🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <vsga71ll1hmcvulnfp8m90udoukt0d2ifa@4ax.com>,
 Ninth Commandment <ninthcommandment@johnandrew.ca> wrote:

> On Sun, 01 May 2005 19:09:54 GMT, fuhfuhfreddie
> <freddie@dontbother.com> wrote:
> 
> >In article <2q4a71lm3o5ks2tmfflchd36osm5vkv73h@4ax.com>,
> > Ninth Commandment <ninthcommandment@johnandrew.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Yet Shaw news allows rape newsgroups, incest newsgroups, kiddie
> >> diddler newsgroups to propagate. Be nice if the Feds did their job and
> >> shut it down and if the victims sued them for propagating it.
> >
> >Like what we really, really need is for the likes of Shaw and Telus to 
> >start deciding what we can and can't read or look at on Usenet. If they 
> >offend you, stop looking at them, silly boy.
> 
> It is illegal for one. The people who download from these groups are
> committing crimes. Why would you defend someones right to download
> pictures of 4 year old boys giving blowjobs or pictures of women who
> have been raped?

First, my dear dimwit, you have to realize that there are tens of 
thousands of binary groups, not to mention tens of thousands of 
non-binary groups, most of them with nothing in them but a little bit of 
spam. People who post disgusting porn just move their stuff into other 
groups if ISPs start eliminating groups that are used for porn. That 
genie is way, way out of the bottle.

Second, the ISPs do not want to be responsible for the content of what 
their customers download because that would be a huge legal headache for 
them. And the customers, with a few dimwitted exceptions, do not want 
the stuffed suits at Telus and Shaw to decide what is appropriate or not 
for them to look at.

Third, the most disgusting imaginable stuff is going to be posted by 
someone, period, no matter whether half the cops in the world are out 
trying to stop them. It is *your* choice whether or not you go to find 
it and look at it. Obviously, you have. No doubt, like Pete Townshend, 
you were just doing research so you could warn the rest of us.

Fourth, for well over three decades, every study correlating the 
availability of pornography with crime rates, in many different 
countries, has found that when porn is easily available, including 
kiddie porn, the crime rate is either unchanged or *goes down,* 
including child molesting. If you're thinking that looking at kiddie 
porn makes perverts go out and molest children, think again. If 
anything, by getting rid of the porn they jerk off to, you're removing 
the only outlet they have short of actually finding kids to molest. [1]

So you see, Ninth, you really don't know much of anything about 
anything. Shouldn't you be out looking for Hells Angels or something?

f.

[1] This *not* an endorsement of molesting children for the production 
of kiddie porn. Child molesters are sick puppies who need to be hung by 
the toes and then given psychiatric treatment.