Talk:Internet child pornography/Archive 2

message: I'm not sure that Wikipedia should be in the business of telling people how to commit crimes.  And you can't argue that the end result of these instructions is the possession of material illegal in the United States (where the server resides) and in a number of other countries.
My other issue with this article was that I think it is a troll and you (User:Paranoid are trolling by posting it.  In other words, I don't think your motives are clean.  You're posting it HOPING for a fight so that you can have a nice little 'Help! I'm being oppressed!' fit.
Morven 23:23, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: If child pornography is illegal, and downloading it is illegal, and in most places it is, then writing a "how to find it" is therefore a crime called "aiding and abetting", surely? Therefore it's not free speech, it's a criminal piece and should not be part of WP. GRAHAMUK 03:47, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Are we telling people how to commit crimes?

message: As I can see, there are two questions (see Cyan's comment at the top). One is whether this is legal and second is whether it should be posted despite that fact that some people consider this kind of speech offensive and generally what is the value of the article. I said anought about the legality already. I also don't think that offensive speech should be banned, deleted or nuked only because it's offensive. I also disagree with characterising this text as "download illegal child pornography" or instructions for committing crimes. The text can be used by friends and relatives of the paedophile to uncover his activities and by LEOs to fight child porn on the Net. The text itself, just like nuclear physics or any other knowledge, doesn't care what you use it for. And although one can clearly conceive more bad uses than good ones, that doesn't automatically qualify the text as bad. As for the quality, I think that it is definitely better than some of the other articles at Wikipedia that are allowed to stay, although future improvements would be, of course, welcome.
As for the trolling, I am honestly not a troll. You can check my Everything2 posting history to see that I am not trolling, just posting controversial and provocative posts sometimes (not very often). The right to <STRIKE>download</STRIKE> at least speak about child porn is a free speech issue for me first and foremost. And I am not a paedophile, although I would support (not to the death though) the right of a paedophile to be one (without acting on his thoughs and impulses towards actual children, of course). I understand some of the concerns here, but many are fallacious (slippery slope fallacy). If a law enforcement officer (from the <STRIKE>censorship</STRIKE> anti-porn division) reads this text, it will be considered a helpful guide, a useful tool and will be printed and posted on the wall for everyone to see. The text itself is value-neutral and is protected speech. But what you do with it is your free choice. So the text should be undeleted.
Paranoid 03:29, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: If child pornography is illegal, and downloading it is illegal, and in most places it is, then writing a "how to find it" is therefore a crime called "aiding and abetting", surely? Therefore it's not free speech, it's a criminal piece and should not be part of WP. GRAHAMUK 03:47, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 questions, legality and trolling

message: :If child pornography is illegal, and downloading it is illegal, and in most places it is, then writing a "how to find it" is therefore a crime called "aiding and abetting", surely? Therefore it's not free speech, it's a criminal piece and should not be part of WP. GRAHAMUK 03:47, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Aiding and abetting?

message: ::At least under US law, no.  Paranoid is quite right when he says that this information is probably legal under American law.
::The information in this article would be a LOT less controversial if phrased differently.  If it read less like a 'how-to' and more like a 'how-they', incorporated into an article that also covered other aspects of the Internet child-porn issue as (Martin?) suggested, I'd be much less opposed to it. --Morven 04:17, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Not illegal