[Super Mario]

A Swedish company owned by the founders of controversial torrent tracker site The Pirate Bay is hosting a site that defends paedophilia.

PRQ, co-owned and operated by Fredrik Neij and Gottfried Svartholm Warg, has refused to take the web page down, citing the principle of freedom of speech.

The company says it doesn't share the ideas of the owners of the site, but defended the decision to host it, which claims: "When it comes to fear of paedophiles most things are set to one side."

The controversial site, which was previously hosted by a Danish company, also plans to make space available for individual paedophiles' personal websites.

Svartholm Warg told Stockholm morning daily Dagens Nyheter that he disagrees strongly with the content in question, but prefers an open debate. "They have a right to say this."

PRQ is the same company that hosts The Pirate Bay. When Stockholm police raided its offices last year almost every server was seized. Ten companies which were also hosted by PRQ immediately demanded compensation from the Chancellor of Justice.

Pirate Bay founders host paedophilia site | The Register

[Chuckit]

Right-o, and I'm a lesbian because I support gay rights. And an evangelical Christian because I support religious free speech.

If you don't support free speech for people you disagree with, you don't support free speech at all.

[peeb]

Why don't they have a right to say this? They should also be arrested if they commit crimes, and may well incriminate themselves in doing this, but this seems like a pretty straightforward case.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Right-o, and I'm a lesbian because I support gay rights. And an evangelical Christian because I support religious free speech.

If you don't support free speech for people you disagree with, you don't support free speech at all.

Uh, it's paedophilia. Pirate Bay are hiding behing some free speech defence when the freedom to speak has nothing to do with abusing children. Read that article and it says they give hosting space to paedophiles. It's obvious what files they would host.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Uh, it's paedophilia. Pirate Bay are hiding behing some free speech defence when the freedom to speak has nothing to do with abusing children. Read that article and it says they give hosting space to paedophiles. It's obvious what files they would host.

Is it? There are sites that defend the principle but do not commit crimes. If they commit crimes, then go after them for it.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Is it? There are sites that defend the principle but do not commit crimes. If they commit crimes, then go after them for it.

What principle? Paedophilia is unprincipled.

The controversial site, which was previously hosted by a Danish company, also plans to make space available for individual paedophiles' personal websites.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Uh, it's paedophilia. Pirate Bay are hiding behing some free speech defence when the freedom to speak has nothing to do with abusing children. Read that article and it says they give hosting space to paedophiles. It's obvious what files they would host.

First: this thread has no business being in the regular Lounge. It belongs in the Political Lounge.

Second: PRQ are not “giving hosting space to paedophiles”. One of the sites they’re hosting defends paedophilia. There’s a hell of a big difference between having content that says being a paedophile is something you can’t help and paedophiles love children and so on; and actually being a paedophile, abusing children, hosting child pornography and so on. Just like there’s a huge difference between claiming that Southerners in the 1800s who had slaves mostly just had slaves because everyone else did and it was considered normal; and going out, kidnapping a black family, and using them as your own slaves.

One is freedom of speech to say even things that others find disgusting, the other is a crime. As long as they’re only saying things to defend paedophilia, and not actually ‘doing’ anything, they’re within their rights. If it starts to become a hunting ground where paedophiles exchange pictures, videos, locations, etc., then it needs to be nuked into the darkest pits of hell, and the people using it to be jailed. But the, “Uh, it’s paedophilia” excuse is lame and has always been. “Uh, it’s paedophilia, so anyone who says the word without also saying «ewww» at the same time should be executed immediately”. Hm, no, not really. It is possible to discuss both sides of the fence without having to be a paedophile.

What principle? Paedophilia is unprincipled.

That just doesn’t make any sense. Of course paedophilia has a principle. We’re not talking about ‘principle’ in the sense of moral rectitude and propriety, but in the sense of the principle, or theoretical aspect, of paedophilia as a phenomenon here.



(And to anyone who is planning on retorting with comments like, “So you’re a paedophile, then?” or, “So you wouldn’t mind it if a gross old dirty pig came and molested your children?”, please go back and re-read this post, and then realise that such a retort really makes no sense.)

