Re: NAMBLA embattled -- mirror sites?

Declan writes:

>Folks on f-c and cypherpunks have mirrored holocaust revisionist web
>pages, banned books, and censored newspapers. Now I understand that NAMBLA
>is in danger of losing its home on the web. Anyone up for mirroring the
>(text-only)  publications of perhaps the world's most controversial
>organization?

Nah, I'll pass on this one. If the membership list is included, I'd be glad
to forward it to my local police, though...

I'm not sure the right to free speech includes the right to endorse guys
fucking little boys, whether they give it a moniker like "transgenerational
love" or not. Any sex with a minor is rape, since they can't legally give
consent. All Hillary Klinton's "It Takes A Village" bullshit aside, I can't
see giving NAMBLA the same kind of protection as someone like Zundel.

Ratbert

On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, Ratbert wrote:

> I'm not sure the right to free speech includes the right to endorse guys
> fucking little boys, whether they give it a moniker like "transgenerational
> love" or not. Any sex with a minor is rape, since they can't legally give
> consent. 

There's a huge difference between people talking about fucking little
boys, and people actually doing it.  The latter is certainly rape, and
perpetrators should certainly be jailed at the very least.  However, for
all that it may be offensive, data doesn't hurt children, except in that
it records previous crimes, or foreshadows future ones.  

Even if we were to admit some of this information constitutes a thought
crime there's still no shortage of far more important physical crimes
against children for our protectors to deal with. 

Read some de Sade from your local library.  For many liberal people, it
can be challenging to reconcile a general belief in freedom of speech and
thought with their revulsion at what he wrote.  It's easy to believe in
freedom in the abstract: you have to look at the boundary cases to decide
what you really believe.

--
Martin Pool

Martin Pool <mbp@pharos.com.au> writes:
> It's easy to believe in freedom in the abstract: you have to look at
> the boundary cases to decide what you really believe.

Very true.  That comment is worthy of a .sig quote.

It's the boundary cases that define the difference between `do you
believe in unconditional free speech' or `do you believe in free
speech as long as it doesn't offend you.

I would also say that just because someone is saying something
unpopular doesn't make me want to stick my neck out in mirroring it if
it's dangerous to do so.

Technological solutions are the answer, cf Tim's comments on Blacknet,
and anonymous USENET posts.

Adam
-- 
Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`