StG: "Is it ok for websites depicting adults raping children alright for free access on the net?."

Yeah, it is OK StG. It is all a bit hypothetical though, as I'd challenge you to find such a web site. That isn't because web sites like that are banned - they aren't in some countries. Its because no culture on the planet tolerates it children being treated in that way. When picture does surfaces of an adult raping on a child, the world hunts the adult down. Needless to say this is a pretty big deterrent. I hope it goes without saying I am a huge fan of this type of enforcement.

Your fantasies of a web littered with child porn aside, that still leaves the issue of why I think it is OK. It isn't because I want to stand up for the rights of some kiddie porn lover. It is because because if I don't, some devious prick will decide he can get away with some crime by twisting the censorship laws to hide it. The child abusing priests got away with what they did for exactly that reason. The church was above reproach in the era they operated. Just like your current views on kiddie porn, the prevailing thinking was we could not trust ourselves to say bad things about the church in case society fell into some moral abyss.

Nowadays we have DOCS hiding behind the "privacy of the child". I recall one example of a lady making the mistake DOCS worker was a little on the heavy side. The DOCS worker responded by taking away her child. The mothers efforts to publicise this met with heavy handed legal threats. DOCS had to protect the child from media publicity, you understand. Sadly its not an isolated case. DOCS has a history of twisting the media ban on reporting on kids to hide their own mistakes.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2009/2547132.htm

Oh what scoundrels such a walls of censorship protect. I suspect they do far more damage than some pervert looking at pictures on the web in his own bedroom ever could.

CJ Morgan wrote; However, if you can find an example where someone who isn't an odious toad has their freedom of speech curtailed in this country, then I'll join any protest you might organise.

Dear CJ,

The law should not play favourites. Odious toads should not have their rights curtailed. If it is acceptable to interfere with the right of an odious toad to free speech then it becomes acceptable to curtail the rights of others. The odious Toben has as much right to free speech as I have.

rstuart

"Your fantasies of a web littered with child porn aside..."

'Cuse me?. Watch what comes out of your head there chief. Anything else you said became redundant after that.

rstuart,

I apologise. I misinterpreted what you meant.

david f - I agree completely, but I'm afraid that so many other things seem to take precedence for me than worrying about a twat like Toben's right to spout hateful nonsense.

I'd sign a petition but I wouldn't march in the streets about it, if you get my drift.

The right of FREE SPEECH is best depicted in the quote "I may not like what you say but I will defend your right to say it".

On the issue of DoCS they hide behind the veil of the child & the Courts automatically close for family(i.e.DVO applications etc.) & child care matters but this is not the actual Law. If any Court Case can be shown to be in the best interests of the public then the Courts are to be left open.

On the issue of denial & acceptance the treatment of the Jews in WW2 is not that extreme of a difference to the Palestinian treatment by the Jews. The denial of a select few of the Holocaust what about Japans denial of their treatment of the Aussie prisoners & what really happened in WW2.

Thanks from Dave.