Another triumph for the BREXIT PARTY - we should be able to watch child ‘pornography’ and extremist videos

[HisNameIsJames]

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/25/people-should-free-watch-child-porn-jihadi-videos-online-says/?fbclid=IwAR3jAL-2teDQVSY-8UUfe550SD-R8lqdKc6rkLPF-

For the record, I hate the term Child Pornography, it is and should be called what it is, Child Abuse.

And this woman wants to represent us. Super.

Claire Fox, self-appointed head of the Institute of Claire Fox, an institute dedicated to promoting the ideas of Claire Fox, and the Academy of Claire Fox, the trading wing of the Institute, dedicated to the funding of Claire Fox.

You can hear Claire Fox on the Moral Maze. But you'll regret it.

FFS. spits

Nothing more to add.

do you have any evidence of this?

as a second hand telegraph article doesn't cut it - they are a well-known Tory rag that will do anything to discredit Ukip, or BP

@Micky665544 You can listen to the podcast via the link.

Her stance is more that she is vehemently against internet-censorship. I heard a radio thing she did. She sounded pretty normal tbh, not an apologist for peodos.

exactly, I've read the transcript - it's about trying to stop censorship and likey the Remainer Tories are whipping this up into being pro-pedo

so, yet more bullshit and lies from the Establishment yet again

Where's the OP now???

I listened to the podcast. She doesn’t come across well she said she thinks most child abuse videos are faked and had no sensible recourse to the concerns of her blanket free speech stance opening the doors to child abuse videos and jihadi videos being available to everyone and anyone.

Libertarianism. A US phenomenon that dicks are flirting with here as a possible vote winner on the back of Trump.

HisNJames:

please provide EVIDENCE of where she explicitly states we should be allowed to watch child porn and jihadi videos

can you do that or not?

That's the logical consequences of libertarianism.

@Micky665544 why so aggressive. Could you not understand my last post? She states she thinks the internet should not be censored in anyway. She explicitly states in the podcast that she thinks jihadi videos should be allowed to be shown. Her blanket uncensored internet stance, inevitably includes allowing child abuse videos. She had no sensible counter to that discussion other than saying they are illegal. They are illegal and therefore are censored. In her ‘uncensored’ internet, illegal things would be rife because it is uncensored. I hope that is clear enough.

Claire Fox said “I do not want to give the state and the authorities the right to ban things on the internet — no ifs.”

When questioned, she said this included child abuse and terrorism videos, even though she felt they were “vile” and “illegal.”

She claimed: “This is not about defending child porn, right, this is about fighting censorship and fighting for free speech.

“I actually don’t think we should ban Jihadi videos … because I don’t think that is what causes the issue of Islamist violence. I think we have to confront these things beyond banning them.”

Seems clear enough to me and ignores the fact that men will see the legalisation of child abuse videos as condoning their behavior.. normalising it.