The Internet

[Buffalobiian]

He said that it would become a case of public judging. That law would fail itself to satisfy the public opinion.

What does that last sentence mean?

The argument always boils down to "We don't have good evidence that owning pictures causes harm, but better safe than sorry and no one wants to change the status quo just for the sake of principle."

Getting fired for publishing a paper like that is stupid, but companies would do it anyway if they fear she'll eat away at their profits and image. Again - fuck principles.

-----------------------

On a similar note, I've recently learned that there are laws in place to prosecute people who venture abroad to engage in child sexual tourism, even if they don't break any local laws in doing so. That's overstepping some grounds in my book. Then again, there's such things as "crimes against humanity" by the international community. I'm not sure where I stand amongst all this. It'll depend on the technicalities and the framework that international organisations use to judge people.

-----------------------


edit: oh, and there was this clip floating around a few weeks back:



I don't know what all the other deleted responses were, but I got tired of the arguments here. Just call the cops and get it over with - like how you deal with any other activity you think is illegal. No harm's being done such that you can't wait 10 minutes for their arrival.