Comments on: Filtered freedom

By: SteveG

SteveG — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:28:37 +0000

Re #25: Am I just not seeing it now, or has the original comment from NJLawyer been removed or edited?

Report comment to moderator

By: SteveG

SteveG — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:27:33 +0000

NJLawyer: when they redefine the vilest of crimes as speech worthy of constitutional protection,

Name one person in this thread who has done that.

Report comment to moderator

By: SteveG

SteveG — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:57:05 +0000

NJLaywer, you are completely failing to make a distinction between opposing a practice and questioning the effectiveness of a proposed solution.

NO ONE has defended the right of people to torture and rape children.

NO ONE has defended the right of anyone to view images of those practices.

Several of us have questioned whether a broad filter is an effective or appropriate way to address the problem. From that, you accuse Anlir in particular — and no doubt me and others in due course — of supporting the vile acts themselves.

One says, “Child rape is a terrible thing, but I don’t believe Option A is a good solution,” and you say “Why do you think child rape is good?”

You have truly lost your mind.

Report comment to moderator

By: SteveG

SteveG — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:44:43 +0000

Night Train at #25: This is one of the most reprehensible things I’ve ever read about anyone.

NJLawyer, you are a truly despicable person.

And WMB is even more despicable for not banning you for this unspeakably evil comment.

NJLawyer has been doing this a lot lately. She has decided that I support infanticide and rape … in the latter case by completely misconstruing a comment I made and in the former because I did not comment one way or the other on a distasteful joke someone else made.

Now I will say that I have no problem with rules to keep people using the Internet in public places — whether libraries or coffee shops or airplanes — from being able to access porn. My problem with filtering software is that it doesn’t work very well. As StuBob pointed out, it may block information on breast cancer as much as images of bare breasts. Our filter at work blocks the words “homosexual” and “porn,” which means I can’t read threads on this site with those words in their titles from there.

And even when it’s set so broadly, it still doesn’t block all the adult images out there, which makes me seriously question how effective it can possibly be.

Now that I have said that, I’m sure NJLawyer will take it to mean that I want child pornographers to be protected and free to operate.

Report comment to moderator

By: NJLawyer

NJLawyer — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:34:53 +0000

If you’re offended by my defense of the little ones, just think how Jesus will feel about it. I did my best to hit you in the face with the fact that these are CRIMES, not speech, and I know I have failed. I’ve seen the results of these crimes which you all discuss as if there is no victim. They are your children, and Jesus said if you harm the children, it would be better for you if you put a millstone around your neck and drown yourself. He didn’t write the Constitution.

Report comment to moderator

By: NJLawyer

NJLawyer — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:27:26 +0000

Well, kids, here’s the deal: The leftys will pre-season you with a saline solution, abort you, add barbecue sauce and grill you. The Christians, the righties, will allow you to be born, but if you fall into the hands of a predator (sometimes your own parents!) who want to make a buck, the Christians and righties will look the other way when the live streaming video of your rape, torture and murder which “satisfies” a pedophile goes over the internet and redefine it as “speech worthy of constitutional protection.”

So, kids, as the Christians and the righties stand at the top of the mountain railing against abortion and the slippery slope as the lefties shove off on their skis, they fail to see that when they redefine the vilest of crimes as speech worthy of constitutional protection, they’re just shoving off on their skis down another slope.

Kids, you’d better hope Jesus has enough millstones in stock, because you’re in for a rough ride and no one will defend you.

Report comment to moderator

By: hrw

hrw — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:22:02 +0000

Leave it to Anlir to support smut, snuff films and perversions of all kinds. At least he’s consistent — he supports the exploitation and murder of children.

Anlir has never hesitated to post nasty and vile things to me, and I have not complained.

Nothing is as vile and nasty as the first quote. You lost control and now you’ve lost the decency to do the right thing.

Still wondering why that statement is still on the thread.

Report comment to moderator

By: Anlir

Anlir — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:52:21 +0000

For the record, I have never posted any “nasty” or “vile” things about NJLawyer.

Report comment to moderator

By: TRS

TRS — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:21:38 +0000

NJL,

THIS is why we can’t get along in our country and make progress in a lot of areas.

There is not one person on this thread that condones child pornography, snuff films, or rape. Not one. We’d all like to see that stamped out and the perpetrators punished. (Boiled alive in oil, perhaps?)

But, we don’t see the same solutions that you see, and so we are called names?

That just doesn’t work. It’s insulting. It isn’t true. It keeps us from finding solutions that do work or trying compromise options. Who wants to work or compromise with someone calling them vile names and accusing them of supporting the most vile crimes?

I really think that (especially Christians) need to get away from this mode of operating. It is not kind, but — more importantly — it doesn’t even work.

Report comment to moderator

By: TRS

TRS — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:49:59 +0000

NJL,

This is not about child pornography, which is already illegal. This is about censorship of the Internet. I point out again, that the Australian government is NOT just censoring pornography, but is also censoring sites they do not approve of. How long before anything to do with Biblical Christianity is one of those sites?

Child pornography should be battled as hard as we can. But, censoring the entire population and slowing the Internet by 70% is not the way to do it.

That’s like saying, because some people get in horrible car accidents, we can all only have electric golf carts to drive that go 15 miles an hour.

Report comment to moderator