Pirate Bay Founders Host Paedophilia Site

[modemho]

I may have to tender my resignation.................

Pirate Bay founders host paedophilia site
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/05/pi...sts_dodgy_site/

It's a freedom of speech thing

By Jan Libbenga → More by this authorPublished Tuesday 5th June 2007 13:59 GMTGet rapid and cost-effective disaster recovery with VMware Infrastructure - Free whitepaper A Swedish company owned by the founders of controversial torrent tracker site The Pirate Bay is hosting a site that defends paedophilia.

PRQ, co-owned and operated by Fredrik Neij and Gottfried Svartholm Warg, has refused to take the web page down, citing the principle of freedom of speech.

The company says it doesn't share the ideas of the owners of the site, but defended the decision to host it, which claims: "When it comes to fear of paedophiles most things are set to one side."

The controversial site, which was previously hosted by a Danish company, also plans to make space available for individual paedophiles' personal websites.

Svartholm Warg told Stockholm morning daily Dagens Nyheter that he disagrees strongly with the content in question, but prefers an open debate. "They have a right to say this."

PRQ is the same company that hosts The Pirate Bay. When Stockholm police raided its offices last year almost every server was seized. Ten companies which were also hosted by PRQ immediately demanded compensation from the Chancellor of Justice. ®

[DoKtAhMaDiZmS]

Lets all ask the Pirate Bay ?

[DoKtAhMaDiZmS]

We could all start by asking them here http://thepiratebay.org/contact
then quoting the story told about them you posted.
If indeed this is true then I am going to feel very sick in my stomach.

[DoKtAhMaDiZmS]

Heres some of the comments on that article from that very page

Oh Come On
By N1AK
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 14:31 GMT

Nice choice of title </sarcasm> 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.
You're missing some details
By Michael Martin
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 15:20 GMT

First off, there is no mention of actual pornographic images being hosted, as I'm sure the moment that happened, PRQ would drop the site like a hot potato and probably report them. Second, there's the idea that by hosting their website, there is in essence a repository of identities of people who would be watched carefully, thus potentially preventing actual instances of child abuse.

It is also completely within the realm of plausibility that their commentaries on the websites fall under free speech. As long as they are expressing opinions (as loathsome an opinion as that may be), they are not breaking any laws. If PRQ wants to maintain an image of being an impartial host, they have to permit this sort of thing - and then they can point out that Pirate Bay isn't as bad as this one other site they're hosting, and the cops aren't on their backs about the other site...
Easy to be upset
By John A Blackley
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 15:23 GMT

(Obligatory comment here about being personally outraged by the mere idea of paedophilia.)

I imagine there will be the necessary outrage at PRQ for hosting a paedophile website but this article is not clear on whether or not PRQ is actually hosting illegal content.

I don't know anything about Swedish law and so I don't know if discussing paedophilia is illegal there. A little background to lend clarity would be welcome.
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.
Freedom of speech
By Dillon Pyron
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 15:33 GMT

As long as all they do is talk (and not explicitly), they are breaking no laws. Now, if they host a site with pictures or storied or any of that crap, off with their heads (both of them).

NAMBL gets away with plenty of crap because they are very careful in what they say and publicly do. It's what they advocate and do in private that makes me sick.

I may disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.
Freedom of speech...
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 15:33 GMT

Freedom of speech is given world wide. It's a part of our general human rights in the free world.

It's also lawful to arrest anyone who, with reasonable doubt, are criminals.

Saying that, if we allow these sick bastards a forum then they really only cut their own throats. The second they share this filth they break international laws. Admittance to owning or obtaining this filth also seals their fate.

It's bad enough when a website outs a pedophile and then the community takes action to "Deal" with them (because the police see fit to release them back into society knowing FULL WELL that they will commit crimes again) but this is just too much.

The Internet is accessible by ANYONE. How would we feel if our kids stumble on this shit!!

Hang them and hang them high!
You are all misinterpretting the article
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 15:40 GMT

The article states they host a paedophile site not a site which contains childporn or other such noxious data.

I haven't visited the site but from what I can gather from the article the site is for pedophiles to express themselves and therefore yes it does fall under freedom of speech.

And before anyone gets on their high horse and starts spitting flames at me, I worked with abused children for many years as well as assisting police in child pornography cases in multiple countries, so I have no love for these people. But they are entitled to freedom of speech, so long as what they are saying is not breaking any laws (such as inciting a crime or publishing illegal images).