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Uh, it's paedophilia. Pirate Bay are hiding behing some free speech defence when the freedom to speak has nothing to do with abusing children. Read that article and it says they give hosting space to paedophiles. It's obvious what files they would host.

What is not involved here, as far as I can tell, is any actual child pornography, abuse of minors or other illicit material. If you can find evidence to the contrary, I'll be interested. At the moment, it appears this is purely a free speech issue. I believe in free speech and rational debate. Do you?

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What is not involved here, as far as I can tell, is any actual child pornography, abuse of minors or other illicit material. If you can find evidence to the contrary, I'll be interested.

I'll leave that to the authorities.

I believe in free speech and rational debate. Do you?

What is a rational debate about paedophilia?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

I'll leave that to the authorities.

Exactly - if a crime is committed, let them deal with it.

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

What is a rational debate about paedophilia?

Go check out their site and let us know. You might learn to spell it, too.

[Oisín]

You might learn to spell it, too.

What, ‘paedophilia’? Nothing wrong there.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Go check out their site and let us know. You might learn to spell it, too.

I'm not checking it out and I'm using the correct original spelling.

[peeb]

Well, if you refuse to take a look, I can't do much for you.

[Doofy]

Could it be that the authorities, unable to close down the PB under law, are hyping up some propaganda to try and make the PB's "customers" stop using it?

[- - e r i k - -]

I don't see anything on PB defending pedophilia (also correct), apart from some users posting on some dodgy (meaning underage non-nude) torrents. Is there a different site we should be looking at?

[Dakarʒ]

They support pedophilia?

Suddenly I feel guilty for all the free stuff I downloaded.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

What is a rational debate about paedophilia?

There are several. For example, is it possible for somebody at an age where we still consider them to be a child to give consent? Is the idea of an age of consent even really valid? Is being a pedophile something that people can help? Are pedophiles just horrible predators or can they actually be good people?

(Note: When I say there are debates about these topics, that doesn't mean I'm saying the pedophile side is right — just that it's possible to debate them.)

[peeb]

They support pedophilia?

Suddenly I feel guilty for all the free stuff I downloaded.

No, again, they don't support pedophilia. They support free speech. Even speech they don't like.

[Dakarʒ]

Because I was serious and worried about being factually accurate.

[starman]

Since when is this "free speech"? It's illegal, and quite immoral.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by starman 

Since when is this "free speech"? It's illegal, and quite immoral.

Please read the article. It is not child pornography, it is an advocacy website. It is not illegal.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You might learn to spell it, too.

That is totally uncalled for.

"paedophilia" is JUST AS CORRECT A SPELLING AS "pedophilia."

And diarrhoea, oedema, paediatrics, and foetus are just as valid spellings as diarrhea, edema, pediatrics, and fetus.

Stop being such a snob.

[Dakarʒ]

One might argue using the ae is snobbish.

But then again, I'm the only person I know who says neither/either the uncommon way.

[Rumor]

Pedospace: A place for friends

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

What is a rational debate about paedophilia?

Here's one for you: what is the age at which it is illegal? Sure, in the US, it is 18, but why is it 18? Who decided on that? Is there some scientific basis for the age being 18, or is it just an arbitrary number that we've always used?

Image:AOCWorldMap.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ages of consent in Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ages of consent in Asia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ages of consent in Australia and Oceania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ages of consent in Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ages of consent in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ages of consent in Latin America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look, the idea of pictures or acts with young children creeps me out, but I can't come up with any logical justification for a particular age limit, and clearly, countries around the world disagree on the age.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

One might argue using the ae is snobbish.

True. If you're an American, using the "ae/oe" could be considered snobbish. But if you're from the rest of the English-speaking world then using the "ae/oe" is as natural to them as not using them is to us Americans.

In medical school we had a pathology professor that gave fill in the blank tests and spelling of medical terminology counted. If it was spelled incorrectly, he took off half a point. And he considered non-American spellings "incorrect." Which really pissed off those people who didn't grow up in the US. (It pissed off the school administrators, too, but they couldn't do anything because he was tenured).

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

T And he considered non-American spellings "incorrect."

Yeah, that's called an asshole.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Yeah, that's called an asshole.

