my expression of the First Amendment, you'll face my
expression of the Second Amendment"

(Reply to this) (Parent)

> If we let this activity pass...then you can practically promote anything on lj.rossia. \

Try this:
"If we allow rap music we can practically promote violence, drug abuse and drive-up shootings". There is huge misconception about whether people do something because
some piece of media tells them to. If that is true, I'm all for world nuclear war.

George Carlin said it best.

(Reply to this) (Parent)