So everyone needs to stop the knee jerk reaction being illustrated by the comments to this story, and look at the situation from an intelligent perspective.
Pirate Bay + Kiddie Fiddling? Surely not!
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 15:50 GMT

It all stands to reasons - once you get into bed with a bunch of crooks you're a bit fucked really. Pirate Bay are based on the very premise of breaking the law so this shouldn't come as much of a surprise. I'm pretty sure there is no "free speech" defence in law if you're encouraging people to break the law, I believe it's known as incitement.
Why shouldn't they be allowed to speak?
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 16:03 GMT

The other day, there was a news item on TV where a teary-eyed father described how his 14 year old daughter had run away with an "18-year old man". With the current hysterical approach to paedophily, who's going to disagree with him? Certainly not the news cast. Certainly not the editor. Or anyone else.

Yet to anyone with half a brain cell, the idea that an 18-year old could be tried for pedophily *as the perpetrator* is completely ridiculous. There is clearly a lot of room for improvement in the law and the morality of paedophily.

This is yet another case where free speech is being hindered and this stops a debate to clarify what's right and wrong, and so leaves the door open to even more misinterpretations (it's not like we don't do that even with open debate).

Free speech only ever hurts liars, crooks, and bigots. Which one of these are you?
re: Freedom of Speech? Bollocks!
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 16:04 GMT

"The Pirate Bay is supporting criminals"

Last I checked, the term 'paedophile' meant an adult sexually attracted to children. Only if that adult commits a crime, such as abusing a child, does he or she then become a criminal. If that person chooses not to commit a crime, then they remain a paedophile but not a criminal. In this case they certainly do not deserve the kind of rabid, offensive and disgusting abuse exemplified in "...their shrieking as they get castrated before locking them up for life."

On the contrary, perhaps that poster would care to think about how difficult it would be to deny oneself sexual satisfaction for a lifetime. It strikes me that non-criminal paedophiles could probably do with all the support they can get, if we are to encourage them to make the decision to deny the satisfaction of their innate desires by not interacting sexually with children.

I confess, I have not visited the site in question - I think it probably counts as NSFW - so I don't know if this is its purpose. However, either way our society could do without the hatred poured out above.
Free of Hypocrites
By Aitor
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 16:26 GMT

Someone said: "I hate what you are saying, but I would die defending your right to say it". That is freedom.

You might or you might not like what they defend (I think that they are despicable), but I really think they have the right to defend their principles as much as we have the right to defend and express ours.

In Spain we had that very same problem. We had some minority political parties whose principles where against the constitution. Now thay are banned, but, how can we call ourselves democratic when we say "You can freely express yourself, but only if your thoughts and beliefs are not very different from my own".

That is the start of a dictatorial regime: you cannot dissent. And we are accepting it more and more each day, because some politicians have convinced us that it is a good idea to exchange freedom for safety. Only that by being less free we also lose safety.
Title
By kevin
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 16:53 GMT

I'm commenting on this because i think their side needs some light, and we all need to look at the retrograde advances in criminal law.

paedophilia has recently been redefined to include pictures of 16-18 year olds, it was <16 before.

we (males) have a strong selection pressure to choose a young but sexually mature mate, so in what way is 16-18 perverse? (actually not my cup of tea, - and there is also selection pressure to choose a mate who can cope with parenthood, and with the female heirarchy, and many more)

this is also a thought-crime, (ok it is sick,, but..) - there are already strong measures in place for conspiracy and intent, -based crime, but this is new. I don't have an alternative, but i also think its a step into dangerous territory.

The other complicating factor is that internet porn is a huge business, and much like the drug-dealers of yore, it is in their interest to get you hooked on the harder stuff. - do we need to consider the term "expoited" in some cases as well as "depraved"?
Some House rules - moderation guidelines
By Drew Cullen
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 17:57 GMT

I have removed three comments and rejected two more that advocate extreme violence against paedophiles.

Any comment advocating lynch law or violence - even for comic effect - e.g. bars of soap / prison rape - will be rejected by us.

Drew Cullen

El Reg
Piece of trivia for you
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 17:57 GMT

When the British police first investigated internet news forums to see if they posed a threat, one of the suggestions they came up with was to create an Armed Robbery newsgroup where armed robbers could inadvertantly shoot their mouths off on the record, pun intended.

