Or, as a Slashdot user put it in a discussion about a Brazilian judge’s rulings against Google and YouTube: “There should be no criminal penalties on any speech, information, or data transmitted from anyone, to anyone.”
Assume this is, as the writer asserts, a full and firm expression of this particular user’s beliefs (no additional caveats, no other explanation than what’s there, nothing). Do you agree? Why (not)?
Disagree. Child Porn. National Security. Trade Secrets. Copyright. HIPAA. Identity theft. Fraud. Etc.
What Oak said. Also, I’d add a few more. If it were practical in the internet age (it obviously isn’t), I’d have no problem prohibiting the publishing of Kate Middleton’s boobs, for instance.
There are plenty of people who want to eliminate patents and copyrights. There are plenty of people who want completely open government. There are plenty of people who believe that no form of pornography should be illegal to possess (note I said possess, not necessarily produce). And as for crime, well, no one’s asked the original poster about that, but I’d assume he assumes that both sides know full well what they’re both giving and receiving (but, of course, his firmness in expressing the quote above doesn’t leave a lot of room, I’ll admit).
Taking the value of stuff like copyrights as a given doesn’t necessarily track, IMO.
I also agree with this.
A question for Skald: Are you opposed to publishing boobs in general, Kate Middleton in general, or specifically Kate Middleton’s boobs?
I am not saying I wouldn’t have a problem with some of the outcome, but I think ultimately I agree with him and for a simple reason. All information can be reduced to a number, and I don’t think you should be banning numbers. That’s madness.
Disagree. Slander and libel. And what Oakminster said, although I’d bet we’d disagree on exactly what falls under those categories. 
I am against the publication of photos of boobs when the owner of said boobs did not consent to be photographed. It’s part of my new non-asshole policy.
Yes, there are. Those are people who don’t want to pay creative people for their work for whatever reason. Please note that I’m not saying that copyright should be eternal; the extent corporations like Disney have taken them too is frankly ridiculous. But there should be a mechanism to allow writers, musicians, and other artists to be paid for their work.
I would like completely open government, and also a pet manticore. (Well, not a pet.)
.
How does person A possess child porn without person B producing it? That said, I wouldn’t outlaw the possession of purely textual pornography of any stripe–just that which by definition involves doing harm to children.
To clarify, I meant that the argument seems to be that only person B should get into trouble, and not person A.
Another one who disagrees.
If copyright ceased to exist then many people wouldn’t bother writing books or musc etc. and we would be he losers.
Also it shouldn’t be permitted to tell people how to make poison, commit murder, make explosives, nuclear weapons etc
And of course as previously stated theres libel, and also hate speech.
Thieves, and other people who hate artists.
Even if you get past things like copyright infringement and national security, the term “under any circumstances” is extraordinarily broad.
Personally, I think people should be allowed to espouse disgusting racist opinions. But then, I don’t live in Germany. Germany has laws against displaying Nazi symbols, laws that trace back to the denazification of post-war Germany. And you know what, I’m not sure they’re wrong. It was hard enough to kill the Nazis the first time around. I don’t necessarily know better than the Germans do about whether there’s value in that sort of law there.
Limiting the free expression of ideas is one of the methods Nazis employed to come to and hold power.
It’s never right. Period. And in this case I find it horribly ironic.
“Gosh those bastard Nazis silencing dissenting voices!”
“I know, let’s silence dissenting voices!”
I truly believe that freedom of speech (or things that derive from that right) is pretty much the ONLY thing that truly sets us apart from some of the most horrible places/cultures on the planet.
Okay, that makes sense.
Your credit card numbers, social security number, street address, DOB, bank account and routing numbers are just numbers. Feel like allowing anyone to have those?
Slee
No.
Fair enough, but can we add “naked pregnant celebrities on magazine covers,” with or without consent? Yes yes, pregnancy is beautiful, miracle of life and all that, but come on. Enough already.
[humorless pedant]
No. That is an entirely different issue. Whatever discomfort you may feel from briefly noticing Jessica Simpson naked and gravid can be dealt with by simply turning away. Comparing that to the invasion of a person’s privacy by publishing naked pictures of him or her is silly.
[/humorless pedant]
No but I think the idea of banning numbers is worse.
Rather than censorship, I would prefer civil liabilities after the fact. I would be uncomfortable with a government that was powerful enough to prevent something slanderous from being published. I prefer, instead, a system of courts that imposes penalties, including punitive damages, in order to “send a signal” to others that this is a damn stupid thing to do.
Not until you get down to immediately harmful publication – military secrets for instance – can I find any comfort at all in tolerating censorship.