Warp wrote:
> 
>   The word "childporn" is not illegal. By blacklisting the site they are
> saying that the site contains something illegal.

Actually no - by blacklisting the site they are saying it contains very
particular illegal stuff - childporn itself. A Finnish quote straight
from the law:





In English:

In this law we mean:

1) as childpornsite a site that shows a sexually insulting picture which
contains a child.

Well ok, showing can be img-tagged from another site, but linking a site
ain't showing an image.

>   That's not logical. Given that the site is owned by a Finnish citizen
> and is located in Finland, if it contained anything illegal wouldn't the
> more logical step be to make him to shut down the site and press charges?

Yes, especially when our new childporn-law says that it's ment for
foreign sites:




In English:
This law is ment to protect childs and theier right with providing
possibilities to *stop connecting to foreign childpornsites*.

> illegal. By not pressing charges nor demanding the closure of the site,
> the police is effectively saying that the site is not illegal.

Actually they have now pressed charges. He's gonna be questioned
possible as soon as monday next week. But even while the author may have
broken the law (as assisting a crime), it doesn't give the police (or
the ISP for that matter) permission to block his site.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message