Re: Additional thought on Crocker's Laws

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: phil osborn

Phil Osborn wrote:
>But not, as yet, to keep me from putting the information out there -
>unless, of course, I were to discuss subjects that are extremely non-PC,
>such as child-adult sex. This is WHY these topics cannot be resented, BTW.
>This is the cutting edge of state censorship, the wedge to insinuate total
>control. You don't have to control everyone, any more than in war you have
>to shoot all the enemy. You just shoot the ones who stick their heads up.
>Just as, in the War on Drugs, it is incredibly easy to put someone who is
>politically or economically unpopular away for life just by planting a gram
>or two of controlled substance during a bust. The War on Drugs is clearly
>a failure
>from the standpoint of controlling drug use, but it is an outstanding
>success from the standpoint of putting undesireable people - from the
>standpoint of the powers that be - away, and setting an example for the
>next fool who might stick his head up. Am I being paranoid. Perhaps not
>enuf. Consider that the anti-kiddie-port sections of the CDA specifically,
>as I recall, include ANY depiction of child sexuality. This includes - and
>there have been prosecutions on this basis - comic art, furry art, etc., in
>which children obviously were not employed. For that matter, the same kind
>of software that can age or un-age a person's face could just as easilly do
>the same for the entire body. You could digitize Deep Throat and run it
>through frame by frame and end up with 90 year olds having sex - or 9 year
>olds. The alleged purpose of the law was to keep children from being
>exploited, yet the language of the law is something else entirely, and, as
>I noted, there have been prosecutions for such things as comic art
>depicting minors having sex. So, the standard has been set. If we are
>enough offended, then to hell with the 1st Amendment.
>Bottom line: if exropians, of all people, can seriously discuss whether or
>not someone should be allowed to discuss certain topics, then perhaps the
>future is already lost. Certainly anyone can filter out anyone else, and
>certainly the extropian newsgroup can exclude anyone they choose from
>access to their private area for stating unpopular opinions. Doing so,
>however, would be the end of extropianism.

It's amazing how we think along the same lines here. But give me your opinion on this. How about, as soon as it's possible a planetary government with open citizenship but as soon as you attempt to sensor somebody your ass is deported.

-Clint O'Dell
clintodell@visto.com

• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: phil osborn