What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
480 Comments
- zabaf, on 10/11/2007, -53/+702Am I the only one who wants more evidence then some writer from a poor looking and unheard of site?
- ivanisavich, on 10/11/2007, -139/+558nreynolds:
Give them respect? Free speech is one thing. Supporting child pornography and/or condoning the actions of sick criminals is entirely different! - revmitcz, on 10/11/2007, -34/+407now, now, hasn't anyone considered the possibility that this might be way overblown? I'm by NO means supportive of pedophilia or child pornography - but TPB is a whipping-boy for a lot of media companies. You know they're just loving the idea that TPB might be associated with kiddy porn. Has anyone even seen the site in question?
Suppose for a moment this site is for pedophiles to sit around and share fantasies. Yes, yes, it's sick and wrong and all that. HOWEVER... wouldn't it be worth giving those people a way to let off steam in a controlled, online environment where they can get their rocks off - as opposed to trying to shut down every opportunity they might have for such a release, thereby making them want to get their rocks off another way (like, for instance, actually going out and molesting children)?
Pedophiles know they're hated by a majority of the population. They know it's ***** up and wrong, but.. it's a sexual disorder. If they have a constructive way to get that ***** off their chest that's effectively harmless (as in, it doesn't actually involved children) - they'll take it. And, it could save some children from being molested. After all, one's desire to go out and "get a little", as a man, is greatly diminished if you've already gotten off. Likely, you'll just wanna go to bed instead.
Of course, if it comes out that TPB is hosting and encouraging full-on kiddy porn - then, yes, hang 'em from the highest branch. - FredSpeaking, on 10/11/2007, -7/+273Did any of you read the goddamn article? The TPB company is hosting an author's site that expresses views supportive of paedophilia. "Dodgy" sure, but the article made absolutely no mention of child pornography.
- ajcates, on 01/20/2009, -33/+269Link or it didn't happen
- CanceledCzech, on 10/11/2007, -101/+288@nreynolds
When I first read your comment, I dugg it. A second later i realized that such a site is not in fact free speech, seeing as how the children are being harmed in the process. I'll have to say that this is very disappointing. I'll no longer support Pirate Bay unless someone gives me a reason why I should. And it had better be good, because the harm of innocent children is not O.K. - Tetragrammaton, on 10/11/2007, -5/+184You all seem to be mixing up the point of free speech. The idea is that the government can't control what people say or think, but only what they do. It's legal to think that murder is OK, but it's not illegal to murder. It's free speech to try to defend pedophiles, but it isn't legal to sexually abuse children.
I disagree with their speech, but unless they're planning how they're going to kidnap victims or showing illegal pictures, the site must be allowed to stay. I might stop supporting anyone who agrees with them, but unless you can show me that this isn't a speech issue, I'll fight for the site to stay on the web.
Don't let your feelings about a particular issue cloud your judgment. You prove your committment to freedom only when you defend the rights of those you despise. - BasharTeg, on 10/11/2007, -13/+138***ATTENTION RETARDS***
***THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FOR ALL OF THE IDIOTS WHO DON'T READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE COMMENTING***
THE SITE IN QUESTION DOES *NOT* CONTAIN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (IMAGES OR MOVIES). IT CONTAINS THE TEXT/WORDS/OPINIONS/SPEECH OF THE POOR SICK BASTARDS WHO ARE SUFFERING FROM THE MENTAL ILLNESS OF PEDOPHILIA.
THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF THE PIRATE BAY HOSTING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IMAGES OR MOVIES. THIS IS A MATTER OF THE SPEECH OF PEDOPHILES REGARDING THEIR OPINIONS ON SEX WITH MINORS.
Please digg this up so we don't have more than the 50 billion douchebags we already have misinterpreting the story from the headlines and screaming about how TPB is now hosting kiddie pr0n. ***** read the ***** articles for *****'s sake. - cherrick, on 10/11/2007, -6/+128@canceledczech
That would be the case if there was child pornography on the website, which is not what is described in the article. From the description, it sounds like it merely contains people's opinions defending paedophilia. I know we're treading a thin line here, and I abhor these people's ideas/actions as much as any of you, but unfortunately any progressive society would have to admit that they're on the free speech side of said line. That is, if the description is accurate and I'm interpreting it correctly. - PhantomBantam, on 10/11/2007, -11/+131As long as there is no child pornography on the site, I guess I have to say good for TPB, because they respect free speech more than I ever can.
