Phil Osborn wrote:
>But not, as yet, to keep me from putting the information out there -
>unless, of course, I were to discuss subjects that are extremely non-PC,
>such as child-adult sex. This is WHY these topics cannot be resented, BTW.
>This is the cutting edge of state censorship, the wedge to insinuate total
>control. You don't have to control everyone, any more than in war you have
>to shoot all the enemy. You just shoot the ones who stick their heads up.
>Just as, in the War on Drugs, it is incredibly easy to put someone who is
>politically or economically unpopular away for life just by planting a gram
>or two of controlled substance during a bust. The War on Drugs is clearly
>a failure
>from the standpoint of controlling drug use, but it is an outstanding
>success from the standpoint of putting undesireable people - from the
>standpoint of the powers that be - away, and setting an example for the
>next fool who might stick his head up. Am I being paranoid. Perhaps not
>enuf. Consider that the anti-kiddie-port sections of the CDA specifically,
>as I recall, include ANY depiction of child sexuality. This includes - and
>there have been prosecutions on this basis - comic art, furry art, etc., in
>which children obviously were not employed. For that matter, the same kind
It's amazing how we think along the same lines here. But give me your opinion on this. How about, as soon as it's possible a planetary government with open citizenship but as soon as you attempt to sensor somebody your ass is deported.
-Clint O'Dell
clintodell@visto.com