 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:46:14 +0100, "scott" <sco### [at] laptop com> wrote:
>> "Childporn" is in no way or form an illegal name. There's absolutely no
>> legal nor logical reason to blacklist a site with that name.
>
>I know you are just pretending to be this dumb to carry on the argument with
>me...
>
I don't think he is. Warp has a valid point. Calling a site Childporn may be in
very bad taste and Not Too Bright but it is not illegal in itself. IMO and my
country (at this moment in time).
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> "Childporn" is in no way or form an illegal name. There's absolutely no
>>> legal nor logical reason to blacklist a site with that name.
>>
>>I know you are just pretending to be this dumb to carry on the argument
>>with
>>me...
>>
> I don't think he is. Warp has a valid point. Calling a site Childporn may
> be in
> very bad taste and Not Too Bright but it is not illegal in itself. IMO and
> my
> country (at this moment in time).
No he doesn't have a valid point, there is a totally logical reason why
childporn.info should be blocked. If you can't see why then I guess there's
no point in discussing it further.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> No he doesn't have a valid point, there is a totally logical reason why
> childporn.info should be blocked. If you can't see why then I guess
> there's no point in discussing it further.
>
There is also a totally logical reason to block several other sites
(piratebay for one good example). That good reason still *does not make
it legal*. Yes, we do have a law to allow ISP's to block foreign
childporn sites. And yes, the law is bent on two points (1 - the site
does not contain any of the forbidden material, 2 - the site is not
foreign). Yes, the author of the site is now forcing charges of being
helpful to illegal operation (no, I don't know the correct term in
English), but it doesn't give the police the permission to bend the law,
so basically it seems that both parties (the author and police) have
broken the law (different parts of it, though).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >>I know you are just pretending to be this dumb to carry on the argument
> >>with me...
Now you are patrinizing me.
You are saying that that person gets no sympathy from you. You are totally
missing the point. The point is that the police and the service providers
are breaking the law by performing illegal censorship. It doesn't matter
who is the victim of this illegal censorship and what he has done. That's
not the point at all.
> > I don't think he is. Warp has a valid point. Calling a site Childporn may
> > be in
> > very bad taste and Not Too Bright but it is not illegal in itself. IMO and
> > my
> > country (at this moment in time).
> No he doesn't have a valid point, there is a totally logical reason why
> childporn.info should be blocked. If you can't see why then I guess there's
> no point in discussing it further.
The word "childporn" is not illegal. By blacklisting the site they are
saying that the site contains something illegal.
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?
The police is completely entitled to do so *if the site is illegal*.
However, the police is not doing that. Why? Because the site is not
illegal. By not pressing charges nor demanding the closure of the site,
the police is effectively saying that the site is not illegal.
Thus blacklisting a legal site is not logical, rational and, most
importantly, it's against the law.
The police has no authority to blacklist a legal site. Service providers
have no authority to censor a legal site. Doing so is against the Finnish
constitution and other laws. Yet they are doing so with impunity.
So no, I can't see why there would be any logical reason to do so.
It's completely illogical and contradictory. (As I said, it's contradictory
because the proper step to handle an illegal website would be to press
charges, yet they are not doing so.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news: 47b5bd0e$1@news.povray.org...
> There is also a totally logical reason to block several other sites
> (piratebay for one good example). That good reason still *does not make
> it legal*. Yes, we do have a law to allow ISP's to block foreign
> childporn sites. And yes, the law is bent on two points (1 - the site
> does not contain any of the forbidden material, 2 - the site is not
> foreign).
I understand that he was providing a list of blocked sites (including
allegedly criminal sites). If that's true, he was actually 1) providing his
visitors with means to obtain such material and 2) actively helping said
sites to find customers. Isn't that enough to make the site illegal, or at
least blockable pending an investigation? If the accusation is true, this
has little to do with censorship and all with common sense.
For instance, would a site called "stolengoods.com" consisting in only links
to sellers of stolen merchandise be legal? Or a site called
"hire-a-hitman.com" consisting in a directory of professional contract
killers? IANAL, but countries have laws against aiding or abetting criminals
and criminal activity, and the way assistance is given may be irrelevant. I
don't know the details of the case, so I'm just asking.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:46:14 +0100, scott wrote:
>> "Childporn" is in no way or form an illegal name. There's absolutely
>> no
>> legal nor logical reason to blacklist a site with that name.
>
> I know you are just pretending to be this dumb to carry on the argument
> with me...
Hey, for all you know, it's a site for recovering victims.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
>
> I understand that he was providing a list of blocked sites (including
> allegedly criminal sites).
Yes. It didn't matter earlier, while he just had URL's listed (so you
could copy-paste them). When he added links to them, this happened. Note
that the law in touch says nothing for either one. That law *demands*
the site to contain childporn to get blocked.
> If that's true, he was actually 1) providing his
> visitors with means to obtain such material and 2) actively helping said
> sites to find customers.
Yes, but this also was the situation earlier.
> Isn't that enough to make the site illegal, or at
> least blockable pending an investigation? If the accusation is true, this
> has little to do with censorship and all with common sense.
No. It might make the site illegal (via other laws), but then the proper
way to handle the situation would be contacting the author and he's ISP,
as has been done earlier. Why the police didn't use the proper way I
don't know, but they should have.
Police also don't have permission to shoot bank robbers right away, even
if they are armed.
> For instance, would a site called "stolengoods.com" consisting in only links
> to sellers of stolen merchandise be legal?
Probably not, but it wouldn't make it a *foreing site containing
childporn*, as police was eMensioning that the blocked site did.
> Or a site called
> "hire-a-hitman.com" consisting in a directory of professional contract
> killers?
Again, there are proper ways to handle the situation. Lawful ways, which
should be used. The very guardians of the law should follow the law
themselves - at least to get some respect from the "normal people". If
they don't, they're showing a very bad example.
> IANAL, but countries have laws against aiding or abetting criminals
> and criminal activity, and the way assistance is given may be irrelevant. I
> don't know the details of the case, so I'm just asking.
Yep, we do also. As I wrote, "basically it seems that both parties (the
author and police) have broken the law (different parts of it, though)"
> G.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
>
> Actually no - by blacklisting the site they are saying it contains very
> particular illegal stuff - childporn itself. A Finnish quote straight
> from the law:
For the record, as sick as it sounds, the world is not black'n'white.
Those sick, pervert bastards will finds childs to see from somewhere -
and I'd feel more secure, if they were home alone, by the computer
instead of sneaking at playgrounds etc. No, I don't mean childporn
should be leagalized, but even less I want pedophiles near living children.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:47:43 +0200, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>>
>> Actually no - by blacklisting the site they are saying it contains very
>> particular illegal stuff - childporn itself. A Finnish quote straight
>> from the law:
>
> For the record, as sick as it sounds, the world is not black'n'white.
> Those sick, pervert bastards will finds childs to see from somewhere -
> and I'd feel more secure, if they were home alone, by the computer
> instead of sneaking at playgrounds etc. No, I don't mean childporn
> should be leagalized, but even less I want pedophiles near living
> children.
Agreed, but at the same time, the production of child pornography
involves sexual abuse as well. Like you said the world isn't black and
white.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