I prefer the term "asshat," myself. (Probably because I find that word really funny for some odd reason).

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Zimbabwe
The age of consent in Zimbabwe is 16 years for both males and females. Sodomy (heterosexual anal sex and all male homosexual acts) are illegal regardless of age - female homosexuality or lesbianism is not mentioned in the laws.

Of course it's not.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Here's one for you: what is the age at which it is illegal? Sure, in the US, it is 18, but why is it 18? Who decided on that? Is there some scientific basis for the age being 18, or is it just an arbitrary number that we've always used?

We should probably look to Western society's moral compas for an answer to that question: the Bible. I wonder what the age of consent was 2000 years ago...?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

We should probably look to Western society's moral compas for an answer to that question: the Bible. I wonder what the age of consent was 2000 years ago...?

Considering the legal standard for consent in the Bible is "Did she scream?" I don't think the concept applies.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

We should probably look to Western society's moral compas for an answer to that question: the Bible. I wonder what the age of consent was 2000 years ago...?

In biblical times, girls usually got married as soon as they hit puberty.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Here's one for you: what is the age at which it is illegal?

The age when they can't fight back against abuse. They age when they don't know abuse isn't normal. The age when don't know why that grimey mother ****er just took out his tiny dick so he could do **** and upload it on the net.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

True. If you're an American, using the "ae/oe" could be considered snobbish. But if you're from the rest of the English-speaking world then using the "ae/oe" is as natural to them as not using them is to us Americans.

ae/oe spellings are derived directly from the Latin and Greek phonetic transliteration into English or direct from Latin spelling. It is older than the cut down US form. Thus it is more correct.

How is minutiae spelt in the US? And do all USians spell spelt as spelt or as spelled?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

ae/oe spellings are derived directly from the Latin and Greek phonetic transliteration into English or direct from Latin spelling. It is older than the cut down US form. Thus it is more correct.

þæt is naht wǣr (or, as you backwards Modern English-speaking folk might spell it, "that is not true").

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

How is minutiae spelt in the US? And do all USians spell spelt as spelt or as spelled?

The same, but unlike "encyclopædia" and "pædophile," the "ae" is a true a+e and thus actually pronounced as "eye" rather than just like an "e" in the same place.

[- - e r i k - -]

Just because it's older does not make it "more correct", if that were true we'd probably all speak old norse and latin still.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Just because it's older does not make it "more correct", if that were true we'd probably all speak old norse and latin still.

Note I said 'more correct' and not just 'correct'.

I cood start speling laik this and it wood still be lejit in mai own sweet wurld becoz hoo wants to speek latin and owld norse?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

The age when they can't fight back against abuse. They age when they don't know abuse isn't normal. The age when don't know why that grimey mother ****er just took out his tiny dick so he could do **** and upload it on the net.

Fighting back seems more related to size than age - some people never reach that point (spousal abuse). Knowing could come at a variety of ages for a variety of people.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Fighting back seems more related to size than age - some people never reach that point (spousal abuse). Knowing could come at a variety of ages for a variety of people.

My mini thesis applies to victims of paedophiles and also by extension to rape victims of any age.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

The age when they can't fight back against abuse. They age when they don't know abuse isn't normal. The age when don't know why that grimey mother ****er just took out his tiny dick so he could do **** and upload it on the net.

So anything before 35-ish?

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So anything before 35-ish?

40. That's what I learnt at the Church of Steve.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Considering the legal standard for consent in the Bible is "Did she scream?" I don't think the concept applies.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

In biblical times, girls usually got married as soon as they hit puberty.

Yup. That's pretty much my point.

[Scifience]

I'm not sure I see what the big deal is here. They are not hosting child porn. There, I put it bold so it is very obvious. If they were hosting pictures and videos of kidnapped six-year-olds, I'd have a major problem with it. However, it seems that all they are hosting is text presenting an unpopular viewpoint. This is not illegal, nor should it ever be: it is free speech, and deserves to be protected. Once we begin to ban any form of speech, even the most (to us) reprehensible, it is very easy to find ourselves on a slippery slope to banning all sorts of things. First, we ban discussion of paedophilia; eventually, we ban anyone who dare speak out against the government.

