> Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

The idea that some particular speech is protected in the interests of democracy does not mean that all speech is in the democratic interest.

I don't think that is as clear cut as you make it out to be.

But yes, child porn, hate speech and a few other things might not be "essential for democratic discourse". I'm still not convinced censorship is the best tool to help fight the underlying problems. And I do believe the underlying problems (hate, violence, in some cases mental disease) should be dealt with -- I'm unconvinced the media files actually do much harm on their own -- due to the nature of their contents in general.

Now we need laws to limit speech that attacks and harms people (such as being able to prevent people from (legally) distributing pictures and film on the Internet against our will) -- and it is natural that government does that on behalf of those that are not adult and/or have guardians that can do it for them.

But there is a difference between that, and a blanket ban on media based on the imagery contained within.

Child porn would at least be relevant as evidence in a trial, and possibly (with victims not recognizable) in media cover of such a trial.

The relationship between speech, particularly political speech if the distinction matters to you, and Tor should be plain.

So far, the people on your side of the argument have only been able to draw lines in the sand and insist that ISPs and exit nodes are the same. They, and presumably you, claim without justification that "bad" speech cannot be pursued without chilling "good" speech. Your comment adds no real world understanding of this fact: people don't want child porn to be traded over the Internet. Your case that political speech cannot be free unless child porn is free, is uncompelling and lacks nuance.

> Your case that political speech cannot be free unless child porn is free,

Sigh. Yet another senseless, dangerous, and borderline libellous misrepresentation.

Allow me to strongly state this in no ambiguous terms: I do not oppose laws banning the production, distribution, or possession of child pornography. People who participate in any of those acts should be arrested and given a fair trial by a jury of their peers. I support these laws. I am not, IN ANY WAY, saying, suggesting, or attempting to appear as though I am suggesting, that I think child pornography is protected speech.

Is this clear now?

What I am arguing [snip]

Edit: You know what? Forget it. I am not participating in this discussion at the risk of being so thoroughly misunderstood. Not with this topic. It is not worth it.

So, less yelling, less sanctimonious wailing over how you're so misunderstood -- say how you think your priority of theoretical free speech isn't a de facto endorsement for transmission of child porn.

I support the reasonable enforcement of the law. You accuse me of endorsing illegal activities for throwing in the word "reasonable"?

I am not defending myself further against your absurd and vile allegations.

It does have the effect of meaning that some bad guys will get away, but that is how we as a society have agreed that our justice system should work. This is not a de facto defence of crime, nor endorsement.

Imagine how much easier catching bad guys would be if we did not require warrants before searches. Would you accuse someone who insisted that warrants were necessary of in effect endorsing or defending crime?

This is the real world, not a cop movie. We don't get to catch all the bad guys, and we don't get to break the rules to try to catch all the bad guys.

Recognition of this reality is neither a de facto defence nor a de facto endorsement of crime. People calling for proper conduct and moderated response to crime are not, unlike the internal affairs guys or judges who throw out cases for technicalities in movies, secondary antagonists.

I don't mind if you disagree with me when I say that in this case there is a line that should not be crossed without great care. That is a statement of opinion. Justice is an imprecise art, disagreement is to be expected. What I do have an issue with is you accusing me of endorsing or defending the crime, in a "de facto" manner or otherwise. I simply am not, and with this particular crime allegations like these can be incredibly damaging. It is not a joke to me, I have to take it seriously.

How about letting people in countries like Iran and China have a fighting chance of getting the word out about what's really going on there? Does that count?

How about letting people who are being stalked by creepy ex-spouses or ex-significant others have a chance of doing things online without being tracked? Does that count?

How about letting people who are afraid of reprisals speak inconvenient truths without being silenced? Does that count?

Basically you are saying these kinds of benefits aren't worth the chance of letting someone distribute child porn using Tor. That seems ridiculous to me.

In my opinion saying that there is something so valuable to be preserved that we should countenance the perpetration of a crime to achieve it, is endorsing that crime as a necessary component of the goal. People who endorse due process admit that allowing criminals to escape justice is a necessary feature, and in some sense are endorsing a system where some criminals avoid capture. So are free speech purists endorsing the necessity of a means for conveyance of child porn, so as to facilitate other speech.

That's not the same as saying that free speech purists endorse the porn itself, only the necessity of the freedom to transmit it.

Free speech does endorse the freedom to commit a crime, but does not endorse the criminal activities themselves.

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

I've always found it oddly fascinating that that was originally published under an alias.

Absolutism on this issue is nothing more than intellectual cowardice. Turning the other cheek.

I may not have freedom of speech in the US, but I sure as hell can demand it. I expect to be given that freedom, even though I do not expect that will ever happen.

People have a choice. A person can demand freedoms while obeying existing laws, or they can ignore existing laws and demand freedoms while they're in jail.

Absolutist freedom of speech is not, even in the US, something that everyone wants. Most people are reasonably comfortable with governments restricting access to some items. The list of items and the amount of resistance varies, but restricting speech by preventing people distributing images of child sexual abuse is pretty much established.