[raydan]

andyt wrote:

raydan wrote:

Just saying... he was not accused of diddling any kids but of possessing child pornography. I'm not saying this isn't bad, it is, because if there wasn't any demand, there wouldn't be any supply.

This is like illegal drugs, doesn't do any good going after the suppliers because as long as people are willing to buy, there will ALWAYS be people willing to produce and sell.

I think you meant "doesn't do any good going after the users?" Or what are you saying?

I differentiate between writing and drawings on the one hand, where actual kids were not harmed, and the photos the Bishop was looking at. Seems to me buying that latter stuff you're contributing to harming those kids just as much as the person who made the porn.

And the analogy to drugs breaks down. Drug users only harm themselves (directly). Users of child porn are involved in harming kids by the very use of their addiction. I don't particularly care how much time the Bishop spends in jail, but I want a monitoring system in place that prevents him from ever accessing child porn again. And I would hope he's no Bishop no more, or has any other role in the church.

No, I said it doesn't do any good going after the supplier... even if you take them all down, others will take their place because the demand is still there. It's the demand that create the supply, not the other way around. That's also where my analogy with the drug trade ends.

[andyt]

OK. But you're surely not proposing to not go after the suppliers? You'll never eliminate the demand - pedophilia seems to be built into the human population. All you can do is go after everybody involved.

Isn't there some way to censor the internet about this? Or just have govt computers monitor the net and look for these sites and block acccess?

[GreenTiger]

When I was in Parochial school when a Bishop would enter the room we would all stand as if we were in the presents of royalty. That was a long time ago this indiviaul betrayed so much he should be in a gulag pounding rocks.

[andyt]

The church is not a state institution, so he should get the same punishment as any other citizen. Up to the church for any other consequences. I do want more severe punishments for members of the justice system tho, since they've betrayed the public trust.

[GreenTiger]

andyt wrote:

OK. But you're surely not proposing to not go after the suppliers? You'll never eliminate the demand - pedophilia seems to be built into the human population. All you can do is go after everybody involved.

Isn't there some way to censor the internet about this? Or just have govt computers monitor the net and look for these sites and block acccess?

The problem Andy is that the internet gives a whole host of ways to access a lot of data from all over the planet which is the strength of the internet for a lot of things unfortunately it also can distribute a lot of things to the sick and twisted.

[andyt]

I know. But the Chinese censor their net, we could do the same for child porn. I know it's a slippery slope, but from what I hear the current iteration of the net is doomed anyway, and the next one will be much more heavily govt controlled.

[GreenTiger]

andyt wrote:

I know. But the Chinese censor their net, we could do the same for child porn. I know it's a slippery slope, but from what I hear the current iteration of the net is doomed anyway, and the next one will be much more heavily govt controlled.

In a number of ways I agree. There needs to be something to keep the sick and twisted from the internet as there is a lot of it that most of us don't want to see. It is a pretty fine line between filtering out the filth and suppressing legitimate information though.

[Gunnair]

andyt wrote:

I know. But the Chinese censor their net, we could do the same for child porn. I know it's a slippery slope, but from what I hear the current iteration of the net is doomed anyway, and the next one will be much more heavily govt controlled.

I'd be curious if they could look at imposing some significant fines on the service providers that allow these sites to be hosted.

[Yogi]

Gunnair wrote:

andyt wrote:

I know. But the Chinese censor their net, we could do the same for child porn. I know it's a slippery slope, but from what I hear the current iteration of the net is doomed anyway, and the next one will be much more heavily govt controlled.

I'd be curious if they could look at imposing some significant fines on the service providers that allow these sites to be hosted.

Nothing less than a complete shut-down!

[Curtman]

Gunnair wrote:

andyt wrote:

I know. But the Chinese censor their net, we could do the same for child porn. I know it's a slippery slope, but from what I hear the current iteration of the net is doomed anyway, and the next one will be much more heavily govt controlled.

I'd be curious if they could look at imposing some significant fines on the service providers that allow these sites to be hosted.

What sites? They'll be using P2P networks, especially TOR which hides their identity to some degree. Their providers won't know what they are doing.

[Gunnair]

Curtman wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

andyt wrote:

I know. But the Chinese censor their net, we could do the same for child porn. I know it's a slippery slope, but from what I hear the current iteration of the net is doomed anyway, and the next one will be much more heavily govt controlled.

I'd be curious if they could look at imposing some significant fines on the service providers that allow these sites to be hosted.

What sites? They'll be using P2P networks, especially TOR which hides their identity to some degree. Their providers won't know what they are doing.

Maybe they should.

[Curtman]

Gunnair wrote:

Curtman wrote:

What sites? They'll be using P2P networks, especially TOR which hides their identity to some degree. Their providers won't know what they are doing.

Maybe they should.

Maybe they should what, make encryption illegal? The service provider has no idea if you are sending encrypted banking information or kiddie porn.