- bightchee, on 10/11/2007, -25/+139I'm all for freedom of speech and personal choice but there isn't any way I can work around how wrong pedophilia is.
- radu79, on 10/11/2007, -4/+95I don't know what site thye are hosting, or what that site contains. However, a paedophilia site is not necessary illegal. It is illegal (in most of the countries) to sell images/videos of children involved in sexual stuff, or in 'sexually explicit poses', naked or not.
A site where pedophiles just talk is not illegal, at least not in some countries. - thebellmaster1x, on 10/11/2007, -3/+82@canceledczech
First off, no, I don't condone pedophilia in any form.
However, I have to call this into question: are children actually being directly harmed by the site? All the article says is that it "defends pedophilia." Maybe it's just a manifesto of "pedorights." Maybe it details pederasty in ancient Greece. I don't know. If this guy had posted more details, then we could decide.
Look, if the site lets people download child porn, then I'll shut up--that shouldn't be hosted anywhere for any reason. But if it's just useless text--I don't like it any better than you do, but they do have a right to post it as long as it doesn't directly harm children. Hell, even NAMBLA has a site (the real one, I mean, not the South Park one). - sq377, on 10/11/2007, -50/+129I have always been for defending tpb, but if this is true they have lost my support entirely.
- catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -43/+121@zabaf
The register is a pretty well-respected tech site - glasgowm, on 10/11/2007, -9/+83@catalysis
Are you kidding me? the register a well respect tech site? no. They are a well known online tabloid. I honestly wouldn't even second look a guardian article as holding any truth.
1. It's the the company that hosts the pirate bay, not the pirate bay itself.
2. Its not child porn, its probably just text supporting pedophilia. WHICH IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
burried as Inaccurate. - Fragalishus, on 10/11/2007, -7/+77"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
- Andrew Shepherd - The American President - canewediggit, on 10/11/2007, -48/+117i was checking the 'recent torrents' the other day, and there was one entitled '480 pictures of children in the bath' or something along those lines. i was really disgusted. i'm sorry, but you have to draw the line somewhere, and thepiratebay obviously has no intentions to draw one.
- Ulisses, on 10/11/2007, -36/+103@invawtv
No, it isn't. It's still free speech no matter how much cognitive dissonance that causes you. - marm0t, on 10/11/2007, -8/+73Buried for being misleading and vague.
Seriously how is this news? Theres no Proof, no links, just a few sentences leading most people to believe they are hosting Child porn.
revmitcz comment says it well. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+69You're all tools.
You've fallen for the smear job. - sonicm, on 10/11/2007, -6/+68@ivanisavich
Yeah, I mean free speech is cool and all when I can get free movies and stuff, but people shouldn't be allowed to say/do things that I disagree with or am offended by. Seriously, they're so inconsiderate about other peoples opinions, what *****!
[/sarcasm] - zabaf, on 10/11/2007, -2/+61http://www.thelocal.se/7504/20070605/
This site has much more details
"Svartholm Warg said he decided to host the site despite disagreeing strongly with the content." - Kratisto, on 10/11/2007, -12/+67I may not agree with what you have to say but would die for your right to say it
- threemagic, on 10/11/2007, -21/+75Freedom of speech and personal choices are great as long as they don't harm and infringe on the innocent (in this case children).
I'm with you. - pathy, on 10/11/2007, -6/+54Uh oh, look at this, paedophilia is mentioned. It's time to THROW ALL RATIONALITY OUT OF THE WINDOW PEOPLE.
Seriously. Read the article, not that it gives much detail, but is this site hosting pornographic images of children? Video? Hell, even sound bytes?
If it is, something needs to be done, sure. The site doesn't belong to be out there. However, if it DOES NOT contain any of those iamges, then the site SHOULD exist. People defending paedophilia have just as much right to be heard as anyone else, talking about anyone else. Come on folks, we might hate it, might find it disgusting, but hey, we put up with things we don't like so people will do the same when we get an idea that they don't like, right? - rauz, on 10/11/2007, -5/+52This happens from time to time but the torrents get removed, especially if you report them.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/11/2007, -1/+46The site in question doesn't actually CONTAIN pedophile images, it's just the rantings of a pedophile about why there's nothing wrong with it. There is nothing illegal here. If it were on MSN spaces or Google Blogger, it probably wouldn't be taken down either unless enough people complained about it.