This is why I don't see any threat to a peadophile discussion group that is publicly accessible.
The law is an ass anyway...
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 19:56 GMT

Sex is legal at 16, but the same 16yr old can't buy a movie of themselves making love.

Different people mature at different ages - a "limit" is in place, but perhaps it should remain a guideline only, and not a definitive answer.

The 14yr old example is probably pushing the envelope a little, but I doubt there are few males out there haven't thought "...she'd get it..." about what would appear to be a woman (who legally remains a child) dressed in short skirts, heels, and a bit of make-up.

The problem remains, so should all children - male and female - be fitted with a chastity belt with a time-encoded electrified lock to eliminate the clumsy learning process we all went through ? - No, it simply couldn't, and wouldn't work.

Let the law stand as a guideline, but allow a little latitude for those who think they know their own mind. Some will make the wrong decision, but life is a learning process, and no-one has the same trip - that's what being human is about.
But Then Again!
By heystoopid
Posted Tuesday 5th June 2007 20:00 GMT

But then again , the world wide web is full of people who are pretending to be what they are not , and the many places of deliberate entrapment!

Or how soon we forget , our past recorded centuries of histories of the well documented cases of the child bride to elder males !

Now what did Dr Sigmund Freud , say about the root cause of man's repressive feelings?

The age of the illogical hysteria is upon us , but should we not seek out the hidden agenda's of those that cry wolf the loudest?

[freeon]

prq.to is one of the only freedom-oriented hosting companies. This pedophilia site is probably owned/operated by Dan Glickman et al. , and it was probably created for the sole purpose of perpetrating this kind of "hit piece".

So before jumping on the "oh no I am gonna puke" bandwagon let's take a step back and think about it.

[DoKtAhMaDiZmS]

Better still, lets all go there and ask in their chatroom
irc://irc.efnet.net/thepiratebay.org

[MrBS]

Why go bothering those great dudes at The Pirate Bay?

This story is believable, The Register is a legit news source... but this is how free speech & non-censorship works.

If you are a firm believer in the principles, then you have to accept the fact that some people will use it to do things you don't agree with or don't like.

So you're either for free speech/freedom of expression or against it.

You might say "but paedophilia is a crime"... it isn't. It's a disease. Child molesting is a crime, being in possession of child-porn is a crime. I am sure there are paeodophiles who don't molest children and possibly don't even possess child-porn.

Also you have to bare in mind that some things you take for granted are illegal (sometimes even judged worse than paeodophilia) in other countries. Shall we curtail stuff they do too? e.g. Chinese bloggers, Iranian Gay Rights groups etc.... ?

So can you handle true freedom and true free speech, or are you gonna go blubbering to The Pirate Bay?

[Dr.Druid]

^^I totally agree, there's been loads of stories in the media in the last week or so. It's very suspicious in my opinion.

There has been such talk as there is nearly three hundred thousand kiddie fiddlers in Britain alone.

With all this going on let us not forget about the Maddie incident in portugal and the police chief who has stated that internet pedo's should not all be sent to the slammer. As the prison service cannot cope, whats going on people?

This disease has to be examined and the right to free speech needs to be venerated, even when we don't all agree on the content, just look at the AFL.

This illness is certainly being used for nefarious ends, I for one don't buy any of it. Not with the likes of George Bush and CIA child porn rings. This talk is about microchips and less freedom for all of us, a smokescreen and a bogeyman.

[Shinobi]

Quote:prq.to is one of the only freedom-oriented hosting companies. This pedophilia site is probably owned/operated by Dan Glickman et al. , and it was probably created for the sole purpose of perpetrating this kind of "hit piece".

So before jumping on the "oh no I am gonna puke" bandwagon let's take a step back and think about it.

I dont for one minute believe any one was jumping on anything
needless to say, all I saw so far here was positivity and with a little assertion
Im sure others intentions and comments here were purely due for others to pull their finger out
and investigate for themselves, if one does check this all out and actually talks to the PB staff
they will find that the very article brought up was a sly hit piece against them.
Configure & figure it all out, its not hard. I am a long time supporter of the pirate bay
and lets just say, this is a minor subject full stop.
So before anyone jumps on anyone else here, least be fucking open minded O.K ?
think of the fucked up world we all live in right now.. feel me freeon (not sexually..lol)