Quote from: Hawker on September 28, 2011, 10:14:00 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 28, 2011, 10:00:51 PM

At the extreme risk of opening up a huge can of worms, I'm going to flip this regulation thing into the other extreme:

In order to protect a certain class of people, the government passed some laws to make certain types of information illegal to poses. As time progressed, the regulation of this information expanded, the punishments became more and more severe, and the restrictions became more and more limited. At present, this information is considered so dangerous that it can not even be presented in court as evidence, since the very act of owning it or looking at it is illegal. The end result of this regulation is that people can be accused of being in posession of this material, or something that may just resemble it, be charged by the state for it, and tried without any evidence being presented against them. Usually the people still get convicted, and if a jurry is involved in a trial, these people are pretty much guaranteed to be convicted. The sentence is usually at least 5 years in prison, sometimes more. If you are lucky, you are allowed to stay home, but get regular checkups by the FBI, and are required to notify your government handlers if you wish to travel or leave the state. You are also severely restricted in where you are allowed to go. Likewise, your internet and phone conversations are monitored, and you can pretty much assume a total lack of privacy. The crime of possessing these materials is considered so great that it becomes difficult to get a job if you have the charge on your record. And, again, thanks to the strict regulations, you do not actually have to be guilty. Simply being accused and charged with it is enough, since, with the evidence not being admissible in court, it's your word against the police/FBI, and thus you'll very likely lose.

Do you agree with this type of government regulation? Do you believe that it's perfectly fine for regulation to progress to that level, if enough people believe there is a need for it? Why do you believe this regulation is justice, just because it was passed by the government with the people's consent?

I assume by "certain types of information illegal to possess" you mean child porn? The places you are severely restricted from going to are schools?

There is an interesting discussion to be had on how much of attraction to kids is learnt and how much is a case of being born that way. There is also an interesting discussion to be had about what the age of consent should be. In some countries its as low as 9. Then there are lots of teenagers who have "sexted" images that are technically child porn to their friends. But I'm not sure where you want to go with this.

You assume incorrectly. Child porn is possessible by authorized agents of the government as well as certain psycologists, medical doctors and other such professionals. It's also admissible in court, and a jury would be expected to endure the horror of it. He is describing a general pretext, which can be used to convict any enemy of the state at will. Once upon a time, a charge of witchcraft was one such type of knowledge.

EDIT: Child porn is officially illegal, not because of it's content, but because of the assumption that possesion of it implies that the holder either 1) produced it himself, thus is directly violating a child or 2) purchased it from someone who did, and thus was suppporting a market based upon harming children. If you understood the NAP, and the logic that supports it, you would understand that child porn is just as much a violation of the NAP by the same exact logic.