- gr3yn3t, on 10/11/2007, -2/+39The article doesn't provide NEARLY enough details to conclude anything.
Is this site providing torrents for child-porn?
Or is it simply a site stating legal rights of registered offenders? - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+39You can't blame TPB for what users upload...if you email them, I'm sure they'll take it down.
- Sandwiches_Time, on 10/11/2007, -82/+117nreynolds could not have it more wrong.
For him to insinuate that pedophilia is protected under freedom of speech is a mockery of the very rights Americans are guaranteed by the First Amendment.
If you want to defend pedophiles, you've got every right to do it. But don't ever claim that anyone has the right to destroy a young person's life the way that pedophiles do.
You should be ashamed of yourself. - rauz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+38It's considered wrong here in Sweden too, to say the least, but free speech is either 1 or 0. You can't select what kind of speech should be free and what shouldn't...
This has been in the national newspapers and it was said that the page they host are completely legal since it's not explicitly encouraging, nor sharing images or material, of illegal acts.
I too think it's disgusting as hell but I don't know how it should be acted upon considering it isn't illegal. In this form . - ranzor, on 10/11/2007, -13/+47Even though pedophilia is wrong they have chosen the stance not to censor its users content in the name of free speech.
You can't claim you support freedom of speech if the only thing you will defend is what you personally believe in. To defend freedom of speech it has to be all or nothing and I am glad that they are taking the stand to defend the freedom of speech. - revmitcz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+35@vbsurfer : It IS the reality of it. Pedophiles have a sick desire to have sex with children. We all know it's sick and wrong. Most of the time, so do pedophiles (do the research, you'll see they're generally pretty *****' self-loathing people - with good reason, everyone *****' hates them).
Now, how would you deal with it? Tell them "stop liking that!"? Yeah, that's gonna work REALLY *****' well.
Would you advocate jailing them, or killing them, for thinking about it? If so - who else would you jail or kill for their "impure" thoughts?
As I said - if they're actually interacting with and molesting children and/or doing ANYTHING that actually affects a child (like, say, exposing themselves to children) - then by all means, throw their ass in jail. Chemically castrate them (which is reversible, btw). But limit their ability to talk about it with other pedophiles? I don't really see what you gain by doing that. - catfish182, on 10/11/2007, -2/+29but from what i read there is no illegal content being hosted.
I am not happy at all with it but if there is no illegal content then no one can really do anything.
Dont forget NAMBLa has a site so lets see who hosts that site and ban them also.
as for any torrents that honestly can not be helped. If they filter that then they prove they can filter content and thus means the pirate bay is gone. - crainte, on 10/11/2007, -15/+41This just in, people have offensive sites on the internet! Great, it's a horrible topic, that doesn't mean people can't talk about it. Screw all of your people and your censorship.
- vampireboy172, on 10/11/2007, -5/+31While PRQ may be hosting the site the only connection to the pirate bay is that PRQ also happens to host the Pirate Bay. This story is a little bit misleading. It would make sense however that a company that is willing to host the Pirate Bay is also willing to host another controversial site.
- spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+27I gotta agree with you here.
"hosting a site that defends paedophilia" is not even close to being in the same league as hosting or distributing child porn, but people are going to walk away from reading about this thinking that is exactly what they did. - falcyn, on 10/11/2007, -2/+27For pete's sake! RTFA!
They are hosting a site that DEFENDS pedophilia. There is no mention of this site hosting any depictions, pictorial or otherwise, of pedophilia, which is a completely different thing. Freedom of speech means being able to defend and speak out about even something you and I find abhorrent, and that's OK. - ernkush, on 10/11/2007, -2/+25Discussing and even supporting pedophilia is not a crime. Therefore as long as these pedophiles are not commiting a crime, they should legally be allowed to voice their opinions. Certainly, it is understandable to sanction them given the nature of their opinions. However, if we are arguing whether they are commiting a crime- then they are decidely not. Personally, I am of the legal point of view which would allow this to continue regardless of how dispicable it may be.
- NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -2/+25A good majority of you are over-reacting... First of all, this is just one of the companies that helps host TPB, not The Pirate Bay themselves... Second of all, it's freedom of speech, even though it's wrong and illegal to actually do, and you disagree with it... The site can talk about it all they want, as long as they don't harm anyone themselves. I comend PRQ for upholding true freedom of speech. And third, far too many people are blindly one sided on these kinds of issues... Someone could go their whole life with a pedo-fetish, and never actually harm a living soul... Just because that is their fantasy doesn't mean they are bad or will harm someone. I don't personally agree with that 'fetish, I think it's extremely wrong and needs mental help, but if they don't hurt anyone, then I really don't care what they are thinking and talking about. As long as they don't hurt someone.
Any of you that think less of TPB for this, are morons. It's not their site... -_-
I'm sure the RIAA would love this kind of article because maybe they could decrease the popularity of TPB... but in reality, who the ***** cares about this kind of thing... - spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+21Can we have a 'bury as misleading sensationalism' option please?
- mvandemar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21Oh would you people please RTFA!
It's not a porn site, it's a site ABOUT paedophilia! Damn!
The people who own the site that Pirates Bay is hosting may not be right in the head, but neither are the thousands of white supremacy ***** sites hosted right here in the US, and none of y'all are bitching about those. Come to your damn senses already, would ya? - ranzor, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21Where in the article does it say that the site in question was distributing images or anything? The article says that the site defends pedophilia.
What they are talking about are ideas and words. I'm not arguing that pedophilia is right or not. I'm saying that ideas and thoughts and speech should not be censored because it may be an unpopular subject. - Lane, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21"The controversial site, which was previously hosted by a Danish company, also plans to make space available for individual paedophiles' personal websites."
so there going to host myspace? - Yage2006, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19.
Id like to see this confirmed by the owners them self. to be sure its not RIAA *****. - ninephoenixes, on 10/11/2007, -3/+22Jesus Christ, settle down. The article doesn't say that the site is hosting porn or that it's a site where pedos meet up to swap kidnapping tips or whatever. It's just a site that defends pedophilia.
If the site was hosting either one of those things, that'd be one thing, but just hosting a site that defends pedophilia is a completely different issue.
Freedom of speech also means freedom of disgusting speech. You cannot have it one way. - judgesuds, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20"Oh Come On
By N1AK
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 14:31 GMT
Nice choice of title Ofcourse it's just as unfair as say the BBC saying "El Reg is source of paedophilia news and links" (you gave more than enough information to find the site).
I had hoped the Reg would take it's normally cynical view, and apply it to the "paedophiliasteria" in the UK. You are three times more likely to be struck by lightning than be sexually abused by a stranger as a child.
I haven't seen this site, and I am not inclined to. The hosts are however right that if it is only a place of discussion and no illegal material is allowed it should be allowed. If we are going to learn how to deal with this issue, we are going to have to start looking for the root causes, and encourage people to seek help. But this won't happen as long as the ignorant masses want to bring back public lynching."
"Criminals?
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 15:26 GMT
There's nothing in the article to suggest that these people are criminals. It says they're paedophiles, not child molesters.
It's certainly true that when paedophilia is raised, all sense goes out of the window. People should read George Orwell's '1984' and understand the idea of thoughtcrime."
I agree with these sentiments which are in the comments http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/05/pirate_bay_hosts_dodgy_site/comments/#c_18336 - ultragames, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19If someone make a website saying that homosexuality should be allowed and tolerated...
Does that make them gay? No.
Is it free speech? Yes.
If someone makes a website stating that the 10 Commandments should not be taught in school...
Does that make them Satan worshipers? No.
Is it free speech? Yes.
If they make a website about how pedophile should be allowed...
Does that make them pedophiles? No.
Is it free speech? Yes.
It dosn't matter if you agree with it or not, if all they are doing is talking about it, then its free speech. Thats just how it is. And for those of you who would say "Thats not what free speech is for" you are wrong. Free Speech is meant to protect ideas that would be otherwise punishable. This is just another one of those ideas. - Chandon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17Not only is what is described in the article free speech, it's the single most important kind of free speech: political speech. The article describes a website that advocates the legality of something that is currently illegal. The fact that that item is "sex with children" is utterly irrelevant - to restrict people from discussing (and arguing against) specific laws would be to destroy any hope of a functional democracy.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 481 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is