🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6vqa71hmfk8m3nic1nbfpnki0ur85ke2ef@4ax.com>,
 Ninth Commandment <ninthcommandment@johnandrew.ca> wrote:

> On Sun, 01 May 2005 23:10:36 GMT, fuhfuhfreddie
> <freddie@dontbother.com> wrote:
> 
> >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.

> Newsgroups with titles like pedophilia and incest and rape are still
> propagated even though they can be eliminated. Forget the fact it is
> disgusting. I is illegal.

Try reading for comprehension, Ninth. Getting rid of newsgroups with 
certain names will not get rid of their content. The content will just 
be posted in other groups. 

>  That 
> >genie is way, way out of the bottle.
> They have never tried to cork it.
> 
> >
> >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.

> Lisps who propagate newsgroups whose only function is illegal are
> committing an illegal act.

"Only function?" Do you put it that way for a reason? You know, the 
second somebody posts a piece of commercial, non-pornographic spam in a 
group, there it is -- another function.

But you're failing to understand the part about the genie being out of 
the bottle. Not only can anyone post anything to any group with very 
little chance of anyone else being able to do anything about it, but any 
idiot can learn to create new groups in the .alt hierarchy, and new 
groups are automatically propagated from one ISP to another when they 
"peer" with each other. 

So understand this very clearly: No one can control what shows up on 
Usenet, legal or illegal. If it offends you, don't look.

> >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.

> Actually paid RCMP should be doing that.

RCMP and city police do look at it, and try to catch people who are 
using children to create the illegal stuff, as they should. 

Whether they should also try to catch people who look at it and don't do 
anything else is another question, and one I don't think you understand.

> It is easy to see in the list
> of newsgroups available such binary groups intended solely for illegal
> purposes. You claim to know its there but want the companies making
> money from it not to stop it or law enforcement to investigate it.

You seem to have time on your hands, Ninth. Why don't you look through 
all of the binary groups out there, and report back on whether the 
illegal stuff appears only in groups whose names indicate they contain 
illegal stuff. You will of course find, as I have told you, that it's 
all over the place. In fact, I would guess that people who post the bad 
stuff more than likely put it in groups where the overworked cops are 
not likely to look for it on the basis of the groups' names.

So, it is completely impractical to try to get this stuff off Usenet 
*except* by going after the people who produce it. That's where the 
police should be working.

If by the companies making money from it you mean Telus and Shaw and so 
on, you have that wrong. They reluctantly provide access to Usenet at 
all because some of their customers demand it. But Usenet is practically 
impossible for them to get anything value-added out of by selling extra 
products and services, so they're really not interested in it. The last 
thing they want to do is become censors of content, which would be a 
huge legal headache for them. And as I've said, the last thing we the 
users should want is for the ISPs to start deciding what you and I can 
and can't read or look at. Try to grow up and control yourself, instead.

> >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]

> I disagree strongly. Porn makes it seem that such behavior is normal
> and helps groom people into it. 

Would you mind pausing just long enough to prove that?

While you're at it, try to comprehend that your disagreement won't 
change reality. Any criminologist will tell you that the statistics 
*prove* that the availability of porn does not lead to more sex crime of 
any kind, including pedophilia. 

Some people think, although it's not proven, that the very availability 
of porn helps reduce sex crime. But the opposite -- that porn leads to 
sex crime -- has been definitively disproved, whether you like it or not.

Try googling on the names Kutchinsky, Diamond, Uchiyama and the word 
pornography. They're the people who did some of the pioneering studies, 
going back to the 1960s. 

> You are defending people who have no
> outlet to raping children.

I am saying those people *do* have an outlet that lets them spend their 
sexual energy *without harming children.* You are arguing we should take 
that away from them. How many of them will then molest real children 
instead? Would you like that on your conscience?

> I think those people should turn themselves
> in to their local law enforcement or commit suicide. Try chemical
> castration and throw away the computer.

I defend your right to think that, Ninth, but not your right to force 
other people to be castrated or to kill themselves because you 
disapprove of their sexual preferences.

Note I have made it very clear that child molesters, including those who 
use children to produce pornography, should be a high priority with the 
police. 

But people who get off by looking at pictures you disapprove of, that's 
something else. Much more difficult to come to terms with. I think it 
needs more reflection than you have given it so far.

> Yeah you use your smarts to defend child pornographers. By the way
> child molesters can't be treated. 

What does that tell you about them? It appears that there are people 
among us with a different and disturbing sexual preference. Most of them 
recognize that they must not act on it. You are counselling that we take 
away the one thing that allows them not to act on it, and then tell them 
to kill themselves. Think about that, Ninth. Life's complicated.

> >[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.

> They are not sick they are evil. These criminals will not be helped by
> psychiatric treatment. People like you give them a veneer of humanity.

If not human, what are they? You know, people have a long history of 
dehumanizing other people they don't like, pretending that they're 
animals or otherwise subhuman, so it becomes easier to kill them. It 
leads to things like genocide and hate killings. Think about whether you 
want to join their ranks, Ninth.

f.