Hacker News Reader

Comment by jackschultz | Hacker News Reader

First off, I hate it how they always try to frame new laws as trying to "protect" people. The same with airline searches and the whole PRISM deal.

Also, I read somewhere on the subject of child pornography that allowing those people to look at images cuts down on the act because they seem to "get their fix." I can't remember where I read this so I can't provide a source, but it seems to make sense.

View on HN

Yep. Or it's for "national security purposes". One of many beautiful euphemisms they employ. This is completely absurd. Do people believe in a free and open Internet, or do they not? Government asking us to make "declarations" over the content we want access to or what we may or may not search for is an absurdly dangerous precedent. IMO, imposing morality typically tends to make whatever problem worse.

> Do people believe in a free and open Internet, or do they not?

Not really. They want a special kind of freedom where censorship is not allowed... unless the stuff that's getting censored is the kind of stuff that they don't like. Lots of people would enthusiastically support their moral standards being written into law.

This particular law is hurting people far more than it's protecting them, but in general, laws are framed as trying to protect people because the purpose of laws in general is to protect people.

It works, that's why they do it.

I do wonder how many people will accept to this out of shame.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com