Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Dane
No, you do not understand the concept. You are NOT entitled to a "freedom" you were never given. Removing child abuse and copyright infringements is not censorship. It's things that shouldn't be there in the first place (i.e. the concept of consent).
|
you keep going to kiddie porn as a hot button as a smear campaign trying to argue fighting copyright infringement is some how the same thing
it not
fact every person you put on fighting copyright infringement is a person you prevent from finding and convicting kiddie porn distribution
if you really cared about kiddie porn you would give up the is copyright debate.
tell them to drop the government involvement and put those people on catching the kiddie porn producers.
btw pirate bay reports kiddie porn directly to the police.
Quote:
Removing things that were given consent too, i.e. performers of legal age and producers freedom to market their websites (within their control), is censorship. Shape or form doesn't matter, it is censorship if someone tell anyone of legal age that they can't do and show certain things (anal sex, gangbang, whatever...).
Yes, she is entitled to an opinion, but she IS advocating censorship if she tells us what kind of sex we can perform, show and market to and from adults.
|
bullshit she is advocating education so that people can make an "informed" decision when purchasing porn
she is not advocating a ban in any way shape or form. Ecomonic hardship is not censorship. People advocating a boycott is not censorship that an economic protest.
Quote:
The only positive thing about .xxx, assuming it became mandatory worldwide, is that every domain without consent/license would be shut down. Simple as that. However, if copyright was respected, the producers would have more control and .xxx wouldn't be necessary. A label would be enough.
You guys advocating copyright infringing websites/p2p just don't get it. You think YOU are advocating freedoms and at the same time you blame the producers? The producers (artists, musicians, writers etc.) NEVER gave you the freedom to expose offending material to children, and that's what you do when you put violence and bukakke movies out where there are young audience. YOU destroy freedoms and you are NOT part of this industry.
We can reduce exposure to children significally by removing all websites and servers from internet that do not have the license to show explicite material. The legal sites can then label their sites, so parents and administrators can choose to filter. That is not censorship, but it become censorship if we are told what we can or can't perform. 
|
your tours show nudity too so that a strawman arguement and you know it.
like your attempts to tie kiddie porn to copyright infringement.
Fact fair uses like commentary and parody can and in many cases do use copyright material without the copyright holders permission (it would be pretty hard for micheal moore to make fun of george bush if he need his permssion to use his speaches)
the act was specifically designed to support that free speech.
the copyright holder authorizes all fair use when they claim their exclusive rights, they agree to honor those fair use exceptions which are not a violation of the exclusive rights granted under the act.