You replied to the wrong post, there.

>has you somehow convinced that child pornography isn't a big deal

How the hell did you draw that conclusion? Where did I say it wasn't a big deal? I said that civil liberties are a bigger deal than child abuse (which is a statement I absolutely stand by) for a couple of reasons.

First, you'll never get back a lost right whether that be privacy or freedom of speech or bearing arms or what have you - once its gone, it takes a revolution to claw it back. And the fact that government overreach is usually passed in the guise of flag or child safety makes losing civil liberties a real threat that deserves to be objectively evaluated.

Second, a child that's been molested will grow up with some serious issues, granted - then they become an adult with fewer rights than their grandparents, ostensibly to protect other children. If you're following along at home and want to count the injustices, overreach + abuse is worse than abuse alone.

>The fact that some politician out there has tried to push a bill that he shouldn't under the guise of protecting children has NOTHING to do with a raid on a Tor operator here.

Except for the fact that it's "some politician" or "some detective" following their emotions when enforcing the law instead of following common sense which causes these bad raids in the first place. An exit node is a public service used by other people. You don't fucking seize someone's means of communicating (and very potentially livelihood) with that knowledge in mind. It's shoddy police work at the absolute least, and downright malicious (great way to discourage Tor nodes) at worst.

How about you answer the question I asked you in the other post? Are you willing to silence an undefined number of innocent people to make a failed attempt at banning the transfer of data (not the abuse of children, which will continue even if the internet were to go away tomorrow)?

Make sure you understand that, please, even if you disagree with everything else I've said here. Even if you go full reductio ad absurdum, raiding every person on this planet who has ever downloaded an image of child abuse still isn't going to stop child abuse. With that knowledge in mind, you should ideally take a more balanced look at the law and its unintended consequences.

You downplayed child pornography as just someone "jerking off to a picture." So yes, you apparently don't see the other consequences of it, and don't think it's a big deal. That's what you don't seem to understand: It's not the 'transfer of data'. Abuse of children might still happen, but this promotes it. You're creating a 'market' for it, where as before it might not have existed.

Now, would I get rid of the internet if it meant getting rid of Child Pornography? Obviously not. I wouldn't get rid of handguns if it meant attempting to stop murder in the United States as well.

Here's the issue with your outlook: You act as though it is one or the other. You must take down the internet entirely or you must allow all child pornography to flow freely through your computer. Your outlook on the law isn't balanced at all. You won't give up any civil liberties because you feel you shouldn't compromise on it.

> Abuse of children might still happen, but this promotes it. You're creating a 'market' for it, where as before it might not have existed.

Supply emerges to meet demand. There are people out there who want child porn, and others who provide it to them.

Governments clamping down on Tor exit nodes doesn't affect that demand, but it does have a harmful effect on our means of private communication online.

There's practically no privacy left on the Internet anymore. Everything we do is logged and analyzed somewhere somehow (Google, Facebook, NSA, local ISPs and governments etc), and we're being gradually stripped of our rights everywhere.

It really is important that there's at least some privacy-providing tool available to all of us online. Child porn being transferred through the same tool is not really even a "price to pay" for that privacy, because as long as there is demand, it will get transferred somehow in any case.

You still didn't answer my question.

>It's not the 'transfer of data'. Abuse of children might still happen, but this promotes it. You're creating a 'market' for it, where as before it might not have existed.

Downloading (not buying) CP doesn't facilitate its production anymore than downloading a blockbuster movie facilitates its production.

>You won't give up any civil liberties because you feel you shouldn't compromise on it.

You think I should? How and why? You seem to think that curtailing the use of an anonymous communications tool because evil people use it is a reasonable solution, and I think that's preposterous.