I dont think it matters for the point im making. Child porn exists and should be censored.
replyWhat are you suggesting?
I think the point they might be trying to make is that there are religious and socially conservative groups that intentionally misclassify anything even remotely related to LBTQ topics as “pornography” so that anti-pornography laws can be used to silence anyone and anything that opposes their regressive views on sexuality, as one example. So it is a line that must be tread carefully.
replyAh thanks that makes sense. And it indeed does not matter to the point Im making, which is some censorship, such as child porn, is good.
replyPeople can disagree on what that means, although I think there are some very obvious examples. Unless you think NOTHING called child porn should be censored because it might not actually be child porn, you can see how its a non factor.
It matters because if you can't determine if something is child porn, then you'll end up overblocking, so it doesn't matter if it "exists" and "should be censored"
replyBut my point is some censorship is good. Such as child porn. We can disagree on what constitutes child porn in practice but you arent saying nothing should be censored right?
replyYou do think there is such thing as child porn right? And that it should be censored?
Im not claiming more censorship is better. So I agree it could be overapplied. Im saying some censorship is clearly good.