Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Destruction Of The Internet
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Chris Retro |
Once a law has been introduced for one reason, it can be modified for other reasons as they are created. What the world's powers-that-be have done is use this thing with child abuse (it shouldn't be termed pornography, that word is used for shock purposes) to create laws that have ripped up our rights to privacy.
I am constantly astounded by the stories of the net being full of 'those' sites because despite regularly looking for regular 'porn' on the net I have never ever in 8 years come across any 'child porn', by accident or otherwise - so if these sites do exist they don't seem to be readily available for people to 'stumble upon'. Which begs the question, do they actually exist in the numbers we are led to believe have saturated the net? |
|
In The Know |
Francis D wrote:
I noticed that the BBC were sensitive enough to refer to 'suspected paedophiles' on their new bulletin about last years arrests. I'd have been interested to know how many of those 'suspected' were actually proven to be guilty. We never get the full story.
Absolutely spot-on, Francis !
We hear of these "raids" etc frequently - but there never appear to be any details or follow-up. |
|
veritas |
You are partly correct and also witnessing in action one of the most politically driven witch hunts of modern times.
I question the number of child porn sites that exist that are constantly quoted .
I simply do not believe its credible that such a number can exist-if they did then they should be easily trackable and I don't accept the rubbish claim made that the owners constantly switch service providers.
The FBI claims that on any day there are 3000 child porn sites in the USA who change service providers weekly.
If they did-there would need to be literally hundreds of thousands of service providers. There aren't. It's a blatant lie.
Alberto Gonzales the (discredited) and retired US Attorney General claimed this trade was worth about $30 Billion in the USA alone. What sheer utter rubbish. Where did he get this figure from-plucked out of the air I'd say. This isn't a covert trade like the drug trade-it's on the net and far easier to trace no matter what they say.
If that much money is involved why haven't they enacted laws to force internet providers to guarantee the material they host is legal and for credit card companies to ensure they do not provide credit to purchase illegal goods ?..because it's a gross exageration..and it makes great and sensational media.
Also the source you give -the BBC actually says that only about 11 children have been identified. Why ?. Because most of the material is up to 30/40 years old and recycled over and over and over again. The children in the porn are now 40/50 years old !. Another great lie told.
Ocassionally an honest policeman will say that he believes (and I've heard one) that most people who get caught up in this on the internet are really "rubber necking" who weren't intending to seek out the material.
So of course it's a terrible trade but so much of it's a beat-up and the reason...if you frighten enough people that their someone is somehow going to reach through the computer screen and grab their child from MySpace or corrupt their child via a child porn site or whatever (oh the little kiddies !)...or that we adults need protection from ourselves..it's because NO GOVERNMENT can handle the idea of a FREE INTERNET where ideas are freely exchanged. That is ANARCHY and as most goverments have sold out to the likes of a Rupert Murdoch ( who once famously said the internet is a dud)-he and his ilk now want control of it for the rivers of gold it will provide. |
|
Francis D |
I noticed that the BBC were sensitive enough to refer to 'suspected paedophiles' on their new bulletin about last years arrests. I'd have been interested to know how many of those 'suspected' were actually proven to be guilty. We never get the full story. |
|
zooloo |
Too often we have seen bad laws introduced for good reasons. |
|
|
|