As to the question of what kind of rational debate there can be on this topic, here's a few ideas:
(1) What counts as "paedophilia"? The medical definition is (and I'm quoting from Wikipedia here) someone who is "sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children." However, at least in the USA, it is also a term commonly applied to someone having sex with anyone below the age of consent.
(2) Building off of number one above, is this the definition we should be using in our laws? Look at the recent cases where teenagers have been charged under the laws supposedly designed to protect them. Maybe we should redefine the legal definition to be more in line with the medical one? After all, sexual attraction to and between adolescents is natural. Is the concept of statutory rape valid?
(3) Different countries, and different jurisdictions within the same country, have different age of consent laws. It seems, for the most part, that these are somewhat arbitrary numbers. What is the "right" age? Why? Is this the right approach to this at all? Is there a better way to determine maturity? If so, what?
(4) etc. etc. etc.

There are issues here to discuss, and there is no reason why doing so should be banned. As a teenager who is technically under the age of consent in many parts of the USA, I see no reason why discussion of this topic should be taboo. While I am all for harshly punishing up kidnappers and those who actually sexually abuse anyone, regardless of their age, there are definite gray areas that would benefit from a broad, open debate.

Which is, of course, not necessarily what the site in question is trying to accomplish. It might be nothing more that a paedophile manifesto. It doesn't really matter, though, since as long as no actual illegal content is being hosted, anyone with an interest in free speech should be defending the site's right to exist. Anyone who says they support free speech must understand that means they support all speech, even that which they disagree with or find disgusting, offensive, or disturbing.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Scifience 

I'm not sure I see what the big deal is here. They are not hosting child porn.

How do you know that?

Once we begin to ban any form of speech, even the most (to us) reprehensible, it is very easy to find ourselves on a slippery slope to banning all sorts of things. First, we ban discussion of paedophilia; eventually, we ban anyone who dare speak out against the government.

Racist speech is illegal in many developed countries now (it comes under Hate Crimes) and it has improved the quality of life. It hasn't had a bad effect on free speech.

[Scifience]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

How do you know that?

I know that because it is a fact that certainly would have been mentioned in the articles had it been true. Instead, it just says the site was defending paedophilia. Here is a more detailed article: The Local - Swedish company hosts paedophile site

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Racist speech is illegal in many developed countries now (it comes under Hate Crimes) and it has improved the quality of life. It hasn't had a bad effect on free speech.

I would personally disagree with this. I don't think any form of speech, no matter how offensive, should be made illegal.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Scifience 

I would personally disagree with this. I don't think any form of speech, no matter how offensive, should be made illegal.

I'll never agree with that. A person should not be allowed to preach that so and so race of people should be killed, etc

Encitement to violence does create violence, racism and hate crimes because there are always stupid people who will follow what others say. Likewise someone saying things like adults should be allowed to do things to children will raise the curiosity of stupid people who will carry out those acts.

[macintologist]

Obviously, the free market is the best place for this problem to be solved. If people care about this enough, they will boycott their advertisers, funding will be pulled and the site will be taken offline.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Racist speech is illegal in many developed countries now (it comes under Hate Crimes) and it has improved the quality of life. It hasn't had a bad effect on free speech.

The government has no business legislating people's thoughts. Period. The danger inherent in that idea is so mind-bashingly obvious. It's every bit as backwards as laws against homosexuality or religious freedom and in fact is born from the same nanny-state philosophy. Unless somebody is directly and intentionally causing crime (in which case that is his crime), words and thoughts should not be illegal.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The government has no business legislating people's thoughts.

When it's in the public domain it isn't thoughts unless you mean spoken or written opinions. Thoughts are uncommunicated (no discussion about telepathy here)

Unless somebody is directly and intentionally causing crime, words and thoughts should not be illegal.

Distributing paedophilia literature, race hate, or support for any crime against a person has what intentions behind it?

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Not surprising to find that members who support disemination of pedophila and "free speech" were the same people who reported me to the moderators twice in a week because I tore into a two people who had no respect for 9/11 victims and lied outright about the US government. My free speech doesn't count I guess.